Easy Rider

"They'll talk to ya and talk to ya and talk to ya about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."

Easy Rider follows two hippie type 'dudes' as they go across America to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.

Though I enjoyed this film, I can't help feeling it swung and missed. It goes quite nicely for probably the first hour, maybe a little more, but after that it begins it's decline to a relatively weak ending that doesn't pack the punch it intended. I feel this film will improve upon multiple viewings, it's an easy film to watch, it's short, so I think that's relatively imminent. But I can't help feeling disappointed about what came out. Maybe it's just not what I expected, or wanted?

The main problem this film had from the beginning is the amateur editing. I think it's fair to say it was terrible. I'm not just talking about the annoying 'flash transition' it had several times where instead of cutting to the next scene, it would flicker and flash between the end of the current scene and the beginning of the next. It just seemed like they were trying to being stylistic, but it just felt to me, pointless, annoying and quite amateur. Not only that, just sometimes the cutting was just plain bad, in one particularly scene that is a crucial turning point, it sort is disorientating. I didn't know if it was a dream, or not. It wasn't intended that way, it was just jumping around and not making sense. Another problem I had with the particular scene is just how it doesn't add up, it's sort of just forces itself onto you. The same kind of goes with the ending - weak. There is one cut that also bothered me, which isn't too big, but it's just an example of some of the poor cutting, where it cut to the top of a bridge as well as changing song in the middle of a song. The cut was done poorly, mainly because of how the music transitions.

The film seems to build towards Mardi Gras & freedom of sorts. Once it gets to Mardi Gras it practically does nothing, they're at the Mardi Gras 'celebration' for about a minute, that is all you get of it. The whole American Dream/Freedom aspect is also gone about in a weak way, I don't know how to explain it other than to say, it talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

The first hour is great, no doubt, it's enjoyable and fun, very relaxing and mellow. This is also supposedly one of the first films to use popular music from the time as the soundtrack, all the songs are great 60's music. The characters are all great, the acting is all great. Dennis Hopper & Peter Fonda certainly do a fine job holding their own and whatnot, but I think Jack Nicholson was probably the best in the film, even though he wasn't in the film too long, he was certainly great, had a sort of enigmatic feeling to his presence.

Though I have panned this film, I did enjoy the film, the first hour keeps this film standing tall, and elements of the last half hour, among other things. I've heard this was intended to be double the length at around three hours? If so, I'd be interested in seeing that version as it might bring to the table exactly what I feel it needed. A well worth while film nonetheless.

My opinion on some of Daniel Day-Lewis' films

Daniel Day-Lewis seems to fly under the radar, sure with his latest release, There Will Be Blood he garnered a lot of wide acclaim, but he is easily forgotten, I guess that's because he's an actor, not a star. Since the mid-to-late eighties he has consistently performed extraordinarily. I watched There Will Be Blood in the cinema when it came out, and after being so excited, I felt quite disappointed, it was good, but not the masterpiece I was expecting. Nonetheless, Daniel Day-Lewis' phenomenal performance really stood out. Before then, I had only seen him in Martin Scorsese's, Gangs of New York, like usual, a great performance. Since There Will Be Blood came out on dvd I've really been meaning to check it out again with lower expectations and a better knowledge of what to expect. But I've also decided to check out some of his other films, well, at least most of them seeing as he seems to have an incredible track-record. I wanted to talk solely on his performance in each of the films, but I'll just talk about the films themselves.

For those who don't know Daniel Day-Lewis is a method actor, and method acting has a long history of creating some extremely good performances, (basically any early DeNiro film), but sometimes actors can take it very extremely and it can leave quite an emotional impact on them (RIP Heath Ledger). Daniel Day-Lewis has described finishing up a film as a terrible sadness because he doesn't just 'act' or pretend to be someone, he transforms and really falls into the characters he portrays, so saying goodbye to a part of him is obviously quite difficult.

The great thing about Daniel Day-Lewis is that from the beginning of his career he did the films he wanted to do, not just the ones that would benefit him the most and make him a star. When watching a Day-Lewis film you are guaranteed to see him give a great performance, even if the film itself isn't great or 'not your type'. Despite that, that high quality track record of his probably won't last, a lot of the best actors that stay infront of the screen slowly worsen, not so much their acting ability just acting seems to just become a job, obviously not always, but a lot of the time (e.g. DeNiro & Pacino).




In the Name of the Father

"You're very good at the English, aren't you? You see, I don't understand your language. "Justice." "Mercy." "Clemency." I literally don't understand what those words mean"

The film opens with a building being exploded, then cuts to Northern Ireland, narrated by the main character, in a way that he is actually talking to someone. Gerry isn't too popular where he is from, because he steals from people which obviously causes problems. The IRA are really getting fed up with him. In one of the first scenes, Gerry is on top of a building pretending to play the guitar with a stick, paranoid British soldiers below mistake the stick for a sniper rifle, they shoot at him, Gerry & his friends flee, being chased down by several soldiers and even people in military vehincles, all the action & commotion stirs up a problem, and a riot breaks out. The IRA take Gerry and his mate aside to try and scare them to their senses by threatening them. Gerry's father arrives and pleads they be set free. Not long after Gerry gets a ferry to London , his father hoping he will do something with his life. On the ferry Gerry meets a mate (whos name I've forgotten) of his, once they're in London they go to a mate of Gerry's to live. Gerry isn't interested in an honest living, he went to London for "free sex & dope", the people he moves in with are a bunch of Hippies, obviously the perfect place for him to get "free sex & dope". Gerry & his friend from the ferry have a problem at the place they live at and leave, they meet a homeless man, steal from a prostitute and Gerry goes home to Northern Ireland with some money. Little does he know that he is the prime suspect in the bombing of a pub which caused several people to die.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Gerry, a naive and young man, who's got a poor attitude, and is far from being the perfect person. There are several scenes that really stand out in my mind that showcases Day-Lewis' unbelievable talent, my favourite is the one where he is talking to his father after he is sentenced, a very emotional scene, very unforgettable. The first half of the film is definitely the strongest as a whole, but also performance-wise. Because it seems to become more of a typical film rather than an honest realistic portrayal of what happened once he's in prison. There is not a weak scene with Daniel Day-Lewis, the dude is fantastic. For this film, he stayed in solitary confinement at an empty prison where he got crew members to verbally abuse him for a few days, doing such extreme preparation makes it seem almost impossible to not give a high quality performance.



My Left Foot

"All is nothing, therefore nothing must end."

Daniel Day-Lewis plays as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, his left foot is his only fully functional limb. From a young age it was obvious Christy wasn't the "useless cripple" people thought he was. Christy wrote the book in which this film is an adaption of (but also includes the book being released), the film chronicles his life, from a boy to a man. Day-Lewis did an absolute outstanding and perfect performance. Very realistic and you really can see the frustration no doubt the real Christy had to go through in trying to communicated with people as speaking was quite difficult for him. As usual Daniel Day-Lewis completely transforms himself, he no longer really is Daniel Day-Lewis, he is almost unrecognizable. Day-Lewis has everything from subtle facial ticks and twitches to the difficult speech impediment perfected. If any lesser actor played Christy, this film probably would of sunk or at least have been ineffective and weak, as the film itself has its fair share of flaws, nothing that will really hinder any enjoyment, it may just prevent it from being more than "pretty good".



The Last of the Mohicans

"My father's people say that at the birth of the sun and of his brother the moon, their mother died. So the sun gave to the earth her body, from which was to spring all life. And he drew forth from her breast the stars, and the stars he threw into the night sky to remind him of her soul."

The first time I saw this film I didn't fully pay attention, it was in a class, a class that liked to talk and commentate while watching films... So I thought I'd watch it again. Now for what this is it's quite general, it covers enough, it has great action scenes but general characters. The main character, Hawkeye (Daniel Day-Lewis) is your typical hero, he's strong, brave, intelligent, and has a very good moral. Though Day-Lewis' performance wasn't weak, the character was. Daniel Day-Lewis managed to salvage quality and depth from this rather general character. One of the 'baddies', Major Duncan Heyward is very typical beginning to end which I found quite disappointing. The best performance though was by Wes Studi who played the main 'baddie' Magua, his character was very fascinating.

Though I've mostly panned the film, it is actually pretty good, the plot is decent (could be improved, but it is an adaption), the performances are great, the action is intense and the music is perfect. The music in the film was probably the best aspect of the film, alongside it's fantastic cinematography. The last 30 minutes or so of the film certainly won't disappoint also, they were by far the best moments in the entire film, as you are practically on the edge of your seat, and thats when these general characters have a little more colour added and become more interested, though it happens in mostly typical ways..



