Reviews

Today bashing big business is increasingly appealing. Specifically, the mismanagement of government is blamed on multinational corporate takeovers. A case in point is the privatization of the water supply in Banzer Suàrez's authoritarian Bolivia presented as evidence of this argument in 2004's The Corporation, where Noam Chomsky compared the entity of the modern multinational corporation to the slaving enterprise of a former age.

That Banzer's rule led to such a dire financial situation where, in order to appease foreign creditors and continue receiving World Bank loans, he was forced to concede and privatize Bolivia's national water supply in La Paz/El Alto in 1997, and then Cochabamba in 1999, is not mentioned. We are to interpret the 'water wars' that then took place in 2000 and 2005, respectively, as solely the result of Suez, and Biwater/Bechtel's inherent greed.

In this documentary the much-maligned Export Processing Zones (EPZs) are also the subject of inflammatory rhetoric. Naomi Klein emphatically points to these largely tax-free areas in low-cost, labour-abundant cities around the globe in which large multinational corporations are enticed to operate, where "the workers rarely make enough to buy three meals a day let alone feed their local economy".

If we consider basic economic trade theory, we know that, in the real world, national wage rates do, in fact, reflect differences in productivity. In 1975 South Korea was a low-wage-rate low-productivity country, where workers earned 5% of what they did in the US; by 2007 its productivity was around 50% that of the US and its wages had, accordingly, risen.

Where, then, does the blame for the appalling living conditions of labourers in certain Central American and Southeast Asian countries lie? In the corruption of their governments, the weakness of their financial sectors, capital markets, judiciary – in short: the inefficiency of their institutions. That poor people in rich countries should be subsidizing rich people in corrupt poor countries, to paraphrase the late Sir James Goldsmith, is not the result of the liberalization of trade. Rather, it is the fruit of systemic problems in less-developed societies.

I would advise anyone who wishes to watch this documentary to do so with an open mind (i.e. remember that it is very skewed to a particular viewpoint). Because of that, and the fact that it doesn't really offer an objective analysis, I give it 5.

There's only so many films out there that are a true pleasure to glean. The Guard is one of them because it's a piece of art. The kind of movie experience you take things from. Who says you need $60 million budgets to achieve that?

McDonagh and Gleeson must have really clicked, because the latter knows how best to deliver the main character in this, the former's brainchild.

McDonagh blends physical humor with the verbal. There are characters like the young kid on the bike that do much for this type of craft. The first scene in which we see him looks like it was taken from a Jacques Tati picture.

Gleeson is also thus engaged. Boyle succeeds via his physical presence - and Gleeson knows how to amble about and speak without words, and his sublime representation of the Irishman. His accent is pleasing to the ear.

The Guard also offers some memorable glimpses of the beautifully wild Irish landscapes. Add to that a spic and span soundtrack and you have a movie that, with the odd literary reference thrown in, works wonders.

I truly enjoyed this one. Hats off to the genius who made In Bruges. 8/10.

I'll preface this by being completely blunt. After watching the last X- Men, Rattner's bastard child, I was skeptic about another potential waste of my time.

However, what made X-Men: The Last Stand mediocre made First Class splendid. First we have the cast. Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman are both questionable actors. Add Famke Jansen and Ana Paquin and you're heading for disaster. Which is what The Last Stand was. Even Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart couldn't save it, surrounded as they were.

Fast forward to First Class and the quality already begins with the choice of director. It was inevitable that the man that brought us Layer Cake (and then showed his hand in the super-hero milieu with Kick-Ass) could somehow pull a decent X-Men movie off. No easy feat considering our expectations after what we'd seen before.

The fresh set of actors selected for First Class was its crowning achievement. Fassbender and McAvoy are sublime together. Bacon's chemistry with Magneto is dynamite. Another phenomenon was present: even seemingly redundant (in their secondariness) roles were played by solid actors (such as the American and Russian ship commanders, and their politician counterparts).

January Jones' good looks were put to their proper use, even if there was no palpable difference between her character Emma Frost and Cadence Flaherty, and Byrne showed heretofore unseen ability, if a little tame in comparison with the others present. Nicholas Hoult, after playing such a different person in Skins, was a pleasant surprise.

First Class is another of Vaughn's marvelous brand of superhero movies. What we'd already seen in Kick-Ass we see here: the acting is so believable, and the story so carefully and craftily woven, that the end- result is more than just popcorn entertainment.

You can usually tell how good a movie is when its length imposes no boundaries on your viewing of it. Well, First Class's 2 hours passed by in 5 minutes. There wasn't a single frame too many of cheese, the strings played in the right moments, and it seamlessly integrated first- rate action with an engaging plot.

This is what movie-making is all about. Other directors should learn from Mr. Vaughn. He is an exquisite picture-maker. Hats off to you sir! 8/10.

Without wasting time Tony Scott throws us headfirst into a hailstorm of suspense composed of several elements.

Some of us shake our knees, others bite their nails, all whilst our hearts beat with pure adrenaline. One thing is certain, we all want to know how Unstoppable will pan out.

Against the metallic sounds of heavy trains propelled at blazing speeds across the tracks, pace-setting music and the refined voices of trained actors can be heard.

Denzel (Frank) is once again the everyman, reprising a train transport services worker role similar to the one we had already seen him embody in last year's The Taking of Pelham 123.

This time he is pitted against newcomer Chris Pine (playing Will) and Rosario Dawson's familiar face as Connie.

Roles are aptly performed, so that we can sense Dewey (Ethan Suplee) is going to mess up before he does so; we can tell Galvin (Kevin Dunn) is calling the wrong shots before the entire dimension of his erratic ways is made clear to us; we can somehow sense Ned (Lew Temple) is going to have an important part to play at some point in the unraveling of events.

