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!

Letters from Iwo Jima

"We soldiers dig. We dig all day. This is the hole that we will fight and die in. Am I digging my own grave?"

I first saw this a while ago, I really enjoyed it, but I still had the sour taste of Flags of our Four Fathers in my mouth, I really did not like Flags. This was so much different, and had so much more depth, it was far superior.

Title: Letters from Iwo Jima
Year of Release: 2006
Director: Clint Eastwood
Genre: Drama/History/War
Rating: 9/10

Letters from Iwo Jima is an unbiased film about the Japanese side of the Battle of Iwo Jima. It centers around General Kuribayashi, the man who is in charge, and Saigo, a baker conscripted into the army, he is not an ideal soldier, either.

One thing that is very obvious from the first scene, is the great way this was filmed. I don't know how to describe it, but everything seems to look one colour almost, it's very plain and so beautiful. It seems to be similar style of cinematography as in The Pianist & Saving Private Ryan, very bland colours. The cinematography in this film is superior than both Pianist and Private Ryan, because it really works perfectly in every scene, in every frame. The lighting particularly on the actual battlefields is great, really helps build your tension accompanied by the score, which leads me to my next point.

The score was very good, a lot of the time it is able to blend into the film well, you go on not noticing it. It's very quiet and subtle throughout, which really suits the mood, I felt. When they are fighting at night time, pitch black sky, very little details, you can only see whats practically directly around the camera, nothing in the distance, no stars, no nothing, in those scenes, the music really builds your excitement, to me, it really felt like the sort of music you would hear in a Horror film of sorts, not the sharp, loud and quick sort, but the quiet sort that builds and builds.

I cannot find a better example of a film depicting a completely unbiased view of both America and the Japanese during World War II. Neither are portrayed as more stupid, or cruel than the other, they are both shown for what they are, men. The propaganda the government fed them and led them to believe the other side were violent savages that you cannot reason with. This film shows that, it shows a lot of stubborn ignorant Japanese soldiers who are brainwashed into thinking committing suicide is a better choice than retreating to help elsewhere. The film uses letters to show that the two sides are exactly the same. The government really brainwashed the military men, the cattle of war, and the letters show the soldiers they are much the same, it shows them that the men they are killing are brothers, fathers, husbands and sons, much like themselves. I really admire this film for that. As well, just to throw in something to help connect the dots of those who lag behind, it shows American soldiers not being as kind as they are thought to have been in the War, believe it or not, they too mistreated Prisoners of War.

Kazunari Ninomiya plays Saigo, he does it very well, he has the look and everything down, he isn't a super-soldier, he isn't an even average soldier. He is a baker, that is more optimistic and Ninomiya really seemed to capture that and deliver a very emotional performance that felt very real. Ken Watanabe who plays the General also delivers an emotional performance, he is a man who feels the need to die for a cause, a man who felt he needs to die with dignity and have some significance. It got very frustrating when the over-the-top close minded patriots of the 'Imperial Army' disobeyed him because they thought his ways were stupid, cowardly and wrong. Watanabe's performance really helped you feel his frustration, with the assistance of, I think, Shido Nakamura who fed you the frustration on a plate. Ryo Kase plays the part of a man who is desperately trying to be an ideal soldier, and an ideal patriot but struggles because he is human and he wants to live, Ryo Kase, also delivered an emotional performance that was phenomenal (yes, I know I'm repeating emotional performance a lot). I'll stop listing the actors and whatnot and just say the acting from everyone was amazing.

I feel this is the greatest war film to date, it's very realistic and very unbiased which you don't come across much, and even when you do, it's not often done very well. Not just that, but the film is a treat to just look at, and/or listen to. It's definitely Clint Eastwoods best film that he has directed. I highly recommend this to anyone interested.

Click me to view the trailer!

The Pianist

"Thank God, not me. He wants us to survive. Well, that's what we have to believe."

It's been a while since I had seen this, so I thought I'd watch it, I had forgotten a hell of a lot about this which only added to the enjoyment.

Title: The Pianist
Year of Release: 2002
Director: Roman Polanski
Genre: Biography/Drama/Music/War
Rating: 8.5/10

The Pianist is the almost unbelievable true story of Wladyslaw Szpilman's struggles to survive as a Jew in Warsaw during World War II. His will to live is driven by his desire to play the Piano.