There Will Be Blood

"One night I'm gonna come to you, inside of your house, wherever you're sleeping, and I'm gonna cut your throat."

Back when this first came out I was extremely excited to see it, having heard all the praise I saw it the weekend it came out. Though I enjoyed it, it didn't hit me as much of a 'masterpiece' as everyone had dubbed it as, I acknowledged Day-Lewis' performance as pretty good (not near the amount of praise he deserves). I also misinterpreted certain things. So, having finally seen it again, I must say it is indeed a masterpiece. Daniel Day-Lewis gives undoubtedly his best performance as Daniel Plainview, 'an oil man'. Plainview is very complicated, certainly not as 2D as other characters Day-Lewis has played, though 2D isn't really a bad thing, it's just that after There Will Be Blood, you won't have exactly worked everything out about Daniel Plainview, though with My Left Foot or In the Name of the Father, you know each of the characters pretty well.

It's not too often the main character in a drama will essentially be the 'baddie'. It doesn't take long for you to know Daniel is a cruel, and heartless man with some very serious problems which probably root back to his father, as they apparently don't get on. With the problems Daniel has and his mental descent into a far darker zone can only be of some early childhood experience, or maybe he was just born the way he is. Despite his macabre and cruel persona, Daniel is also desperate to relate with someone. To have someone in his image or something of the like, and that's why he loves his son wholeheartedly, but also how he gets along with Henry.

Paul-Thomas Anderson is one of the best modern directors having made Punch-Drunk Love, Boogie Nights & Magnolia, three great films. In my eyes he is shaping up to be the 'next' Scorsese, or Coppola, or even Kubrick, that high caliber of talent. In Punch-Drunk he managed to salvage out a good performance from Sandler, who is usually quite a dry actor playing the same role in every film, though there is a level of that going on in Punch-Drunk, he is more deep and interesting. In Boogie Nights he made a film on the 70/80's porn industry, something that is almost always portrayed in a joke of a way. Boogie Nights is quite a serious film, though PTA can't help but put in some humor. In Magnolia he managed to get some high quality performances from some of the actors, particularly Tom Cruise, who has never really hit me as much of a high quality drama actor (though I don't think he is necessarily bad either). Now, obviously he did a lot more in those films, but those are just what I liked about them (among a lot more things). Now finally, with There Will Be Blood, he has managed to make his best film, a modern masterpiece, having an almost flawless film with few faults, most of which weren't his, and can be easily be forgotten in the abyss that is this great film. Daniel Day-Lewis gave his undoubtedly best performance in this film, not only was it the best of his career, or of the year, but it is one of the best performances in film history.

In the Name of the Father: 3.5/5
My Left Foot: 3/5
Last of the Mohicans: 3/5
There Will be Blood: 4.5/5

I planned on also watching and writing something up about Gangs of New York but because I actually watched and wrote these up a couple of weeks ago and I never got round to doing it.

Watchmen

"Rorschach's Journal: October 12th 1985. Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' And I'll whisper 'no'. "

Title: Watchmen
Year of Release: 2009
Director: Zach Snyder
Genre: Crime/Mystery/Action

I read the graphic novel not too long before I heard that a movie was in production, so naturally I was quite excited to see it brought to film. Over the year or so I've been growing more and more excited, as the reviews came out, slowly getting worse and worse I worried, but upon reading a few I'm not all that surprised. The common problem seemed to be that there is plot holes, or confusion, which after seeing the film is very understandable. Zach Snyder made this film primarily for the fans of the GN. Snyder managed to cut this down to three hours, which seems to leave an unfinished yet still satisfying film. So, if you watched the film and found the main problem with it to be that it was confusing or something you could either read the graphic novel or wait until the directors cut which is supposed to be four or so hours long. Some people may be thinking that's nuts, but after seeing the theatrical cut I'm certain it'll be fine. The film is very well paced, it doesn't feel slightly tedious. A longer much needed cut will hopefully make a better film.

For those who aren't familiar with Watchmen you must know that it is one of the most respected, popular and influential comic books of the 80's, so don't go saying it stole ideas from shows like Heroes or from The Incredibles (I use those two because I've read people go on about it). Watchmen starts with the death of a masked hero/vigilante called "The Comedian". The circumstances are quite mysterious, his identity was a secret among most. Rorschach, another masked vigilante begins investigating, his theory on the matter is someone is trying to pick off masked vigilante's. Now unlike most "super hero" movies, there is only one actual "super" hero and his name is Dr Manhattan/Jon. Jon was a normal physicist until one day he is locked in some machine (not sure exactly what) which destroys him, slowly though he regenerates cell by cell. Once he is fully back his view of the world is completely different and he can do practically anything. Silk Spectre [II] is in love with Dr Manhattan but there is problems there as Manhattan's view on life interfeers with their relationship. Nite Owl [II] is a growing old and unfit man who used to put on a costume, mask and fight crime, he is also interested in Silk Spectre/Laurie. Ozymandias, supposedly the smarted person in the world is one of two people to have shown his true identity (Adrian Veidt). There is more to be said, but I'll stop there.

Those who are worrying about how faithful the adaption is, don't worry! This film is very faithful, other than the ending. But the meaning is still there, it's still the same, it's just taken a different road. With the original ending it probably wouldn't play out in film half as good as it does in comic form.

The acting was pretty good from most of the cast. Billy Crudup did a perfect job with Dr Manhattan, I can not think of anyone else who could of done a better job, with this performance you really feel and get a great understanding of Dr Manhattan. Dare I say that I enjoyed the film character more than the original? That doesn't mean it's handled better, or really any different, it's just I'm more of a movie guy than a book guy. So being able to see how expressionless he is at times and hear how emotionless his voice is is very effective. Some scenes with him, particularly the Mars one is quite strong, and I was mesmerized by how fantastic he was. Jackie Earle Haley plays Rorschach, everyone's favourite character from the GN, especially mine. Again, he was perfect, he had everything going for him, providing the exact voice I imagined for Rorschach, and he had the look down, he was very intimidating character in the book and he is no less intimidating in the film. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays The Comedian, and once again.. perfect. I can tell there will be a lot of fan-hate I'll get for what I said about Manhattan, but also, I thought the Comedian was far more effective in the film. He's more dark, and disgusting in the film, in a way that makes certain aspects of his character feel more deep. I can't stress more, that I'm more of a film guy, so it's imminent I'd provide the film characters of the book ones if they're done as they are in the book. Everyone else in the film were decent enough, but not as great as JE Haley, B Crudup or JD Morgan.

Now there are a few problems I had with the film, one being a common problem, and it was the music. I'm not sure exactly who chose the soundtrack but by god they need to be slapped! In one scene in particular with Dan & Laurie a song called "Hallelujah"? (I'm not sure if that's the name, but it's repeated heaps in the song), I was cringing at the poor choice. With the four hour directors cut, that is one thing I would love to see changed, though I'm sure it won't. The soundtrack at a lot of point was distracting, trying too hard to force a mood onto you, or it was just plain wrong, like what I just mentioned. The score was fine; the soundtrack was horrible. Despite that, there was at least one good choice of song, Bob Dylan's "The Times Are-A Changin" which featured in the opening credits, perfect choice.

This film also seems to be a bit graphic, not just in terms of blood and violence but also in the sex scene I really thought it was pushed on a little long to an excessive, pointless and killed the "romantic" mood of the situation. Now Snyder sure does seem to like his violence, so does the graphic novel but in the film, I think at times it was a bit much, not for my personal taste but because it just didn't fit in. One fight scene involved a bone being snapped and the bone goes through the skin and there is quite a bit of blood, there is a lot more bloody situations, and some are much more ineffectively graphic. Another problem regarding the fight scenes is how unrealistic they were, it could be misleading and make people think thats these people are actually much stronger than your average person. Some scenes people were thrown quite a distance punched and went a distance, though it was stylistic and looked nice, it doesn't fit in with this film.

Now I could put those aside quite easily and push them to the back of my mind if it wasn't for the biggest problem of them all. At the beginning of the third act it just seems to make a giant leap with the plot, leaving you dazed and confused and doesn't really seem to make sense. Another five or so minutes alone could of helped smooth it out a lot more so it made more sense instead of leaving you to assume and the like. It wraps up though very nicely killing the bitter taste that could of remained ruining the film for me. The ending was quite effective, not quite as climatic at aspects, an improved score could of helped make it more dramatic I think.