It is no news Tony Scott has mastered the action/suspense genre. With Unstoppable you get a super-high-energy-flick neatly packed into 1:29:00 - there are no bits of fat or bone to trim off - this steak is pure beef.

Gripped to the edge of your seat you will not rest until you know what happens, even if the plot follows a pretty linear path. This is what film-making is all about: eliciting emotions from the viewer. Nevermind the rest, in this respect Unstoppable is a cannonball hauled straight at your face.

9/10. High-quality action picture definitely worth your while.

David Cronenberg has refined the art of movie-making over the years, reaching with Eastern Promises his highest point to boot.

There is mastery in every single shot. Observe the details; how the Russian-heritage house Naomi Watts belongs to is decorated, how the Russian mafioso's restaurant is laid out, the atmosphere and decor in the whorehouses and racket-areas.

Without straying from the premise and context of the film (shots of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament would hardly have been necessary) Cronenberg is successful in pictorially representing his story. Perhaps the secret ingredient here is the portrayal of these Russian lives. They themselves render the film stylish, without the need for any sugar-coatings or flashy effects.

The approach is so simple the viewer doesn't even know for sure at the start where everything is taking place. The later realization that it is in fact London is irrelevant, however. It could be in any other city. What matters is what is being shown.

Eastern Promises is also a deeply philosophical piece in the tenor of the subject matter it deals with. More specifically, Naomi (and the viewer) will discover that there is indeed a code of honor even amongst brigands.

This leads us to Viggo Mortensen. Not having seen The Road yet I will not say it was his best performance yet, but it is from the pictures I've seem him in so far. Absolutely spot on, the way he does the heavy Russian accent when he speaks English interspersed with Russian just like Eastern Europeans with imperfect mastery of the English language do; the mannerisms, the way he carries himself, his taciturn ways masquerading his evidently superior physical capabilities.

The man practically makes the movie, along with Mueller-Stahl and Cassel.

There are bits of comedic relief interspersed throughout the picture, courtesy of Cronenberg. Most of them take place when Uncle Stepan (Jerzi Skolimowski) is on screen. He hilariously portrays the insensitive drunken Rus to a tee. This family of Russian heritage of which Naomi Watts is a member has undeniable chemistry together.

Eastern Promises is one of the finest movies to come out of Hollywood in recent times. It masterfully mixes action; a brisk pace; with subtle tones that are as if side-stories except they're more moral than anything else. The homo-erotic vibes between Cassel and Mortensen are evident. It seems Mortensen is simply a good, kind, warm man at heart, the way he deals with Cassel.

Mueller-Stahl is petrifying. His discrete manner camouflages his brutal methods. He is a beast: a man that has surrendered to sin, deluding himself that he can have his own moral guidelines. Lax ones, at that.

This is probably the most authentic movie made about the Russian mafia so far coming from the West. It was clearly extensively researched and prepared. Not a sloppy affair; there are no mistakes - this is the genuine article.

Unmissable. 9/10

A History of Violence is a movie about the human animal. Tom Stall is the father in a well-to-do family of 4. Happily married for what it seems like a good 16 or so years judging by the age of their eldest son the Stall family is one that shies away from violence at every opportunity.

For this reason Jack (Ashton Holmes) the high-school kid deals with the typical school bully with verbal defences as opposed to physical confrontation. Whether this approach is appropriate or not is open to debate. Personally I think the way he's being disrespected calls for fisticuffs, but some may understandably disagree.

The main focus of the film, however, is the ideal of the reformed man. The concept of tabula rasa, of the possibility of erasing the past completely and starting afresh.

In that sense AHOV is an optimistic movie. It certainly shows Cronenberg moving away from the type of thing he was making 20 odd years ago (Videodrome), or more recently with eXistenZ (1996).

There are many likable characteristics of the film. Firstly it is simple in its layout, without any incomprehensible twists or turns. The intention of this linear plot is for the viewer to be totally focused on what is being said.

Secondly every detail has a purpose. "There is no such thing as monsters" Tom Stall (Mortensen) tells his young daughter at the start of the movie to console her after she wakes up from a nightmare in the middle of the night.

Indeed. In AHOV the message is that we can change ourselves. That being a monster is not beyond our control. Certainly when you are faced with who Stall was and who he became the scenario calls for such an interpretation.

However it is important to stress the element of love in this equation. Stall himself confesses to Edie (Bello) that were it not for her he wouldn't have changed. No man is an island, and human love has the power to heal souls and cure misled hearts.

One of Cronenberg's best pictures (together with Eastern Promises), with deep philosophical tenets. Make sure to watch closely, with your thinking caps on. 8/10

How much do we value our freedom? When faced with exceptional circumstances, how far will we go to ascertain the truth, to secure safety? To ensure national security? "Unthinkable" is a problematic movie, in that it gives no clear answers. The premise may be slightly extreme, if we consider what H (Samuel L. Jackson) gets up to, but then again, with some rationalizing we easily reach the conclusion that we simply don't know just how far America has gone in the legal torture business.

We do not intend to point the finger at America in particular. This applies to any and everyone. Faced with extenuating circumstances, what would we do? Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. "Unthinkable" is a very current, undebatably intense uneasy ride down a steep, winding and twisting tunnel.

In the end we are left with nothing. It is up to us to decide what is our moral charter.

Well worth your while. 8/10

Scorsese's genial work needs no introduction. Every full-feature film he has made in the last twelve odd years has been brilliant in some way or other. Shutter Island, his latest installment, is an instant classic. Having read a few reviews that chastised the film this reviewer feels the need to give the work the praise it deserves.