After watching the short documentary thing on the other disc for The Pianist, I found out Roman Polanski himself survived the holocaust too as a child, he lost his mother because of it, and he was able to reunite with his father after the war, luckily. The documentary showed how much Polanski got involved with this film, he really made an effort to be realistic, authentic and true to the source material. It was incredibly obvious that this was all of those. During this terrible time there is no glamorizing what happened, there can't be any characters that is "cool" that you sit there admiring and longing to be like, if it was like that then this film would fail. Thankfully it shows it very dimly, and quite graphic.

The cinematography is kept simple, again, this is not the film to stylize with, there are some beautiful shots, but everything is relatively simple and traditional in the way it was filmed. The art direction was phenomenal on the other hand. The destroyed buildings, and the way everything was so pale and colourless. It helps paint the picture that this is a very downbeat and sad time and merges very well with the story.

Adrien Brody was made for this role, I haven't really seen him in anything else that was even half as great as his performance in this, I admire him a lot because this film, sure some just hit a lucky note, or have a great director to help, but he really seemed to put the effort in and do a great job. He was obviously dedicated, starving himself so he lost 30 pounds to look the part of a very hungry man, also learned the Piano, and another I learnt from the documentary, he wanted so much to feel the same sort of lonesomeness Wladyslaw would of felt, so to feel a small fraction of that, he sold almost everything he owned and got out of contact of a lot of people he knew during filming. I respect him a lot for doing that, it's good to see he didn't just learn his lines but really put an effort in learning his role.

This was, I think, my third viewing of this film, and I forgot the majority of the film. The final 30-50 minutes of this film is all I remembered really. It's his most isolated time, though the rest of the film is magnificent, I don't know, the last quarter or so is the best, I don't want to spoil anything, but I'm sure you will be amazed, because this is one incredible story, and it's so perfect for a film that it feels unreal because it's just so damn extraordinary.

That's all I have to say really. A great film about the holocaust, survival and hope. I recommend it to fans of Polanski as this is quite unique, also fans of Brody should definitely see this because his performance in this is unmatched by any of his other performances and it's just a great film.

Click me to view the trailer!

Badlands

"At this moment, I didn't feel shame or fear, but just kind of blah, like when you're sitting there and all the water's run out of the bathtub."

I remember reading a while back about the serial killers this film is based off and I stumbled upon this film, only recently I had decided to watch it.

Title: Badlands
Year of Release: 1973
Director: Terrence Mallick
Genre: Drama/Romance/Crime
Rating: 7.5/10

This film is about Kit and Holly, Kit 25, Holly 15, they fall in love. Kit is quite a poor man, Holly's father doesn't approve of Kit and Holly being together. Kit desperate to not be separated from Holly, he kills her father. They then flee from police and bounty hunters across America.

Martin Sheen makes this great film so much better. His character is a complicated one, he doesn't really show his emotions, not even his love for Holly, but regardless it is obvious he loves her a lot. He is quite trigger-happy and kills people without thinking twice, and he never shows any large deal of regret. The character of Kit is certainly very interesting. Holly is quite a lot the same as Kit, but she is not a killer. She just is a young foolish girl going with the flow simply because Kit is the first male to ever love her like the way he does. She doesn't approve of him killing, but she doesn't question it or bug him either. Kit knows what he has done is wrong, and from the beginning he is willing to take whatever is coming. Kit, despite killing people he is still very likable, it seems he has a few screws loose but he still seems human, not a psychopathical killer, this is especially obvious in the later scenes.

This is one of those films that is short and simple, yet so great. The acting is as I've said quite damn good, the characters are interesting, and the plot, just as interesting. It's not a explicit film, it doesn't glorify killing in any way, it doesn't make killing look cool, and the characters aren't intended to be all that cool either. It's not like many other films about Serial Killers, usually, they will go into the psychology a little more than this, they will try show them to be Monsters, unreasonable and disgusting, these characters aren't any of those characteristics. Again, this does not justify killing, but it's very unique in it's approach to such a morbid subject.

The soundtrack is interesting, it doesn't consist of exciting tension building pieces, it's relatively the same throughout. It's quite mellow and as I've said, it's mostly the same throughout. It does enhance the scenes but not for the typical reasons, to build excitement, tension, fear, etc, but mainly just to help mold the general feel of the film and help you get the general gist of the films approach, it really fits in perfectly.

The scenery and cinematography is outstanding. There is quite a few long shots used with the emptiness of the desert and the rising sun (or sundown). These sort of shots are done quite often in numerous films, they fit in quite well with this film, and usually helps you know that the characters are deep thinking. The use of medium close up shots are also used quite well and create more wonderful looking scenes.