So my main beefs were the music, unrealism/graphicness (?) and plot jump, but with such a complex film those don't seem to be enough to bring the movie completely down. It still is a very good adaption, handled by anyone else, and I can almost guarantee you they would of ruined it. Believe me there is a lot more I can say, but I feel I'll just be rambling on. Zach made this for the fans, and I cannot thank him enough for at least trying his best, this film obviously did a number on him after watching an interview with him he looked like he had aged some years.

EDIT: After seeing Watchmen for a second time, I picked up on what I missed regarding the plot. So for those who haven't seen the film, pay close attention I missed it, and two other people I saw the film missed it too.

Rating:

Sunshine - How about a remake?

Recently I've been watching some clips of this film on Youtube as well listen to some of the score. So I thought I'd write something up while my mind is on the subject.

A while ago I did a "review" of sorts on Sunshine. To me Sunshine is a film that with more thought put into it, it could really be something great. It's underrated, no doubt in my mind about it. Now, with a film that has one of the best scores and such potential, I think this is one of the few films I would love to see remade. There is obvious confusion with director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland in exactly what they want this film to be. Is this film a drama thriller? Or is this film a thriller horror? They can't make up their mind. If a remake was to ever occur Pinbacker should be 100% cut out, for me, that half ruined this film, as I'm sure many will agree. That is the biggest edit, there are numerous others edits, like the odd obsession with the sun, but also just cut out the general cliches that are evident in this film.

A remake would absolutely have to contain the original score, or at the very least the same theme. To be honest if the music wasn't half as good as it is I wouldn't like this film. The music so incredibly enhances this film, particularly in the jump scene, you feel the desperation and frustration in that scene, and it is intense. There are some other pretty intense scenes in this film, made that way simply because of the music. The acting is decent enough, probably strongest from Cillian Murphy and surprisingly Chris Evans, the rest were good enough. The visuals in this film are outstounding, the CGI is close to perfect. All you need to do is watch the film and you will surely agree with that.

I've got a general interest for space, so maybe that's why I like this film, and why I love Solyaris & 2001: A Space Odyssey. With a remake I think they should try focus more on that space side, and more on the relationships between the people on board Icarus. Try build up the desperation that this really is, the last hope for human survival. Those elements are present, and Sunshine touches on those aspects, but it does it quite weakly.

I also hear of people complaining that the sun dying is a few billion years too early, here is an explanation I read from Roger Ebert's review in which he quotes the Science Advisor for the film "The sun is not "dying in the normal sense," IMDb.com reports, but in the Cox scenario "has instead been 'infected' with a 'Q-ball' -- a supersymetric nucleus, left over from the Big Bang...that is disrupting the normal matter. This is a theoretical particle that scientists at CERN are currently trying to confirm -- the film's bomb is meant to blast the Q-ball to its constituent parts, which will then naturally decay, allowing the sun to return to normal.""

There is some seriously illogical moments in this film, and it almost seems like the writer just wrote everything that came to mind, without really researching anything or making sense of certain aspects. It's almost as if he wrote in one night, and there was not a single edit later, just a pile of ideas made into a script. BUT despite that, the music, the visuals and the acting from Murphy & Evans really hold this film up. The ending is a bit iffy and lame. As I've said, this isn't a perfect film, not even close, it's a bag of good and bad ideas. Now I'm sure there will be a lot of people who don't like this film for what it is, but I find myself liking it more for what it could have been. Just so it's clear, I don't expect, or even want a remake to happen next year or the year after, obviously give it some time to settle, but in time, a remake of this could very well be very good.

The Burmese Harp

"The soil of Burma is red, and so are it's rocks."

Title: The Burmese Harp
Year of Release: 1956
Director: Kon Ichikawa
Genre: Drama/Music/War
Rating: 8.5/10

Don't hold it against yourself if you don't know this film, it's relatively unknown. It's about a Japanese platoon that use music to keep their morales high, they soon surrender to the British after hearing that Japan has surrendered. One of the soldiers plays the harp, naturally gifted he taught himself how to play and play well. Before moving to a prison camp the Captain gets the okay to send a messenger to tell a group of Japanese soldiers to surrender also as resistance is literally futile. The other soldiers are reluctant to give up, and the inevitable happens. The Japanese platoon that sent Mizushima on the mission suspect him to be dead.

I had my doubts that there would be many films from the fifties based around WWII that were so unbiased. With scars and wounds still left in Japanese hearts it's incredibly such an honest film was created. I heard it was very praised during it's original release for simply being created. There is no way anyone can doubt this is an anti-war film, it shows decaying bodies in the mass, scattered around Burma. The pointless mindset some of the Japanese soldiers had during WWII that you must die for your country, that is the best and only way during war is shattered, if anyone thought dying with honor serves your country better than returning to rebuild a country in ruin they surely would of realised after this. As I was saying, it's quite an unbias film, not just because it was made only ten years after the war ended but because well... war films have a tendency to be bias. It shows the British as good people. There are two good examples, at the beginning when the Japanese platoon prepare for battle trying to fool the British by singing, laughing and clapping into thinking they weren't ready the British react in a way I did not expect. Also, though, subtle and quite insignificant a British soldier wishes Mizushima a safe return with complete sincerity. Those types of things just don't seem to be present in a lot of war based films, sure there are numerous examples of films that aren't bias but this is one that really earns my respect.

The music is absolutely perfect in this film. The harp that is played throughout and the singing bring the mood of the soldiers to life, but also, the score is perfect. One scene that is great half of the reason being the music is when Mizushima comes across a whole lot of Japanese corpses and he is obviously bewildered by the sight. The score used in this I haven't seen present in many films from the fifties, particularly Japanese films. Maybe I just need to see more, and they generally seem to be the type of music that is in war films, so again, maybe I just need to see more war films from the time. Regardless, the music is perfect.

The way this film is shot is also incredible. With simple long shots, and numerous pans, particularly across the corpses. I don't know how to explain it without being really general and saying "This looks great, that looks great" but there is no doubt in my mind the cinematography done in this film is one of it's strongest points.

This is quite a general film I think, though it's message is strong. The acting is good, the cinematography is great and the music is even better. There isn't much that goes wrong with this film. But as I said, it feels quite general, that's why I guess I can't really find the words to properly describe this film other than it's really good. The only thing I need a little more push in is understanding Mizushima. I read on IMDb that another of Ichikawa's films is quite good and will help you understand Mizushima better, but as one critic said "The Burmese Harp, just as the titular instrument suggests songs without filling them out, is a slight film that suggests the heavy human toll of war without actually presenting it.". Nonetheless a hugely great film.

Friday Night Lights: Season One

"Clear eyes, full heart, cant lose"

Title: Friday Night Lights
Year of Release: 2006
Creator: Peter Berg
Genre: Drama/Sport
Rating: 8.5/10

Friday Night Lights is set in Dillon, Texas. In this town football is almost all that matters. Everyone seems to go to watch the matches and everyone is passionate. This show focuses on a group of high school students, most involved with the high school team. It deals with the pressures of high school, football and life.

In the spur of the moment I decided I'd check this show out, because from an advertisement I saw on tv it looked like a pretty decent show. Now the first episode isn't the best episode of the season, maybe it's just because this show is so very American it didn't quite appeal to me. The way the episode was going I didn't really plan on continuing watching it, the final.. ten or so minutes were fantastic. When the actual game begun, it was extremely exciting, and was only the beginning as something terrible happens at that game when one of the players is terribly injured. Not only does it greatly affect the himself, his family and the team. It changes the whole town, and because of that one tackle a lot of things changed, some for the better, some for the worse. But inevitably, would make for some damn good television.

The one thing I think about this show is that there are some simple cliche's or predictablities and whatnot, but it works so damn well, always. Some of the characters begin very simply and don't really show any importance, some, just seem pointless and annoying. But in time they did progress, a lot. This season covers a lot of ground in it's twenty-two episodes. Each of the characters in the show, the reoccurring ones, each of them at some point in time have their own little story, and drama to deal with, which I think really helps the characters grow and show the actor or actress's talent.