Set in the 1950's, an age when, regarding attire, people dressed in much more stylish fashion than we do nowadays, Shutter Island pits the viewer with the usual trench-coats, police uniforms with flappy raincoats, tweed suits, hats, flowery female dresses and the rest that have now gone out of wear. Another aspect that brings the 50's back to life is the automobiles – we also get a shot of such a vehicle in Shutter Island.

But the visual experience we are treated to with this movie does not end with the car and wardrobe, or the beautiful asphalt buildings of the penitentiary. The Island itself is worthy of mention. It possesses an air of insanity that is prescient from the very beginning, when the viewer's ear is invaded with overtly melodramatic insertions as the camera approaches the Island and DiCaprio and Ruffalo are arriving. Soon enough, however, we will begin to comprehend the significance of these details.

Shutter Island is in much reminiscent of Hitchcock's work. While the movie is not set in black-and-white, it is more Noir than many Noirs were in their heyday. Not only does the music fit in with this assertion; as well as the shots of the cliffs and island, and of the surrounding water; but the progression of the story, that goes from mysterious to incomprehensible soon enough, transcending the real and reaching hallucinatory plains, aids in creating a masterpiece of an ethereal, ephemeral thriller.

To be sure, such an ambitious project would not have been feasible had the director not only been intimately involved with Hitchcock's and other master thriller-makers' work but also without the aid of a stellar set of actors. DiCaprio, Ruffalo, Kingsley, the incomparable Sydow, as well as the female cast all stand tall and play their parts to full effect. This could be one of the trickiest parts DiCaprio has approached in his whole career, and he has succeeded. It is a pleasure to appreciate the development he has undertaken since his frail days in 1999's Titanic.

In summary: screaming Hitchcock, Shutter Island is an assault on the senses, an epic psychological journey into the most elusive, extreme confines of the mind. It deserves a place among the best such films being made in recent years. 10/10

I first came into contact with Oliver Hirschbiegel in 2004's "Der Untergang". After that, I decided I should look for more of his work. Stumbling upon "Das Experiment", I would soon find I would not be disappointed.

The plot here is well-known, the film being adapted from a real life scenario where a team of psychiatrists took to simulating a prison-like environment with a group of volunteers, only to watch them turn into rabid wolves.

"Das Experiment" possesses a number of qualities: the musical score does much to keep the pace going energetically forward. As such, from the very first minute the viewer is treated to a veritable roller-coaster ride.

The main story is sidelined by #77 (Moritz Bleibtreu)'s spur-of-the-moment and accidental, if very intense romantic involvement with the beautiful Dora (Maren Egert). Their encounter is quite serendipitous, and the speed at which they move toward intimacy with each other is inspiring.

"Das Experiment" relies on stellar performances all around. Of note is Steinhoff (Christian Berkel) who seems to be a regular appearance in Hirschbiegel's pictures, also being present in "Der Untergang". To single actors out, such as Justus von Dohnanyi (who plays Berus) or Oliver Stokowski (Schütte) is, however, futile, since they all act well.

To sum things up: Alexander Bubenheim's pace-setting music coupled with the brisk and practical set and fine acting create in "Das Experiment" a masterpiece of contemporary German cinema. Mr. Hirschbiegel is to be congratulated. 8/10

Brooklyn's Finest rests on the strong character portrayals of the lives of three ordinary men struggling at different points in their careers. What they each share is the New York Police Department as a workplace.

Life isn't perfect - it never is. We always have to give something up in order to do something else - it's called choice. Therein lies man's fatal freedom.

Sal (Ethan Hawke) gave up the possibility for flash when he became a cop. He has a growing family with numerous kids but lives in a decrepit, run-down house where the wood mold is causing his pregnant wife lung problems. His NYPD salary isn't sufficient for him to move to a different abode.

Can we judge him? It is a context that bears for some humanity from our part. He will do things in the film, but it is difficult for us to point our fingers from a high horse, for we aren't in his situation. Does the end justify the means?

While doing undercover work in prison, Tango (Don Cheadle) is saved from death by an inmate, Casanova Philips (Wesley Snipes). The event forms a bond between them. Now Casanova is back out and the force want Tango to send him back in.

By taking this shortcut to Detective first grade (read: becoming an undercover agent), Tango is forced to deal with harsh consequences, namely the fact that his wife is in the process of leaving him, and that other than Casanova he has no friends.

Eddie (Richard Gere) is retiring and is a morally decadent seemingly useless member of the force. He gets teased by his younger co-worker cops, and seems fed up with his life. We see him put a revolver to his mouth in the morning.

Even though he is 7 days away from retirement he must take care of young rookies, fresh faces new to the NYPD. Eddie doesn't get along well with them.

It is unclear what happened to his wife, but Eddie now seeks solace in the womanly comforts of a lowly Chinatown hooker.

These grotesquely authentic lives are laid out with the aid of a soundtrack that simultaneously sets the pace and follows the psychological states of the main protagonists. The tone of the music will change, for instance, when a particular character is in a tight situation, a situation where he is again confronted with choice.

All the actors in this film pull off magnificently intense portrayals. Especially worthy of mention are Cheadle, Snipes, Gere and Hawke -- who once again shows that he can enter the mind of a struggling cop like no other.

A steady-paced, involving thriller definitely worth a gander. 8/10.

To those who may think (and quite rightfully so) that the vendetta/ vigilante genre has been seen, done, that the t-shirt has been purchased and then thrown away: Law Abiding Citizen is still worth your while.