Personally it felt to me like there wasn't all that much talking in this film, there is plenty of narration which is great, helps you along, jumps unnecessary scenes that probably wouldn't suit this film. This film I felt doesn't show you a lot, but shows you enough for you to just know everything. Don't get me wrong, it shows you the obviously important things, nothing is like implied or anything, just, it's like describing something quite simply enough for the listener to get the point (maybe like this?).

Anyway, it's a nice film to watch, a very good performance from Sheen, and just a generally interesting film, it's short, and simple. There is a lot of subtle symbolism with certain sound effect you probably won't notice, but little things you will pick up on other viewings (I've seen it once, but I just know this). If you were interested in what I've said, you will enjoy this film, I'm sure.

Click me to view the trailer!

Once Upon a Time in America

"I hope the investigation turns out to be nothing; it'd be a shame to see a lifetime of work go to waste."

I've owned this film for about two years, but I was too lazy to even give a good attempt at watching this since it runs close to four hours. I just decided to watch it, planning to have a break in between discs, I didn't end up needing that break.

Title: Once Upon a Time in America
Year of Release: 1984
Director: Sergio Leone
Genre: Drama/Crime
Rating: 8.5/10

This film is about Noodles, played by Robert De Niro, who at the beginning you see go into hiding, at that point you don't know why. He is then drawn out of hiding 35 years later, again, for an unknown reason. The film chronicles four boys rise from being twobit hoods to gangsters.

During De Niro's golden days (70's-mid 90's) it was harder to find a movie that De Niro didn't deliver a great performance in than one he delivered a terrible performance in. This and Taxi Driver I would have to say are his best performances to date. Moments before the infamous scene in a car, his facial expressions showed all emotions you could imagine to running through him at that particular point. De Niro is quite widely known to be a "Method Actor", the way he just sinks into his role like it was himself was incredible, I'm not sure what exactly he himself did to prepare, but I certainly got the feeling that he truly cared for his role, and put a lot of effort into it, much like Leone did into even being allowed to make this film.

The picture above shows only a frame of such an incredible scene. The tall buildings, the distant bridge, the four boys walking and little Dominic dancing down the street. This is a perfect example of great use of a long shot. What follows this great moment is a scene that I think is one of the best in this film. The way Dominic turns and runs back "Bugsy is coming!", everything slows down, they turn and run, with fear painted right on their face, it certainly is very intense. "I tripped", a great line that effects the hoodlums, and gives the chance for a time jump, and helps life their level of being simple hoods up to no good into something far more serious.

This film is does so much more (like any great film, really) than just stick to a genre in particular. A lot of people may watch this in hope for a good gangster film, I'm sure you will find that in this film, but there is far more than just being about the crimes committed. It does a great job in showing how the boys develop into men, and how their relationship develops. This film, certainly does sit on relationships a lot, not just friendship and loyalty, but love and most of all, betrayal. Which increases this film from good to great.

The musical score was great, I've read of people not liking the choice of having "Yesterday" in the film, but I had no problem with it personally. The theme that is played numerous times was great. I don't have much to say about the score though really. I didn't pay enough attention to it, but I know I liked it, but I can't think of any examples where it enhanced scenes.

This film is quite graphic, I've read of people being greatly disinterested from this film because of the nudity that is present throughout, the violence that is there from the very beginning, and also the sex, mostly that involving adolescent teens. I don't have any smart words to dismiss these problems some felt, simply, get over it.

This film is quite a long film, running slightly under four hours, I thought it would be a struggle to pull myself through this in one go, so as I've said, I was prepared to watch it in two parts. I was so immersed in the story and just generally eager to find out the reason for Noodles' return. I'm sure there are some people out there though that will find this a long film, I'm not sure about your copy, but mine is two dvd's, half of the film on each disc, I suggest if your tired of the film, stop between the discs, though if you think you will only need about five minutes, just wait until the intermission that appears about twenty minutes or so into the second disc. I urge you greatly to make it through the film though.

Overall, a great film, worth watching, especially if you liked The Godfather, I recommend this to you.

Click me to view the trailer!

Generation Kill

"You Americans have killed a lot of sand. The sand was very evil."

From a video I saw this looked quite interesting so I bothered to watch it, but really, the main reason I bothered was because it was done by the two guys who created The Wire, the greatest television show (at least in my opinion) of all time.