My biggest problem is that this is set with a bunch of fifteen to seventeen year olds in high school. To me, some of them just don't look their supposed age, but that's easy to get past, but some of things that happens, and what they have to deal with just seems a bit too extreme. Maybe New Zealand and American culture are more different than I thought? I don't know if American's are as serious about football as presented in this show, well, maybe that's too generalised seeing as this is set in a town, but a big one it seems at least. It's certainly a much different case when it comes to Rugby in High School. No games are televised and hell it's unlikely anyone will even video a single game. But like I said I guess American culture is more different than I thought. No one watches local television here, maybe they do in the States (or at least for football)? But back onto my point, I understand the pressure some of the players are put under, but the way they cope with it, in particular, a subplot with Smash, that just felt to me, unlikely and a bit extreme, but I guess one could argue that's the point?

Zach Gilford (Matt Saracen) and Kyle Chandler (Coach Taylor) are definitely the best in the show. From the very beginning it's obvious they had their character down. Gilford does a great job playing the nervous yet brave Matt Saracen, from only the first episode you really get a good feel for the character, not only understanding him, but care about him. Hell, he is a good reason why I continue watching this show, his character has definitely gone a long way and I can't wait to see where else he goes. Now onto Chandler's performance of Coach Taylor. Now his character is probably the most important character because if he was acted weakly the whole show would fall apart. He is what keeps the show standing as his character is right in the center of everything, he connects each character together and the like. It's great because, time and time again you see these same Coach like characters come into play in films like We Are Marshall or even Remember the Titans. The type of coach that is smart at the sport he coaches, but a wise guy, one who can help. Now, that same type of coach is here, but this time it's... different. I honestly can't think of much of a way to explain it other than the performance is not so robotic and typical, it's more fluid and real. Seriously, Chandler just has it down, he knows what he is doing, it's as if he was born to play this character, or is this character. Because there are some moments when something dramatic happens, one in particular when he get's served (lawsuit, not challenged to a dance off or something) he is told who is the one who filed the lawsuit and the expression on his face is the thing that really hits ya, really makes you understand how suprised he is, but also puts you right there.

There are some entertaining shows like Prison Break, 24, or Heroes which are good in short bursts but a lot of them are like trilogies. The first is always the best, but then slowly they just have the same stuff, but at more extreme measures, and then they over complicate and change the shows formula, that is why those shows don't last an entirely great run, because of a lack of emotional drive, they just have action. Friday Night Lights is one of those shows that has that emotional drive. I haven't seen the second or third season, haven't even begun to, for all I know this might do the very same thing I stated before (become more extreme and more complicated) but, unless the writers aren't as talented as I thought it should be fine. Constantly through this show you really feel for the characters. Even characters like Tyra. Tyra isn't my favourite character, she is the shows "bitch". No she isn't pushed around and whatnot, she is just a pain in the ass. Adrianne Palicki does a decent job as Tyra, but it's relatively general when uninvolved in a subplot. But as I was saying, even a character like Tyra gets your attention and has you care about her to some extent.

Now onto two "technical" aspects - Music and Cinematography. The music is fantastic with this show and really really helps just get better and better. It helps set the mood perfectly and feel the extremity of drama that is presented. I'm terrible at remember the instruments used, but it mainly consists of guitars. No, thank god it's not full of loud guitar solo's or popular songs of the current time. The music is soft and smooth, with simple strums at certain key moments. Seriously, the music is perfect. That is one of the very first things I noticed about this show, and it really stood out. Now, the cinematography, the camera is obviously actually held by a cameraman and not just operated by one. Now you may go the entire season/seasons without noticing it but the camera shakes, not a little, but not a lot, and also zooms in when necessary to see peoples expressions. This reminds me of another show called The Shield, but with this, it's far more effective. When I mentioned it zooms to show you characters emotions, or reactions, etc, it's not like you see in a martial arts movie and they've got that cheesy look on their face because unlike that, it actually works here. The shaky camera (not Blair Witch/Cloverfield shaky) is quite effective too. It just gives the show an atmosphere and feeling to it, I guess it just makes it feel more real. This show has some real beauty in some of the shots, it makes great use of lighting, mostly because it doesn't really use much. It doesn't brighten up the shots. It always seems to be natural lighting, but obviously it's not always that way. But I tell ya, when the football players begin their Friday night games it always looks great.

This is a really good show that does a good job showing how much pressure can be put on people involved with football, especially in a small town obsessed with the sport. There isn't much that brings this season down. The acting is pretty solid, though weaker in the first few episodes, it improves, regardless is still pretty good. It does have a bit of a weird feeling that the characters high school students, but it's easy to get past that. And another problem I found with the season is the random tug in the flow of the show, around episode eleven, I think. It seems there may have been a break when it was actually televised because it seemed to rely a bit on simple or small things being forgotten, which when combined can become a problem. It's briefly a bit rocky, but that's seriously about one or two episodes, easy to get past. Those are the things that I think brought this down from perfection. Regardless, a hugely great show, worth checking out.

Note: Just found out the music you mostly hear during the show is a band called Explosions in the Sky, a great instrumental band which mainly consists of electric guitars and drums (also the occasional bass).

In Cold Blood

Note: If you know NOTHING about what this is about, and the murder it is set around, don't read this. But because I think most people already know the general facts, I've included some spoilers that people most probably already know, but not the crucial details, the ones that make this film, truly great.

Title: In Cold Blood
Year of Release: 1967
Director: Richard Brooks
Genre: Crime/Drama
Rating: 10/10

"I'd like to apologize, but who to."

In Cold Blood, an adaption of Truman Capote's well known book which details the brutal slaying of the Clutter family. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock the two who committed the crime went in with the hopes of leaving ten thousand dollars richer because Hickock, while in prison heard that the Clutter family had a safe, with ten thousand dollars in it. Instead they leave forty-three dollars (and a radio) richer.

I think this film builds up and up to show you Smith and Hickock as criminals, but not really as cold blooded murderers, it makes you sympathize with Smith the absolute most because he is complicated. He has fond memories of his mother, and at first all seems well on the front, but you quickly learn little Perry Smith witnessed something truly terrible, which would help lead him to the gallows. Also as emphasis, in the film, you hear two cops talking about some study of serial killers, and it was found they are usually those who had family problems, and Smith fell into that category for sure. He was not a monster as the media most probably portrayed him at the time. Nearing the end especially you really sympathize with Smith because (at least in my opinion) he doesn't really deserve the death penalty, though there is no doubt he deserves punishment, but not death. With Dick, it's a completely different story, but I won't go there, because I think that may spoil some crucial details.

My personal opinion is that not a single soul deserves the death penalty, I just don't think we have the right to kill, not any of us. Just because the government controls everything doesn't give them the right to murder. It's a major contradiction that defeats the purpose of prison. Prison should not be a place for revenge, or a temporary holding ground for the guilty criminals. Rehabilitation should be their only ambition, which a lot of prisons really don't aim to do, they just hold them in time out because they've been a naughty boy (or girl).

But back onto subject, at the end I don't think your supposed to feel and say to yourself "Those cold blooded bastards got what they deserved!" because what's the point in that? This is obviously a good film, anyone can tell that. It's quite complicated, but if it only aims to reenact, really, it's pointless. It certainly isn't one sided though, it's supposed to make you think, do they or do they not deserve being condemned to death, but ultimately, they don't. I think the name "In Cold Blood" is more of an irony, because that's how the media dubbed it, which in a way... it sort of is, but it's just not that simple.

Robert Blake plays Perry Smith and believe me in every sense of the word his performance is perfect. He captures every aspect no matter how big or small they were. The simple shakes of the last mile (I don't know if that's what they actually call it) and his final moments. The intense moments during the scene everyone anticipates. His character is a wide varied character, no doubt. I could probably go on for a while about what makes Perry Smith (be it the man, or the character) so interesting. Take my word Blake was the perfect person to play Smith, not only does he act beyond greatness, he looks very similar to the real Smith. Scott Wilson, who plays Dick Hickock does a great job playing an arrogant and seemingly cold blooded man.

As I've stated, this is quite a complicated film, with little things, though they very well could just a coincidence during the film making progress and the way it was presented, it's far better to think otherwise. The symbolic elements are there. Another thing that I really like is make you wait to see the murder. You see before and after the murder before you actually see the murder itself, which is so incredibly important in keeping your opinion clean and undamaged. Just so you know there is a lot I haven't commented on, most importantly the music and great use of black and white.

I haven't read Capote's "In Cold Blood" and I don't know a lot about the actual crimes themselves and how accurate this film is, but if this is as accurate as it gets, both as an adaption and a true story then this is so very good. It's brutally honest and unbias. As someone on IMDb wrote, this works perfectly with Capote, though I didn't watch it the day before or even remotely close before, Capote is a really good film which helps me base my opinion of the film as a whole. They both focus on different aspects. Obviously, Capote focuses more of the Capote/Smith relationship and you learn a lot about Perry Smith. If you liked Capote, I can almost guarantee you will love this, or vice-versa. A film that succeeds in my eyes on every level.