Though Gerard Butler appears so far to have taken on quite generic roles that don't really demand exceptional skills even if he does perform well in them (Dear Frankie, The Phantom of the Opera (a good voice was required here, and the Butler delivered), 300, and the like) he gives himself a slightly edgier challenge with Law Abiding Citizen.

Here he must be Clyde Shelton, someone that to all appearances is just a "regular guy" as he informs the judge at one point: an engineer/ tinkerer who holds a number of patents for some inventions. A man who loves his family - the love for his daughter is evident at the beginning, and will remain throughout.

Yet there is more to Shelton. This is where Law-Abiding Citizen sets itself apart from the recent Kevin Bacon, Jodie Foster (in my opinion abortive), et alii attempts.

The whole idea of the individual man taking on the regulation of justice, of what is good and wrong, of giving himself the power to dish out fatal punishment is thrown out of the window in this film. There is no room for doubt; even in the first instances of Shelton's revenge his reasoning cannot support the methods he employs and the ends he achieves, even if his overarching intelligence is astonishing. Nevertheless Butler still manages to garner our sympathy during the initial stages of the movie.

The script, acting, soundtrack, pace - everything is well selected and executed in Law-Abiding Citizen. Jamie Foxx, though it appears he was initially cast as Shelton, still pulled the egocentric lawyer through successfully.

Butler as Shelton is quite impressive. As we slowly gain more insight into his mind his undeniable insanity unfolds smoothly and eerily. It is the depth of his character that keeps the movie going. Bruce MgGill as the elder lawyer Cantrel advising Nick Rice (Foxx) is worthy of note, and Colm Meaney could have been put to more use as he is a superb actor. Finally, Leslie Bibb put on a surprisingly good performance.

If you enjoy thrillers with hard-hitting action added in the mix, this picture is for you. 7.5/10

To appreciate Mike Judge's specific brand of humor requires a certain predisposition. It isn't the typical American slapstick. To be sure, Judge relies on clear-cut characterization to achieve humor that does not require buffoonery. We are entertained simply with the realism taken to the extreme we are confronted with.

Where else in recent cinema do we see characters like Office Space's Milton (Stephen Root) or Bill Lumbergh (Gary Cole)? We could venture to say nowhere. Though Extract does not best it's 1999 cousin, it is still a familiar trip down Judge's hilarious world.

This time, instead of Milton, we have David Koechner as Nathan, the unbearable and creepy neighbor, who insists on socially insinuating himself on our main protagonist Joel (Jason Bateman), when in fact Joel and his sexy wife Suzie (Kristen Wiig) cannot bare the sight of him.

The prototype for the main character is familiar enough: Joel is successful in his professional career, yet unhappy with his life. The main source of all his frustration is his easily-trampled-on personality, exhibiting someone who is never in the moment. His wife refuses to offer him the pleasures of sexual congress, his only friend is a stoner who cares little for his travails, and some of his employees are a royal pain in the neck (props to Beth Grant as Mary, successfully playing the most annoying character in the film).

Like many of us, Joel needs to experience what looks like rock bottom, in terms of how the unfolding of events seems to be working to operate a situation of inescapable doom on all the various facets of his life: his wife appears to be on the brink of leaving him, his company faces bankruptcy, and it looks like there is nothing he can do about it.

Yet this close contact with chaos of a sort that would have forced him out onto the streets finally pushes Joel to muster his wits and proceed to take control of the situation. This he does by appeasing the daredevil/kleptomaniac Cindy (here seen as the gorgeous Mila Kunis) and his recent recruit Step (Clifton Collins Jr.), as well as, toward the end of the movie, his wife.

Extract gets a better rating than other superficial comedies because it also carries a message. The way things fall in place relatively smoothly shows how some things are simply beyond our control. Things have a way of sorting themselves out - for the viewer this seemed impossible 15 minutes before the end of the picture.

It was a fundamental change in approach that led Joel to assume control of the derailed train that had become his life. Yet his wife also changed attitude after the incident she was involved in. Sometimes change from within is the key to opening the lock (this line of reasoning is reminiscent of Bill Murray's predicament in Groundhog Day).

Even when everything seems to be falling apart, there is always a way out.

To the comedic genius: Gene Simmons as Joe Adler is a riot. So are Matt Schulze as the stoner redneck Willie, Dustin Milligan as the mentally challenged Brad, J. K. Simmons as Brian, who never remembers the employee's names, Ben Affleck as the useless spiritual healer friend Dean, and the Heavy Metal vocalist from God's Cock with 35 face piercings, as well as the fat farmer-like worker who tries to organize the factory riot - they all possess Judge's signature insane-like quality.

7.5/10. Recommended for lovers of good comedy.

It is 12:54am and I need to get up early tomorrow, nevertheless something must be written to account for what I have just seen. District 9, the newest film with the eye and signature of Peter Jackson, is a unique alien picture the likes of which had not been made since Ridley Scott unveiled Alien in 1979 and shook the world.

The aliens in District 9 are an incredible creation, showing immense imagination. With a cast of completely unknown actors, we are nonetheless left with a very well interpreted story. Sharlto Copley (Wikus Van De Merwe), portraying an MNU agent who we feel is undeserving of his promotions and general success career-wise due to his liaison with the daughter of a man of power among the MNU, turns out to be capable of so much more than we expected.

The structure of the film, using interviewees speaking about events and shifting from different types of cameras (one being the MNU security cameras surrounding District 9, the other the actual footage of Van De Merwe's pursuits and the other the TV angle that films the interviewees) makes it so that you never really have to suspend your disbelief completely. Since almost as soon as the movie begins we are immediately put into contact with the creatures, we have longer to get used to them.