Title: Generation Kill
Year of Release: 2008
Creators: David Simon & Ed Burns
Genre: Drama/War
Rating: 9/10

This mini-series follows the 1st Recon Marines who has a Rolling Stone reporter attached to their crew to report during America's invasion of Iraq 2003.

Much like The Wire this show is incredibly realistic. I'm no soldier or master of military tactics, but you don't need to be to know how realistic this show is, there are no super-hero's in this film, no Rambo's, there are simply real people fighting a war. One man won't just take on about 50 armed with a mere pistol and his trusty spoon[?]. It's so much more enjoyable when the show/film you are watching truly feels authentic.

One thing among the many great things with this show, is that it does a very good job of showing how incredibly morbid the war is, it doesn't sugarcoat is, it certainly isn't propaganda made to make you want to join the military. It shows badly hurt or killed children, and America soldiers accidentally or purposely killing innocent unarmed civilians. As I've said, it's very graphic for effect, it really wants to get the point across that this war that is going on is ridiculous, and the American's approach at certain elements was very stupid and heartless. This isn't anti-American or anything, don't get me wrong. The affect of the war has a different effect on numerous of the soldiers, some enjoy it and love shooting, etc, whereas some are deeply affected by the war and feel a great sadness to what is going on, and how ruthless they must be. I felt when they saw the passports of some of the "soldiers" they had killed and realised that the men they had just killed were in another country and came specifically to fight off the Americans, some of the contents of their wallets even showed some of them were attending University, I thought that was very effective. The name really does say it all.

The action sequences throughout the series were phenomenal. They managed to make them very exciting, sad, shocking and beautiful at the same time, particularly at night. At night in the distant towns and villages you would see explosions and gunfire, it really did look amazing. Of course. The sadness shown in the action sequences, as I have mentioned would be definitely regarding when innocent people were killed, they don't just touch on this element once, it is quite frequent. Well, shocking is quite self explanatory.

I know I haven't really done the show much justice here, so I'll quickly just wrap this up, the show is fantastic. Everything basically is great, the only real flaws in the show I feel are regarding certain characters, mainly that they were either annoying or cliché to some extent. I recommend this show to anyone interested in the war still going on, this is quite realistic and at no point is it ever boring. Actually, to add to the downsides, it is very short, only 7 episodes, but then I guess it is a mini-series..

Click me to view a video on this show!

8½

"The truth is: I do not know... I seek... I have not yet found. Only with this in mind can I feel alive and look at you without shame"

I watched this a while ago, I was left quite confused and frustrated with the film, but giving it time, thinking back on it I began to really like it, so I decided to watch it again. It was a much better experience the second time round.

Title: 8½
Year of Release: 1963
Director: Federico Fillini
Genre: Drama
Rating: 10/10

This film is about a man called Guido who is a successful Italian film director, he has began working on a new film, he has lined up some people to star in the film, he has a Producer who is constantly pressuring him to begin filming, after stressfully working on a script it is constantly criticized by a man he asks to critique it. Guido is having a lot of trouble on trying to finally make up his mind on what exactly he is doing, no one even knowns what part they are auditioning about and no one really knows what the film is about, but it has a Spaceship in it.

The film achieves a lot, one example I felt was the fact you feel confused and overwhelmed much like Guido feels in the film. Constantly he is pressured, poked and prodded to hurry up and tell each person their part, and what exactly the film is about. Especially the Producer who was perfect, he had the whole look down, from the moment you see him, this old fat man with a young women at his side, you instantly think "asshole". I'm sure even if you didn't like this film, I'm sure you would of felt or at least realised how incredibly overwhelmed and stressed Guido must feel, they just don't give him a break.

Throughout the film the film will transition into a dream, which at some points is quite obvious, but at others you may be sitting there going "Whaa??" until the part of the dream that defines it as a dream, I didn't have a problem the second time through, the first time I got confused quite a lot, keep in mind though I was quite tired (another factor why I wasn't too huge on it the first time). The dreams throughout the film are great in showing how Guido feels about himself, his past, the film he wants to make, etc. They give you an insight into Guido's mindset.

Each moment in the film is a moment I can look back, smile and go "Wow", each scene looked and felt so amazing. A lot of the frames in the film could be frozen and made into a picture you put in your home or in a prestigious art gallery, really fantastic cinematography. Some films benefit from being Black and White, and some benefit from being in colour, this definitely needs to be black and white, because I think if this was in colour it would just distract you, and give it less meaning, whereas because it's in black and white, it stays simple and the messages given across are far more simple which is better in this case. I don't really know how else to describe why this is better in black and white than I'm sure it would be in colour, just simply I'm sure it would be better in black and white than in colour, I feel the same when it comes to Night of the Living Dead.