Seven

"What's in the box?"

Title: Seven
Year of Release: 1995
Director: David Fincher
Genre: Thriller/Crime/Mystery
Rating: 8.5/10

Two detectives, one who is about to retire (Freeman) and one who is only at the beginning of his career (Pitt) begin investigating a case where the killer's murders relate to the seven deadly sins.

Ever since I was young I've been a fan of this film, and because I was quite young when I first saw this a lot of the scenes in this film have stuck with me, like with some other relatively disturbing movies. Well most of the scenes directly involving each of the murders are disturbing, because I've always just imagined how terrible it would be if put in their shoes. There is no doubt this is a graphic film, but not exploitive like in the often compared but far inferior film series Saw. The graphic nature of the crimes help glue them to your mind, and really make each of the murders so much more disturbing, it's not so much the blood you may see at the scene, but the thought of what physical or mental suffering they would of went through, it's always far more affective in film when they can translate the disturbing content of the film mentally rather than show it in full detail with graphic scenes throughout, but as I said, this doesn't exploit the murders, it has the right amount of violence. But be warned, I can imagine some people might not like the level of violence.

I've read of people disliking the ending, thinking it's the weakest point, or a let down. I really cannot disagree more to be honest. Sure, to an extent I can see why, but to me, the ending is so affective and so memorable, and it's easily the most memorable part of the film, and quite a powerful ending. Hell, the ending was half the reason I decided to watch this film for maybe the fifth or so time. I was both excited to see the events unfold and the intense ending, but I was also nervous about it too, because I knew what was going to happen, I don't want to give anything away, but I loved it.

Freeman doesn't disappoint, as usual doing a great job, but also playing a rather familiar character, an intelligent and quite wise man. Though Freeman does a great job, he is out shun by Pitt's performance. This is the film I think which made people respect Pitt and actually consider him a serious actor, one to keep your eye on. He plays an arrogant, ambiguous and young detective. Though he knows the basics and considers himself a veteran detective, he doesn't fool Somerset (Freeman). From his general language, constantly using swear words, Somerset being a more curious, calm but harder man, Mills (Pitt) is an incredibly interesting character. Pitt does a great job, with numerous one liners of sorts, not the sort you see in Die Hard or the like, but great human words, not action catch phrases. Mills general inexperience is quickly shown in just one of his first scenes, involving the first murder, with the obese man, he mainly just looks at the standard things, obviously the man who is dead, simple things around him, sort of mimicking Somerset who is truly investigating every detail, Somerset is far more persistent but far less confident.

The is a great well rounded film that has a similar dark feeling to that of Fincher's other film, Fight Club. This probably best succeeds in the thriller aspect as I was almost always excited or edgy, a few times I even jumped, one scene, which has and will forever keep giving me a fright, the sloth one, every time it gets me. Now obviously I don't want to spoil anything, though I'm so eager to discuss other things about the film, but it's just too easy to spoil crucial elements of this film, so for those who haven't checked this out already and don't mind a bit of violence, you definitely want tot see this. Especially those who liked Fight Club, because as I mentioned earlier, they both have a similar feel to it, the whole darkness present in both, and also some parts of Zodiac (another film by Fincher) are shown in Se7en, if you ask me at least.

Band of Brothers

"I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day when he said "Grandpa, were you a hero in a war?" and Grandpa said "No. But I served in a company of heroes." "

Title: Band of Brothers
Year of Release: 2001
Creators: Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, and Gary Goetzman
Genre: War/Drama/History
Rating: 10/10

Band of Brothers is about Easy Company of the 101st US Airbourne division as they fight their way through the war. Each episode focusing usually on a different person in particular or a different aspect.

This is probably the most human and most realistic war film/miniseries I have ever seen. Everything from the characters in this, to the fighting to the portrayal of Germans feel so real and it's almost as if it's teaching you about World War II. It's a great portrayal of how the War was for those who were affected by the war, especially the soldiers. It makes a big deal of developing the characters, even if only for 30 minutes, just for them to be killed or badly wounded which is really affective. Though the Germans are commonly seen as bad during World War II, it doesn't show them as bloodthirsty savages, which is what separates this from other War set films or shows, which have a tendency to show the Germans quite biased, sure there was a lot of bad German Nazi's, but not everyone was, and it makes a strong point of this in one episode. After walking across a group of German prisoners of war, one of the American soldiers asks a rhetorical question as a joke to one of the Germans, "Where you from?", the German replies in English to their surprise of a location somewhere in America (I can't quite remember it) the soldier is shocked. They begin talking and it turns out the German soldier's parents told him to return to the Fatherland, Germany, to fight for them as requested by Germany. This German soldier not only lived there, but was born there, in America, his fate.. obviously not too bright.

You hear about the terror of war, and how it takes a toll on soldiers not just physically, but mentally, this does a great job showing this aspect of war perfectly. During the Battle of the Bulge, mainly in episode six, is where this is shown in quite detail. It's a very sad episode and probably the best episode. All the soldiers are frozen, they cannot light a fire, because if they do, they will become targeted by the Germans, that are not too far away from them, because they are located in a forest, during winter, so, there is snow everywhere. Fighting breaks out randomly, each time men die, some you don't know, but some of them are characters you will like, I'm sure. The soldiers are greatly affected by what happened in Bastogne, which is also shown in a later episode, the resentment for replacements, or even a man who missed this horrific time which dramatically changed each of the soldiers.

Each episode opens with several old men who fought in World War II, they talk about their experiences, which relate to the episode that follows. These guys are really sad to watch because you can see it on their faces that they struggle to talk about the tough times, and that they lost good friends to the war. So their words not only sets the mood but gives a feel of authenticity to each episode, particularly the last one, you'll see.

The acting from everyone was perfect. Well, minus Simon Pegg's poor American accent, which I think I'll let slide since he has a tiny role. It makes me sad that not everyone in this show were instantly launched into successful films or a successful show, or anything along those lines. But, you will find that a lot of the people in this show look quite familiar. David Schwimmer (Ross from Friends) plays a role in this film, Donnie Walhberg (Sixth Sense, Saw II) and Damien Lewis (Life). With some other people playing certain roles you may recognise, like James McAvoy, he has a small role, but it's always interesting seeing someone before their prime, especially when they did better in this. As I said, the acting was amazing, and the men weren't required to just put on a sad face when they were sad, and an angry face when they were fighting, they had to show a wide range of emotion because you really see these men develop over time, as friends die in some gruesome and sad ways, it takes affect. No one was a let down, which isn't common, usually there is at least one.

For those who are researching World War II (the fighting in Europe only) or your just interested in that topic, this is definitely what you should watch. It covers a lot of the most important parts of the war, D-day, Battle of the Bulge, the Holocaust and the affects of war, among more things it will be a great help, though, it is dramatized, it gets the point across and stays true. If you liked Saving Private Ryan, you will definitely enjoy this as they are quite similar, though, this is better, more realistic and is full of people, and with no "characters". This is quite a violent show, I must admit at times I couldn't watch as just the thought of the agony is quite overwhelming. A must see show, probably the best thing I have seen that was made directly for television. A true modern masterpiece. I look forward to the next project by the guys who created this that focuses on the Pacific side of WWII.

The Departed

"When I was growing up, they would say you could become cops or criminals. But what I'm saying is this. When you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?"

Title: The Departed
Year of Release: 2006
Director: Martin Scorsese
Genre: Crime/Drama
Rating: 8.5/10

The Departed centers around a complicated situation, two police officers recruit Billy Costigan to be an undercover police officer for Frank Costello's crew, those two police officers are the only two who know Billy is even a cop, they do reasonably extreme measures to make sure he is not made out, which leads him to being very undercover. To make matters more complicated, Costello has a mole, who desperately searches to find out who the rat is, all the while helping Costello avoid the police.

For those of you who don't know, this is a remake of a Hong Kong film, called Infernal Affairs. Not often does typical Hollywood remakes do good on the originals they remake, quite often they get everything wrong, and fail in almost every aspect, or they try to make an exact replica, just in English for the mass illiterate people who refuse to read their own language, because it takes just that little bit of brain power too much. That being said, this does not fail at all, in fact it stays very faithful to the original, and makes slight improvements here and there. This is probably one of the only (or at least of the very few) remakes that actually surpasses the original. Maybe it's because I saw Infernal Affairs after The Departed, but I just found Departed more exciting, and generally more interesting. When watching Departed I can't wait to see what was going to come next (in every viewing, not just the first or second), whereas Infernal, it just felt sluggish or something to me, though, it is not bad, far from it. I'm just saying, this, unlike most remakes, surpasses the original. But who is really surprised, Scorsese and a great cast cannot fail!