Soundtrack, pace and acting-wise District 9 is a winner. The slum is so well shot, and the arid turf surrounding it, that South Africa becomes very real with the aliens inside it.

Something must also be said for the CGI. How these aliens, their weapons, their mothership, and the rest were made escape me, but it was a work of megatronic proportions and deserves applause.

This film gets a 9/10. Even alien cynics should watch.

Antonius Block (Max von Sydow) has shipwrecked on the shores of Sweden with his squire Jöns (Gunnar Björnstrand) having returned from a Crusade in the Holy Land. In these shores he meets Death (Bengt Ekerot) and challenges him to a game of chess. If he wins, he will not die. The atmosphere back home is that of death and decay; it is the 14th century and the Plague is rampant.

The Seventh Seal is a meditation on the various philosophical and theological implications of death. As the story progresses, Block's deadly game unfolds, during which time he enjoys a reprieve. Death is a cunning opponent; sneaking up on Block repetitively when he least expects it.

Block is tormented with the notion of God, he wishes God to show himself, he yearns and thirsts for knowledge of God. His words when he believes to be confessing to a priest in the church reminded me of the narrative of Kirilov in Dostoyevsky's Demons, when he speaks of "killing God within himself", God as fear, fear of the unknown, fear, ultimately, of death. He refers to it as a "mocking presence that won't go away". In the end, though, he seeks God (he falls in prayer at the last hour), yet his faith is not gratuitous and without rationale; in this he is like Fyodor himself. His squire Jöns is, on the other hand, a cynic, and refuses to believe the folklore, as he tells the church-painter Albertus Pictor (Gunnar Olsson).

We are also introduced to a family reminiscent of the Holy Family: Jof/Joseph (Nils Poppe), his wife Mia/Maria (Bibi Andersson) and their young child Mikael. They are an acting troupe, and are also the only characters in the film that, despite the reigning atmosphere of terror and chaos, remain joyful, calm and kind. The innocence of their child cries similarities with Jesus Christ, "for such is the kingdom of Heaven". Jof has visions of the Holy. Through his eyes we see the Virgin Mary teaching the baby Jesus to walk, and the Danse Macabre.

An aspect that makes The Seventh Seal work is the fact there is a tangible and believable story, told in the most simple terms - even if every ounce is charged with the most weighty moral questions and ponderings about life and death - with much comedic relief thrown in, and a deluxe set of actors. Not a single performance in the movie is mediocre. There is also exemplar use of lush scenarios and scapes, which intermixed with Nordic chants with low basses create scenes more chilling than any modern CGI-oriented atmosphere with all the high-tech.

There are memorable scenes in this movie, such as the squirrel eating at a tree-trunk recently cut down causing the death of one of the characters, and the parading mendicants, lashing themselves and those in front of them, carrying the Ark of the Covenant and the Cross, with raving friars in tow. Even the young girl "witch" (Maud Hansson) who is used as a scapegoat "she is believed to be the cause of the Plague", a soldier tells Block upon his questioning, is shocking in her look of confusion and innocence, as well as madness. God is not one to chastise, however, as we see in Block's movements, giving the witch something "for the pain", that she may not suffer. Another epic scene is that in which the troupe is enveloped in jest on the stage: Bergman is faithful to what is known of the rural acting and theatre of this time, as well as the scene in the drinking den, where Jof, innocent, is made a fool of, and the common folk are seen debating what they believe to be the impending doomsday which "is at hand".

Some have hailed The Seventh Seal to be a movie denying God - this does not appear to be the case. The silence of God, a recurring motif, leads one to consider the role of faith "And when the Lamb had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour" (Revelation 8:1). The film is a rumination on matters Godly and surrounding death, and it does not give any one answer to the questions it poses: without forcing any conclusion on us. What it does do is treat its viewer with respect; we are shown both sides of the argument: Jöns and Block, Jof, Death, and left to fend for ourselves in this intellectual dilemma.

The Seventh Seal is a masterpiece of modern cinema. Anyone who considers himself to know film does not until he has seen this. 10/10.

Everything in State of Play is as perfect as it can be. We all know Tinkertown has seen brighter days. Of late we are spammed with cheap excuses for movies, with little or no plots, where the ending can be seen in the movie-poster. Surprisingly, the screenplay and directing alone make this movie a splendid spectacle.

Director Kevin Macdonald of The Last King of Scotland greatness indulges us in a fast-paced, well-sound-tracked and in general successfully led thriller that will leave you on the edge of your seat for the full 2 hours and 7 minutes of its duration. To add to the package the writers (M. M. Carnahan of Lions for Lambs, Tony Gilroy of Duplicity, Michael Clayton, the Bourne Trilogy, etc, and Billy Ray of Breach and Hart's War) do a good job of converting a 6-episode TV series written by Paul Abbott, who incidentally also helped with the movie's screenplay, into a single feature. In its heavily condensed format, the viewer is treated to an intensely action-packed thriller full of twists and turns and manned by the acting ability to take it even further.

The only mediocre performance in State of Play is that by Michael Berresse (the hit-man). On the other hand, Crowe and McAdams make an explosive duo that intertwines friction with mutual respect on a professional level as things progress. A stellar performance is already expected of Crowe - one that he delivers, carrying the movie through with such force we are prepared to accept and not even condone some of his more questionable actions in the past. What really shows is how dedicated he is to his job, from the fact he is on good terms with everyone that can basically aid him to obtain journalistic truth - this he strives for, above all else. With no barriers in his way, even friendship, he throws himself at stories, like he tells his boss at the start that "take longer, mean he gets payed more for being an old-timer at the newspaper" but in the end compensate). McAdams is worthy of mention, showing great attention to detail, really being that young, fresh, intelligent and energetic newbie reporter. Their boss Hellen Mirren, even with less screen time, is formidable in portraying the domineering traits common to such a stressful position (heading a newspaper in this case). Finally, Ben Affleck is a pleasant surprise. The actor's facial expressions are convincing and he manages to pull it through unambiguously. His wife Robin Wright Penn is also impressive, as are Jeff Daniels as the obviously corrupt politician making dough on the side and Jason Bateman as the odd PR, hurling some comedic relief at us as is his already-expected obligation.