The acting by the entire cast was fantastic, the characters I felt, were biased in favor of Guido's feelings and shown mostly how Guido saw them. A lot of the characters were annoying, and misunderstood Guido. Tried to control Guido, and boss him around, a lot of them didn't even really know Guido but would obviously claim they did. Though Guido may have understood some of their views, and maybe even respected some of them, I still felt as if he didn't really care about them too much, which is where the end comes in.

The ending, the final scene, the final five minutes (give or take a couple minutes) of 8½ are crucial and so perfectly done. It seems as if the film described Guido plans to make is somewhat similar to the actual film [8½]. I don't know this by my own knowledge, but it has been said that this is quite strongly autobiographical for Federico Fellini (director) which you can sort of feel by the end, at least it seemed that way to me. I can't say much about the ending in particular without spoiling it, so I'll just say, pay attention to the end.

I did not forget about the music, I just simply don't know what to say other than it was perfect and captures the mood perfectly. Do not expect a very simple straight forward and normal film, because you will not get that from 8½ and that is for sure. 8½ is a very unique film, that is easily described as "weird", I guess. I loved practically every aspect of the film. It's a decent length, only a little over two hours, so those interested, check it out.

Click me to view the trailer!

The Tenant

"These days, relationships with neighbors can be... quite complicated"

I saw Rosemary's Baby when studying the Horror genre at school, not long ago I watched Repulsion and now I thought I'd check this out since I had loved both Rosemary's Baby and Repulsion. This did not let down. By the way, I can see myself talking about Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby through this sorry if you have not seen either, but you'll get over it.

Title: The Tenant
Year of Release: 1976
Director: Roman Polanski
Genre: Thriller/Mystery/Horror
Rating: 8.5/10

The Tenant is about a man called Trelkovsky who moves into an apartment immediately after the previous tenant had commit suicide. Of course, following the tradition set by Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, nothing is what it seems, nothing is ever so simple in this film.

One thing I'm sure everyone who has seen this film will agree on is that it is very creepy. The other films in Polanski's unofficial trilogy are creepy too, but they are all different in what makes them creepy, but they all roughly deal with the same thing, they all deal with the mind. Definitely the staring people are very creepy, each of them sent shivers down my spine that made me incapable of sitting still. Again, if you have seen the other two films mentioned, I'm sure you'll find this quite creepy, because you begin to expect typical Polanski traits that you think you have caught onto, he is aware of this and will keep teasing you with simple things, personally every time Trelkovsky would slowly turn around I would be bracing myself for a jump, maybe that's just me, but it felt intended to do that, though it was quite subtle, there is no build up of the music in those moments.

The acting in this was pretty good, mostly that from Polanski of course, the other characters in the film don't have all that much time to outshine the lead. Polanski really proves himself as an all-round great filmmaker, he not only can direct and write great films, but he can actually act too. I don't think there is any other better person who could have pulled off the Trelkovsky character, Polanski settled right on in perfectly. I like seeing films where the director is also apart of the main cast, to me it really highlights their fantastic versatility and talent, which I respect greatly.

One thing I didn't like about this film is how it was done in English. For those who don't know, this is a French film, American financed, and as well to make it more commercially successful it was mostly done in English. There are parts which it is very obvious there has been dubbing, and I don't know why it is, but 3/4 of the time when there is a dub they get the complete wrong person to do the dub. There is a women in the film who when she speaks it's obvious it's a dub, but they got the most annoying person to do the voice-over, it was seriously pain to my ears to hear her speak, she had the loudest high pitch voice I've heard in a while, it almost seemed fake, but I don't see what the point was, she was a rather small character. I honestly would of preferred if they just left it as it was filmed, parts of it in French and parts of it in English, because the dubbing in this film was a pain and was not near (two completely different films, I know) the high standard of another film that did a similar thing, which was, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I realise it's not a big problem, just when you do realise it, it gets annoying, but I'm sure you won't sit there the long trying to lip read what they are actually saying, regardless if you know French.

Whats so great about Polanski is that he will let you think you know him, that you know his style, which in some aspects you do, but really, you can't see whats behind that corner. This film is a lot more open to interpretation than the other two films mentioned, which I think really strengthens this one in particular. I personally feel this is the best of the three, I'm unsure which comes next, but they are all relatively close in their level of greatness. The ending is fantastic, it is so easy to dwindle on it for a long time to come and get nowhere. I choose not to think to much on it, just to have my personal opinion and leave it at that.