Leonardo DiCaprio, he's one of the best young actors of today, I know he tried desperately to break out of the "Teen Sensation" (or whatever you call it) where all the girls loved him, not because of his acting ability but because of his looks, and time and time again he has said he wanted to lose that image, here you don't see Jack (from Titanic), DiCaprio does a fantastic job with his character. Costigan is easily the best character in this film, he is also, quite dynamic, as made clear early on in the film. He has no problem being a criminal, basically his entire family were criminals (who at sometime knew Costello too), he says that when he is standing next to a mass murderer he doesn't even shake, not a bit. What is obvious though, is he is petrified of being found out for being a cop, it takes a affects him quite deeply which causes him to see a psychiatrist, who gives him Valium. DiCaprio does a great job showing how emotionally difficult it is to be undercover, and makes you dread the thought of being in his shoes.

Jack Nicholson who plays Frank Costello honestly did a decent job, but, at times, he could of done better I think. To me, his character was too much a character, when I felt he should of been a person. Don't get me wrong, Nicholson did an absolutely great job, just at times he wasn't shining too bright, in comparison to some of the other actors in the film. Matt Damon plays Colin (the rat), and he also does a pretty good job, though, the accent became annoying at times, I don't know if that is how people from Boston talk, if that was a bad attempt on his behalf, regardless, it was just annoying, nothing that really effected anything though. Mark Wahlberg plays Dignam (one of the two cops who knows Costigan is a cop) and he does a great job, his character seems to be a bit of prick at times, but it adds something to him, it shows he has experience, not just as a cop, but with working with undercover cops, Costigan is obviously not his first, and it seems death falls on him lightly, almost as if it doesn't bother him much at all.

This is such a good film, one I remember being very excited to see, and I have never been let down by it, with each viewing, this film has got better and better. With a relatively complicated story, and heaps of clever moments throughout. It's constantly exciting and I assure you, it will never bore you, especially with the ending that literally had my jaw on the floor, an ending that doesn't seem to have been done very much. With great performances, great music, great writing and a very interesting story this makes for one of Scorsese's finest films, one I highly recommend for fans of the genre.

Gran Torino

"Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me."

Title: Gran Torino
Year of Release: 2008
Director: Clint Eastwood
Genre: Drama/Crime/Thriller
Rating: 6.5/10

After the death of his wife a Korean War Veteran gets mixed up in his next-door neighbors problems after one of his neighbors tries and fails to steal his 1972 Gran Torino. He then begins to help teach this boy to be a man, and to grow up.

Throughout this film, it seems as if Clint wants to overcome racism and/or stereotypes but fails miserably. This was obviously from practically the first 10-20 minutes. He establishes the goodies and the baddies pretty quick, full of cliche characters that seem to come from a film set in a high school. The Asian men who are apart of a small gang don't come across at authentic but just feel likes shit-stirring school bullies. Because Walt (Clint's character) is a bit of a racist guy, there seemed to be a push to show development of some sort, or to show how racist he is, and how he can improve or something along those lines, from having all sorts of ethnicities throughout the film, which to me, felt a little to pushy, forced and fake. The stereotypical characters in this film were all a pain in the ass, the "wigger" who quickly backs down, doesn't stand his ground and thinks of himself as a "homey" or something along those lines. Because of the films tone, and ambitions when the African American characters are briefly shown in this film they seem incredibly out of place, seeing as the area Walt is in is apparently full of non-Americans, so his neighbors suggests at least. They also fit a painful stereotype, they bully a girl, and make all sorts of sexual remarks while scaring off her boyfriend, which wouldn't be so much a problem if it made sense and went together well somehow, but it didn't. It would of helped also if the actors were better than they were, those guys were transparent as hell.

The acting from everyone other than Clint was mediocre at best, and trust me, that's being very kind. Bee Vang who plays Thao Vang Lor is a fine example of some of the bad acting in this film, he lacked any real emotion which was required by his character. In some scenes he yells a few things, because he is obviously quite upset, those were probably the some of the most painful to watch scenes of the film, not because it was sad, because it wasn't, Vang's acting brought it down a lot and had me cringing and even looking away from some scenes, it honestly looked as if he had an invisible script in his hand that he was reading from because he felt so robotic, the same goes for Ahney Her, who plays Vang's sister. Clint as usual though, held his own, and delivered a decent performance, not his best, but good enough.

One thing that annoys me a lot in films is when there is a lack of real development, this suffers from that problem. Things just seem to change, as if it's a video game, you do something wrong, your told the correct way to do it, and then you've learned all you need to know, or something along those lines (probably a bad a analogy) . It was very annoying because they would literally say for something to be done, which would usually begin development in that area, but once it was said and out in the open it was settled, and boom, character development aspect completed just like that.

Though I have got these problems, I still did enjoy this film. For those who saw the trailer thinking "Badass Clint's still got it" you won't be let down. Clint is without a doubt proven he has what it takes to kick some ass just like the ol' days. His character is not just "badass", or cool, he is scary. He is a fierce character without a doubt, one that is easily likable and could have easily started a trend of sayings and cult related things if it weren't for the mediocrity that drowns this film.

Simply put, Gran Torino is alright, you will be enjoyed, but not amazed, your jaw will not be in the floor, and you probably won't left feeling like you've seen a masterpiece as you would with Million Dollar Baby or Letters from Iwo Jima. Clint proves he is still one tough son-of-a-bitch, and he makes for one badass character, the whole finger gun thing is pretty cool, I must say. If you plan on seeing this film for multiple layers expected from this, you will probably be let down, but if you expect to simply be entertained and see Clint be kickass, I'm sure you'll at least be entertained.

JCVD

"I still ask myself today what I've done on this earth, nothing! I've done nothing!"

Well there has been a lot of buzz going around lately that Jean-Claude Van Damme's new film, JCVD is actually good. Which surprised the hell out of me, I read up on what it was about and became interested and from the trailer it was obvious it was going to be something special.

Title: JCVD
Year of Release: 2008
Director: Mabrouk El Mechri
Genre: Drama/Crime
Rating: 7.5/10

JCVD is about Jean-Claude Van Damme, no, it is not a documentary. Though JCVD is fictional, Jean-Claude plays his brutal self. Losing his daughter, his wife, money, and making movies he knows are terrible and still even losing some of those.. to Steven Seagal. JCVD returns to his homeland because he needs money to pay his lawyer when he gets mixed up in a robbery.

Now I had read some reviews that this as a film altogether is average, but Van Damme's performance was not. That is what sold me, I wanted to see Van Damme act for the first time in his career, as a kid I loved all of his movies, from Bloodsport, Universal Soldier, Hard Target and even Street Fighter. Though I have out grown him and realise his lack of talent in these movies I have always wanted to see him be a serious film, one where he acts, so this film appealed to me. There is no doubt about it, Van Damme delivers his best performance ever in this film. One scene, probably the most talked about scene of this film where Van Damme talks honestly into the camera, about life. Though it may just be apart of the script, it really becomes obvious that is Van Damme. It really makes you feel sad for Van Damme at how.. quite pathetic he has become. I'm sure there is not a single person who can deny the fact Van Damme did a very good job with his performance in this film, and definitely makes me hope to god he gets the chance to be in some serious films, though, sadly I don't see that happening.

There is definitely a boat load of inspiration from Dog Day Afternoon, just the whole they are both focusing around a robbery, but there are also the screaming fans, and even a character that resembles Sal (who was played by John Cazale). This film alone, isn't the best film, we all know that. It does occasional give an unauthentic feel during some scenes which seem to try to feel intense and realistic but just come off amateur.

That being said, this film is very entertaining, it has a bit of humor in it, and a fantastic performance from Van Damme, which is the reason why anyone would see it. It's an exciting film that opens with a great scene which has Van Damme doing an action sequence with no cuts which shows Van Damme struggling to go on, this scene among some others show his disinterest for the movies he is now in. Don't expect a great film because I'm sure there are people out there who won't like it, but if you put your critical eye away and watch this for what it is, Jean-Claude Van Damme's first real film. I really enjoyed this film. A film any real JCVD fan should see.