Things keep moving and changing at every turn, up to the very end. Perhaps what really does pull State of Play through with such success though is the fact that the film is entirely believable. Nowhere throughout the story does it stray from a plot that could indeed take place in real life, thus engaging you much more, for you are not forced to suspend your disbelief. Do yourself a favor and do not miss this picture. 8.5/10

Edward Dodd (James Woods) is a run-down lawyer who no longer shines the way he did 10 years ago. Back then he was writing history, saving the Black Panthers and stuff of the like. Now he protects drug pushers and street peddlers. Nevermind what excuses he finds for this gradual decay of affairs, for a skilled speaker and lawyer Dodd never ceases to be - this can be seen even as he defends crooks. Roger Baron (Robert Downey Jr) arrives to clerk for him and realizes the idea he had of Dodd no longer suits the reality of the man. Thus he proceeds to ask him to take a prisoner case.

This courtroom thriller has all that kind of movie should have; we see a well-crafted pace that keeps you tied to your seat, the kind of acting from James Woods that is hard to find nowadays, Robert Downey Jr also dons the recently-graduated idealistic law student to a tee. The film is reminiscent of a John Grisham novel. Margaret Colin as Kitty Greer is also great. In fact, every actor in this flick does a better-than-average role. Lacking in cheesiness, having the proper pace, the kind of twists that make it just a little less than predictable, and good acting plus a nice mix of occasional black-and-white flashbacks with the present and an original score by Brad Fiedel (Terminator, Terminator: 2) that fits the pace perfectly make for a movie that is clearly lacking in recognition.

Highly recommended thriller, 8/10.

Considering only actual readers of the Harry Potter series would ever have a chance of understanding most of what takes place in this film, and focusing one's attention on said readers, the film really only repeats what recent installments of this franchise have been doing to boot: the selection of about one hundredth of the story and the then almost robotic depiction of said portion in a 2 hour and a half long session.

Yes, you get an in-depth look at all the romances taking place in Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince, and these seem to be the epicenter of the film. What about the story of Lord Voldemort, his youth: the access the reader got to his family/childhood and clear growing thirst for power by any means necessary through Dumbledore's memory gatherings is secondary in the movie, whereas it was the focus of the novel.

Yes, there are the usual lush scenarios keen to the eye; the beauty surrounding Hogwarts and Hogsmeade, as well as the cosiness surrounding Diagon Alley and the scary quality of its Knockturn counterpart. These, however, are old news: we have seen them five times already before this film. Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince should be about more than the usual suspects, it's plot surrounds Harry (together with Dumbledore)'s unveiling of deep material central to the person of Tom Riddle (Lord Voldemort). Some epic memories are not shown in the film. This is a pity. One refers to that which takes place in the house of Voldemort's mother, or that which shows Voldemort at a later stage attempting to return to Hogwarts, this time as professor. A whole host of such defining memories are left in the cupboard, and what is chosen is perhaps an overemphasis on Lavender Brown's "Ronron" obsession and such trivial details. The book was clearly stripped of it's essence, and toned down for PG rating and consequent higher revenues. The end result catches the attention and love of young teens and children looking for a Harry Potter soap opera, but leaves the slightly older readers displeased.

Even the better actors in the cast, such as Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), et alii get few chances to give the viewer any sort of clear character portrayal, because they are not given that opportunity. For example the complex inner workings of Snape's mind are left to be guessed throughout the movie. One is left uncertain whether he actually has remorse as he proceeds with his fatal task or not. The film substitutes character development and in-depth plot treatment for a focus on the silly meanderings of teenage love.

Broadbent manages to deliver Slughorn's cowardly persona to it's very best. Him and the (too few) representations of the young Voldemort are perhaps the crowning achievements of the film. Not only does the young Tom Riddle certainly show mental instability, and a passion for the dark, Draco Malfoy was also a pleasant surprise. We certainly get to see (as the film allows it here) his struggle with what is certainly a daunting mission. What remains are the circus-show-like appearances of Helena Bonham-Carter and her crew of clowns, who do little more than pervert what was this viewer's idea of a seriously scary set of characters - the Death Eaters.

A robotic portrayal indeed. Things happen and their meanings are left unexplained. Occurrences take on an automaton-like quality that deprives the viewer inexperienced in the Harry Potter world of any sort of proper understanding of events. This alienation of the average Joe uninterested in reading Rowling's masterpiece and inability to genuinely, honestly make a concerted effort to select the most important aspects of the story and not the popcorn-friendly ones thus being unsatisfying to the die-hard fan make the film a failure in this viewer's opinion. One would have thought with the time we waited for this film to come out that things would have had a less rushed look about them. Sadly this is not the case. It will certainly gross in profits, but it won't really satisfy readers or non-readers alike.

5/10. Superficial styrofoam "blockbuster" material, nothing else.