The Godfather (vs. Citizen Kane)

"I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

Title: The Godfather: Part I.
Year of Release: 1972
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Genre: Drama/Crime
Rating: 10/10

The Godfather follows the entire Corleone family, both as an actual family, and as the crime syndicate. Mainly following Don Vito Corleone and his youngest son, Michael. Michael is a hero who fought in World War II and has recently returned, and has been awarded a medal. He doesn't appear to want to be apart of the family business in any way. After an attempt on Vito's life, a war breaks out, and a lot of things change.

There is a lot of speculation that this quite possibly is the greatest film of all time, and it's easily very understandable why from only the first minute. To be honest, I think this is the great film of all time, though, it is not quite my favourite film. Another film that is generally considered the best is Citizen Kane, and here's is a practically irrelevant reason why I think nowadays, The Godfather is superior. Sure Citizen Kane was a film that did a lot for the way films are made today and without it, it's probable some of your favourite films would not be what they are. Sure, the acting is phenomenal and everything is perfect, almost. What I feel is that, nowadays, the fact Citizen Kane did what it did is more something that is respected but not acknowledged because it's just a known fact, and I'm tired of acknowledging it. It's around 60 years since Citizen Kane came out and it still a great film, no doubt about it, but, it just does not have the same, feeling it would have many years ago, the feeling that, everything is new, everything is original and everything is perfect. It's less relevant today, and though it has barely aged, the Godfather remains un-aged, it has not even aged the slightest. The Godfather has a very strong deep feeling and generally good morale. Sure, killing is bad, and it is not entirely shown as that bad. But, it brings across a strong sense of family importance. After viewing it again, I have finally realise how strong and important this was in the Godfather, of course I knew it was there, and I knew it was important in the film, just not that important. The Godfather is also a very realistic film, it doesn't create a great set of characters, but instead, a great set of people.

Also, I think the acting in The Godfather is superior than the acting in Citizen Kane. All the actors in this film portrayed a role they do not imitate or even sort of resemble in any of their other films, you may see resemblances between certain characters Pacino has played in his past, but you won't find anything like Michael Corleone, it's the same with Vito (Marlon Brand), Santino (James Caan) and Tom Hulger (Robert Duvall), they are original and have remained original, even it was made and released now instead of thirty-six years ago. When you see Citizen Kane, I'm sure your jaw will drop, but you will find resemblances, only slight ones, between Orson Welles character Charles Foster Kane in some of his other films, which may seem irrelevant, but it's important to me.

Sure, people will go on and discuss the technicalities of Citizen Kane which may or may not make Citizen Kane better, but that's half my point. With the Godfather, you don't need technical aspects to see this film is a true masterpiece, one you can easily see as the best. I'm not saying that technical aspects like lighting, directing, or any sort of method of presentation (or whatever), are unimportant and not present in The Godfather, they are there, and they can easily be discussed, but I don't think it is necessary, especially if you have seen both. I feel Citizen Kane nowadays relies on what it was, and what it did, whereas The Godfather still to this day shows you what it is still, and what still makes it great. Maybe I need to see Citizen Kane more, I've only seen it twice thus far, and I've see The Godfather plenty more times, but anyway, that's just me. I'll stop with the Citizen Kane vs Godfather thing now, but I feel I've covered a lot of what I loved about The Godfather.

As I said, Family is an important part of this film. The relationships are very well described and developed in this film. Vito Corleone definitely makes it heard that family is very important to him, and he loves his children, especially Michael who chose not to be apart of the family business. This is especially in his reaction to the news of Michael's actions following the attempted murder of his father. There is a very strong relationship between Michael and his father, also a strong a relationship with each of his brothers, his sister and Tom, his step-brother. Constantly through the film it reminds you about family and your "duty" to them.

If you haven't seen this film, don't expect anything like you've seen before, especially when it comes to the mafia, it is not like GoodFellas, it is something entirely different. It's full of real people, and real situations with real consequences, all the while remaining completely fictional. This is definitely a film everyone should see in their lifetime no matter who you are.

Memento

"Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the colour of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts."

This was the third time I had seen this film, the first, I really enjoyed, the second time I didn't pay too much attention so nothing changed, but this time, I enjoyed the film so much more, because over time my mind had become distorted because even though I thought I remembered what happened and whatnot, I was wrong, which made this film so much more enjoyable.

Title: Memento
Year of Release: 2000
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Crime/Mystery/Drama
Rating: 9/10

Leonard is in the search for a man he thinks raped and murdered his wife. The same man also left Leonard with a major problem, Leonard has short-term memory loss and every so often he will just forget what he is doing and forget the people he has recently met. Leonard uses photos and notes to find the man that caused all this.

This is a film you definitely need to pay attention to, leave for ten minutes and you may find yourself lost. This film is quite different to others in the way it is shown. Instead of following in a chronological order which is easy to follow, this goes in reverse. Each colour scene is before the one you just saw, there are also black and white scenes which are in chronological order though. This definitely made the film sometimes difficult to follow and confusing, but that adds to the overall enjoyment of the film. It doesn't just improve the film by making it more confusing, it makes it better for reasons I can't really say other than it helps in terms of the characters and makes for one hell of a climax.

One thing I noticed which was much more present this time round was that it is more dramatic than I originally thought. You get a great understanding for Leonard's feeling, his anger, his frustration and his disorientation. Guy Pearce does a great job in performing some very great scenes which gives the film a level of tragedy and sadness which is constantly accompanied by the well-suited and fantastic score. You really get a good understanding of the way he lives, thinks and feels, with some of the great dialogue, where he says simple things about his wife, how he remembers her.

Leonard, before all this happened, worked for an insurance company. His job was where he had to investigate certain claims which would be of a decent amount of money, and if he could find a reason which would stop the insurance company from having to pay the claim. This leads to the great addition of the story about Sammy, this story is something you have to pay attention to, it may seem like a side story that isn't really relevant, but it is, it coincides with Leonard's story very well and adds more to his character, I guess, it adds depth, helps you understand more about his problem.

I find it is so easy to spoil things about this film by making a simple comment, so I'm pretty sure I haven't spoiled a thing. This is probably Nolan's best film, very closely followed by The Dark Knight, it has that fantastic Nolan feel that you get from his other films like The Prestige and Following. A definite must see for fans of Nolan's other films, and if your just interested in a great mystery film, looking to be a bit confused.

Wings of Desire

"When the child was a child, it didn’t know that it was a child, everything was soulful, and all souls were one"

Title: Wings of Desire
Year of Release: 1987
Director: Wim Wenders
Genre: Drama/Romance
Rating: 9/10

Damiel is an angel, who spends every day helping and watching humans live their life. He becomes increasingly interested in a trapeze artist, and begins imagining what life would be, imagining the simple pleasures of something as simple as drinking a cup of coffee.

Throughout the entire film, there is little talking, and what I mean by that, I mean person-to-person talking. I'd say 80% of the talking in this film is narration. Because instead of hearing someone talk, a lot of the time, you were hear someones thoughts, seeing as Damiel & Cassiel are both angels. It's very effective I think, there isn't any point in the film where you actually think the thoughts should of been substituted with actual spoken person-to-person talk. A lot of the narration throughout this film is poetic, and seems (at least to me) very confusing, a lot of metaphorical references, terms, or whatever. This style of speech, particularly in one of the last scenes really helps increase the re-watchability (new word), I think. Though I've only seen this once, I know this film is a film you can watch twenty times and still be uncovering certain things, but it's not one where you'll be confused on how certain things happen, or the plot, I'm merely talking about the narration in some parts which add to the quality of this film.

This film mixes a sepia/monochrome look with occasional colour parts. The sepia parts are the way the angels see the world, it's to distinguish the difference, and it is greatly used in a lot of scenes, one in particular that when it goes into colour it's very effective. The sepia look in some scenes really looks good, especially when you see Damiel looking down on some humans near the beginning. The cinematography in this film is really some of the best I have seen in film, quite possibly even the best. There are some point of view shots of the angels which look really good, though you don't see the angels at any point flying above the humans, there is at least one time you see a point of view shot of one flying, can't remember who, exactly. The cinematography is so smooth, I remember one part that, for no particular reason just looked very good to me, and it's where the camera goes over the Berlin wall into the "forbidden zone" (or whatever it was called). I'm sure that every single human being with a pair of eyes can appreciate this films cinematography, it's just so damn good!

There are a lot of scenes where Angel-Human interaction is shown, well, not so much interaction, but how the angels help humans, with a simple touch. It makes for some really good scenes, especially the opening one, where you see a lot of the humans thoughts and whatnot. There is one particular scene involving a suicidal male, who is around his twenties. This scene was very good, but I can't really explain why, just the actual visual appearance of the scene, and effective power that radiates from the scene is really strong. This isn't important or anything, but if you do watch this film, in the opening there is a guy sitting on his bed, is it just me or does he look a lot like James Dean? You don't have to answer that, it's just an unimportant observation.

All in all, a very good film from Wim Wenders, I've only seen this and Paris, Texas, and he has impressed me a lot with the two. This one is very strong and much more appealing, because the style of it is so distinctive I thought, I just really enjoyed this film, I surely wouldn't love it as much if it didn't look the way it looks. I don't really know who to recommend this to, if you admire cinematography? check this out? Possibly fans of the film Stalker may like this, though I really didn't like Stalker, that's one that springs to mind. Oh! If you've seen the remake, City of Angels, spit that one out and stomp on it for a couple minutes, then watch this! As I've said, it's very good.

My top 100.

Hi, I've created a new blog where I am going to be posting my top 100 films of all time. As well, I'll probably post things like my top 10 Horror films, and things like that.

Click me to go to my Top 100 Films of All Time

The Bicycle Thief

"Why should I kill myself worrying when I'll end up just as dead?"

Title: The Bicycle Thief
Year of Release: 1948
Director: Vittorio De Sica
Genre: Drama/Crime
Rating: 10/10

This Post-WWII Italian film is about a poor man who is lucky enough to get a job, a decent paying one too, but for him to keep this job he needs to use his bicycle, not long after starting the job his bicycle is stolen, he and his son begin looking for it, it is extremely important to him he gets it back, without it, he and his family have little chance of surviving very long.

I didn't find it at all difficult to get into this film, from the beginning to the end I was interested and right into this film. It's one of those films that is very simple yet very good. I really do not want to spoil anything but this film will definitely leave an impression on you if you stick around until the end. It's short, I'm sure you can make it. I had my doubts, a man trying to find his bike, in Rome? Seemed a little too simple and a little too difficult. I don't know if that is what others have thought, and think, but trust me, get past that feeling and you will not regret it.

The characters are not professional actors as well. Vittorio decided to go with amateurs, which I think was a good decision. This film has a very realistic and authentic feel to it, all the characters seem like real people, which again adds to the power of this film, because by the end you sympathize with Riffi and his son in their search of the mans bicycle. The little boy was fantastic in this film and from the very beginning I found him very interesting, he does not seem like a completely normal kid, well maybe it's just the Italian culture, but he seemed very mature, plus I love the way he does the whole "Take it easy" sort of reaction to certain things, ya know, the reaction you see in Mobster movies. Lamberto Maggiorani, who played Antonio, was also very fantastic and felt very authentic, I don't know how to describe him, other than by just saying he does a perfect job of detailing how a desperate man would be, it's that simple, really.

The ending is definitely a very strong point in this film, it is the perfect ending to such a fantastic film. Of course, I don't want to spoil anything, I've mentioned before that this film is powerful, the ending is by far the part that raises it from good to great. I don't have a lot to say, it's my first time seeing this film and maybe in a second viewing I will take more notice to certain details, but this time round I was just enjoying the experience of seeing this film for the first time, and the best thing was that I underestimated it.

A Clockwork Orange

"The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence. "

Title: A Clockwork Orange
Year of Release: 1971
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Genre: Drama/Crime/Thriller
Rating: 7.5/10

Set in (at the time) the future, the film follows Alex (played by Malcolm McDowell), who is a hoodlum criminal who commits some terrible crimes, goes to jail and then volunteers for an experimental test therapy to make him "cured" of wanting to commit a crime.

The acting from Malcolm McDowell is generally spot on, but I felt a lot of the rest of the cast were mediocre actors. Particularly Alex's "Drooges", I'm not sure which one it was, but the entire time he was apart of the film he would just sit there and giggle, and it really felt to me quite forced so it bothered me, but I could get past that. But at later parts the same actor was mediocre, who just seemed to be read lines and giggle like a little school girl. It wasn't just him, though which I felt wasn't too great in the acting aspect, some of the other people let down, though it was generally minor things, when they gather, its more clustered.

Whenever I read about this film, people always talk about how "graphic" they though this film was, or how disgusted they were about all the nudity, and sexuality everywhere. There is undoubtedly quite a lot of those things, for example, a lot of nude art, rape, sex and nudity, even a penis shaped ice block. Though people may see this as perverted and exploitive, I see it as very necessary, without it being this "graphic" it would not be at all disturbing in any sort of aspect, it would just be "Oh, rape.. interesting.". It also feels like it's an intention to show that the times have changed from the older days, and now the world has become quite a different one, so by emphasizing on that aspect you get a grasp of that intention. With that all said, I don't think it is that graphic, it's not like you will want to cover your eyes or look away, but it's enough to get the point across, and it's the content that is what "does it".

From the opening scene right until the end, this is quite obviously a different and stylised film. Though that's not an entirely bad thing, just at times, it felt to me Kubrick was trying too hard to stylise it. But a lot of it is very interesting and great, but again, as I said, just it clusters a bit and begins to become a bit over the top, defeating the point, or the intention. Now this may be contributed to the novel, and Kubrick was just trying to keep faithful in every detail, but since I haven't read the novel, I won't go there.

The film really stresses over certain aspects of psychology, that one must be able to choose to remain "human". It is quite affective throughout, using the "Ludovico technique", which is where they forcibly keep your eyes open and make you view disturbing videos, while your on some sort of drug which makes you feel like your dying, or makes you want to die, to some extent, thus making you not want to commit crimes, etc. Despite building this up quite a lot, I felt that in the end, they didn't go too far with it, I'm not saying the ending was "bad", but they could have done more, or thats how I felt.

Despite my criticisms of this film, I still enjoyed it, and it is still a good film, but it does have it's fair share of mediocrities, which seem to be less talked about when it comes to this film in particular. I haven't thought long and hard about this film, but I did try talk about as much as I could.

Click me to view the trailer!

IMDb

Hello, I've now added all the reviews onto IMDb, and I'll begin making a habit on putting my reviews both on here and there. Also for those who have come across this blog from other than IMDb, you can go to the IMDb page for whatever film I have reviewed and tell me what you think of my review there because I would of made a thread in the message board.

Thanks.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days

"I'll go to the bathroom. When I come out, you give your answer. If it's yes, tell me who goes first. If it's no, I get up and go."

I've been wanting to see this for quite a while, I suddenly got in the mood and just decided to watch it, got more than I had anticipated.

Title: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
Year of Release: 2007
Director: Cristian Mungiu
Genre: Drama
Rating: 8/10

This is a film set in the 1980's, in Romania. A woman wants to have an illegal abortion, she needs her friend, Otilia's help with arranging the abortion, etc.

I found this quite an exciting film which is weird thinking back because I don't think it is an exciting film of sorts, I don't think the intention is to be excited while watching the film. I'm not sure if the intention in certain scenes was to make you feel paranoid and worry about what is going to happen, that's how I felt throughout the entire film, that really made me enjoy it more. I'm sure a lot of people will find this film quite boring because there are a lot of scenes with little or no dialogue, one scenes goes for about six or seven minutes where the main character doesn't talk at all, only the people around her are talking, and it's nothing amazing, it's just small talk conversation. The constant use of silence throughout this film I felt was very affective, it really helped you feel how awkward, or worried the characters themselves felt. I personally don't find any of the scenes in this film pointless or overlong, which I'm sure other peoples opinion differs on.

The simplicity of the films plot is quite different from the usual, but the film itself isn't simple. There is a lot of mental and emotional feelings sent through this film. For those who watch this film in search for a film about pro/anti-abortions and political statements against Communist Romania, you won't get any of those. This film keeps itself simple and simply shows what the two women had to go through, their struggles and troubles. As I've said, this is a simple film, but there are some subtleties that help improve the film and for me at least, it lets you get paranoid and sometimes over-think certain elements.

I don't have a lot to say about this film, simply put, I just really enjoyed this. It really connects you to the characters feelings and uses some basic techniques to greatly enhance each scene. As a side note, this film looks really good too, has a nice foreign look to it (yup that's how I'll describe it ;D). For those who are interested and don't mind some decent length scenes with little dialogue I'm sure you'll enjoy this Romanian film.

Click me to view the trailer!