There are two ways you can look at this film. The first is simply as a drama film like any other, a well-set piece for the epoch it unfolds in; certainly the clothing and set accessories are all in their right place for the 70's/80's. The acting is quite impressive all around: Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Ritter are the stars of the show, commanding very well-built characters; one a more introspective, unspoken kid and the other a more domineering, swagger-carrying bad-ass. Chris Marquette and Sebastian Stan are also worthy of note, as is Eva Amurri as the typical thrill-seeking bored rich girl - the type that tends to want what she can't have, in this case a guy who is perhaps not to be trifled with, possibly of the kind she is ill-equipped to deal with, or at least to deal with as she does - again the typical heart-breaking machinery at work.

The other way you can look at this film is as a Fred Durst production. Considering he was the director, you're ready to give it more credit than it would be worth straight out of the bat. It is quite impressive on his part that he was able to put this together (if such was the case), even if marks of a certain lack of experience are visible throughout. First we have the screenplay - some of what the characters are saying is repetitive and at times nonsensical. The dialogue could have been more elaborate - that would certainly have upped the quality and believability quotient - not that the film strays too far from reality - in fact it tends to steer back on track and find it's way safely to the end, yet scenes such as the one when Jason Ritter is in the bar by himself with only a few "workers" around him and the things the barman spouts there. These exhibitions of class demarcation and the like are ultimately unreal. There is also an ongoing attack at "rich people" in general, when the case being considered is that of the spoiled offspring of some rich people - not all "rich people" are worthy of scorn. Second there is the unnecessary use of swear words. At a certain point in the film these just become tiring. Not that films should forcefully not contain these, the simple fact is a film reads differently than, say, a rap album with explicit content.

However you look at it, notwithstanding, the film still pulls through successfully. Considering the kind of garbage being thrown our way these days, The Education Of Charlie Banks stands. The title is fitting; indeed, even if we may think otherwise, Charlie is the one who ends up learning from things. He in a way corrects his ways and makes the right choice. He shows humanity, he tries to be cooperative as opposed to being oppressive. Here the film triumphs, in that it reveals a positive message.

Kudos to otherwise career-dead Durst for carrying this one through; let's hope he learns from his mistakes and rises to make better things? One can't help but think this could have been so immensely better with a different director, yet it is still surprising that it was carried under his wing.

6.5(7)/10

This movie has garnered ratings that far supersede other movies that deserve much better, and the thing itself is incredibly long, boring, and dull throughout.

The review in question serves as a warning (achtung!) Do not waste your time watching this. Here's why:

The only thing worth watching in this entire picture are the scenes that involve Marley. The dog is quite a funny vandal, wreaking havoc whenever and wherever he can. The scenes involving it's misdemeanors tend to be funny.

Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson are mediocre actors, at best. The only thing Jennifer ever had to show for herself was her looks and body. Of late, none of that subsists. It's not so much that she's old, as she is clearly not, it's that just like Beyonce and Julia Roberts she has used too much botox, and this is evident: her face looks strange. The result is she is unable to command immediate interest in her characters from her looks alone anymore, and this has seriously undermined her potential.

Wilson's act has been seen before. He offers nothing new in this installment, limiting himself to just be the same as he was in his 20 other movies. Don't go in expecting anything eye-popping, if you should risk going in at all. (Though he has pulled through some movies that are quite fantastic before, like The Royal Tenenbaums, without a good screenplay and surrounding actors of much higher quality, Wilson, coupled with Aniston, are just bland).

At the center of my utter dislike of this movie is the cheesiness. Be warned, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen my share of cliché, dejá-vu crap, but Marley brings it all to a new level.

Expect to be swimming in cheese during this movie. It's everywhere.

What else is there to be said? Apart from a few acceptable scenes with Wilson's work partner and the dog, the movie itself (which runs at around 2 hours but feels more like 8) has nothing to offer. No engaging plot-line, no intriguing story, nada.

Even if one is compelled to like what is being promoted here behind the scenes, i.e. making a family, things are not so straightforward. John (Wilson) and Jennifer (Aniston) are completely ego-centered, living immersed in themselves. Jennifer, who decides to give up her job to raise her kids, is always whining about it, which kind of defeats the beauty of her move, like she is unhappy with her choice.

Of course she could have gone back to work after her child-rearing hiatus, but none of it.

John is a douche-bag. He only thinks about himself, yet he's always undecided, never making up his mind, which makes for a thoroughly uninteresting main character (who is never satisfied, basically).

The purpose of this film escapes me. (Well, perhaps it doesn't - to throw both of these career-dead actors back into the "limelight" (this superficial move seems to have worked, from the popularity this film is getting hitherto), no matter what crap they're showcasing. It's just a flawed move).

A few skits with a dog doing silly things can be easily accessed on youtube. A movie created around those, and offering nothing else, is best left on the shop shelf.

Stick to the trailer. 4/10.

Nothing said here does not already appear at least referred to in the plot summary of the film.

Perhaps the most captivating (from a systematic standpoint) element of this film is the complexity of it's characters.

Both Hayley Stark (Page) and Jeff Kohlver (Wilson) are much more than skin-deep. They evade any clear sketch or outline - a cubist's representation would be more apposite.

The film brings into question the human creature. Is morality, ultimately, applicable in a broader sense? Are we not, in the greater scope of things, capable of any number of "moral atrocities"?

The multiplicity of viewpoints the viewer is compelled to adopt enable him (and to what purpose?) to select ever-shifting, ever more superfluous sides to a moral debate that seems to have no palpable culprit.

In other words, you begin by rooting for Jeff, who seems like a guarded individual - heck, his pedophilia is initially hard to believe.

Yet as things progress and - contrarily to what would be expected - the viewer's knowledge of Jeff's extracurricular activities begins to take a less ephemeral shape, we nevertheless continue to vie for Jeff.

We root for what a moral code existent in today's society considers to be a freak - the man infatuated with younger girls - because suddenly the moral patrol (Hayley) seems unbalanced. Things are off the charter - she is taking law upon herself.

You begin to wonder if she really has the right to proceed with her designs. Can things really to be seen from a monotone lens?

In this sense the extensive coloring that took shape in the creation of the film is a touch of genius - one is left pondering whether certain scenes in the film are to be taken for reality or the stuff of dreams.

Hard Candy will prove difficult to grapple with throughout; but the director makes things slightly easier for us towards the end, with the ensuing "twists", if you will.

Still, the challenge to traditional "right and wrong" concepts is there. To be sure, Hayley at certain points appears mad - the strength of her resolve is crushing - scary even.

Eventually, neither of the characters' stances seems right - and yet, wouldn't one be - in our traditional understanding of that situation? What would the average Joe do to a pedophile?

Are they not proverbially spat on by society? Are these wretches not beaten and ostracized by the majority of us - even if only in our mind? And isn't that rightfully so?

To propel a very effective and engaging, as well as masterfully-paced plot, we have the acting abilities of the protagonists - Page and Wilson, that are, in one word, perfect.

No girl could portray this role as well as Ellen, unless we count European and other foreign film actors, that have shown true gems where the masses thought what Hollywood had for us was the norm (cf. Lina Leandersson in Let The Right One In (2008)).

Wilson shows acting abilities which are certainly stronger than I thought previously.

Do not miss this film. 8/10.

What can one say about this piece. The scenic beauty portrays the Swedish taiga surrounding the newly-established Blackeberg suburb around Stockholm magically.

One is pushed into the fore of events at the very outset. Watch as young Oskar replays his daily (school) troubles to himself at home. Watch as a new neighbor arrives. An odd one. Observe their immediate and undeniable chemistry.

Oskar's torments become your torments (yes, both main characters in this film are probably the best pre-teen actors I have ever seen on the big screen. Dakota Fanning tames in comparison, even if having showed decent prowess in her many pre-teen features). You root for him, at every moment wishing he'd end his travails, by answering back. By defending himself, damn it!

Do not expect to find it simple to grapple with this film. To begin with, it is a complex affair - you want Oskar to be happy, and you can feel his love for Eli, but is that the right course to be taken? What of Eli's contrivances? Yet she is locked into a life she cannot possibly control.

A highly philosophical piece, that benefits from it's masterly crafted portrayal. Through the eyes of innocence one is thrown headfirst into weighty moral dilemmas.

Catch this film if you can. 8.5/10

Here we have another coming-of-age comedy, featuring a mostly unknown cast that does, nevertheless, deliver.

The story centers around a recently-turned-18 Quinn (Steven Yaffee), who belongs to an uncommon family of anti-establishment cannabis-growers - the Dawsons. His parents (Wallace Langham and Rosanna Arquette) are seemingly very astute, and his younger sister Hope (Katie Boland) is the local drug-peddler.

At the start of the movie we see a tired Quinn, home-schooled his whole life, who wants a normal teenage experience, as he keeps observing from the come-and-go of students of the local high school. To top things off, an incredibly attractive young girl moves next door (Rachel Blanchard) - this boosts his desire to leave the shielded home environment.

Growing Op has a few flaws, but these don't deter from a fluid viewing experience. Of course, if you decide to watch a film like this, you tend to already know what it's about - cannabis, high school, and the rest.

To the flaws: certainly Blanchard is a mediocre actor, at best, but then again, her good looks tend to excuse focus on her actual ability. It is certainly understandable her choice as the girl-next-door, as she's stunning. Then there's also a few cheesy moments, but these are really not that many.

The good stuff: the film is funny, has some of the most original lines (Quinn's father does an impressive job with his role, being the most solid actor in the pack) spoken by any suburban father or mother I've ever seen (especially young sister!) The kid Quinn is fine as the lead, portraying an odd misplaced youth well enough. His sister is a funny, off-the-rocker type, and her role is well acted.

The story itself has some unexpected twists, and the high school crowd is well depicted and represented.

Frankly, a movie that could have been much worse, left me pleasantly surprised. 7/10.

Excellent adaptation. This version surpasses the BBC mini-series in many respects, especially due to it's well condensed format.

Where to start? Would it be the riveting soundtrack, that keeps one interested throughout the whole film? Or would it be the scenery in the movie, which takes the viewer on a memorable journey through rural England the likes of paradise? A garden of Eden that one just does not interact with so commonly in the urban scapes of today? Or the costumes, that literally plunge you into the Victorian era they are so well designed? Or the stellar acting?

Mr. Sutherland Sr puts on one of the best performances I have seen in a long time, the two older Bennets also being worth praise. Lizzie (Keira Knightley) does not look so pretty after her lip surgery, but who cares? She does a great job too, and the movie is so good one is forced to overlook such trivialities. Jane (Rosamund Pike) truly shines in subtle tones I did not believe her capable of, after that James Bond affair.

At the centre of the success of this new remake of the Jane Austen novel is the powerful grip this piece gets on the viewer. Let us not forget the character of the story - idyllic, no doubt, but isn't that what we all wish our own life was like?

Donald will make you laugh, as will the ongoing sarcasm between Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen is clearly the star of the show, putting Colin Firth's more subdued interpretation in a drawer. A true achievement from his part, portraying the generally misunderstood good - if brutally frontal - man to perfection!) and Lizzie among other little details.

For most of the movie I found myself at least smiling or else wishing events would not happen the way they do..in short, the movie makes you feel good, and truly enraptures you.

A fine piece! 8/10