I've rambled on, and I haven't really given any insight on what makes this film so great, I don't think, so I'll quickly do it here. If you liked Repulsion and/or Rosemary's Baby, I guarantee you will enjoy this film to say the least. For those who are too unfortunate to have seen either then I recommend you check this film out if your looking for something that is quite a creepy film that is quite intelligent, particularly the end, as well if your looking for something that deals with the mind, paranoia even, though that is better fitted under Repulsion.

Click me to watch the trailer!

Lawrence of Arabia

"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."

I've been interested in seeing this film for a while, just I've been too lazy to watch the film. It was great.

Title: Lawrence of Arabia
Year of Release: 1962
Director: David Lean
Genre: Adventure/Biography/Drama/War
Rating: 9.5/10

This film is about Lawrence, an English soldier who is viewed as a man who is foolish and quite useless, he is very educated and passionate about Arabia, and he goes there to investigate the Arab revolt against Turkey during World War I.

Well to anyone who has seen this film knows that the cinematography is absolutely amazing, the desert looks really beautiful and the shots are fantastic. It really helps make the scenes more enjoyable and the amazing scenery and great cinematography make the typically long scenes presented in a traditional "epic" film very amazing and jaw dropping. What initially attracted me to this film was definitely the desert scenes, I don't know what it is, but I just find deserts interesting and appealing. I love westerns mainly for that reason, the setting is great. I also think the attire the Arabians wear looks great, sure I wouldn't wear it myself, but in a film, it's very cool, I think. When you see them riding on their camels or horses riding into battle with their swords raised, those scenes are great, they really do look like modern warriors.

The character development is very good, probably only matched by the Godfather and Citizen Kane. There are no jumps in character personality, and the way it shows two sides to some of the characters, instead of showing them in a typical one-sided view. The character of Lawrence on the outside appears very likable but he has tendencies that can make him in some eyes unlikable. Which definitely makes him interesting. Lawrence is certainly not a simple character, there are a lot of complexities to his character, and he only becomes more and more complicated through the film, he's not quite a man you can guess what he does and what he is capable of, the only thing you can be sure of is, he is very determined to accomplish what he sets his mind to, despite all doubt.

Like Akira Kurosawa does in most of his films, there are a lot of long shots in this film, and there are few close shots, only a handful if even that many, but I remember seeing one, I cannot remember exactly of who, but it did feel strange to see it there. A lot of the time you won't notice the shots used in a film, but this is one you do, it's very effective, the use of long shots in this film in particular, more relevant than in a Kurosawa film, if I may say so myself. The long shots really help showcase the beautiful desert, the armies of men, as well, the empty vastness of the desert and how difficult of an adventure the men all go through, particularly through the Nefud desert, the desert which was considered impassable, there is no water for a long while and the sun constantly shines on you all the time, there is no resting in that area.

The battle scenes are astonishing, especially the "No prisoners!" battle scene. It's good they didn't dwindle on lengthy battle scenes for effect, because it doesn't seem relevant to this film in particular. This film is not an action film, and I don't think anyone should really watch this for the action, though the action is very good and whatnot, another example is with the trains. This film I think should be viewed because of it's amazing cinematography and brilliant character development, alone, the development as I've said is matched by Citizen Kane and Godfather, the cinematography in my opinion is matched by Apocalypse Now, 2001: A Space Odyssey (I guess that's debatable for some, but I loved it) and Seven Samurai, the two combined though are unmatched by any film, it is definitely a great achievement in film history.

If your interested in seeing this film, go ahead and watch it, if it interests you, it will match or surpass your expectations, no doubt. It's over three hours, so if you have a relatively short attention span like myself it MIGHT be a stretch to watch this, I had no problem, I even skipped the intermission, isn't it interesting how they had intermission actually edited into the film, how things change, eh? Expect amazing scenes, amazing acting and fantastic characters because that's what you'll get and more!

Click me to view the trailer!

Breaking Bad

"Some straight like you, giant stick up his ass, age what? Sixty? He's just gonna break bad?"

After hearing a lot of praise for this show, I have finally finished Season One, by god, it's amazing!

• Title: Breaking Bad
• Year of Release: 2008
• Creator: Vince Gilligan
• Genre: Drama/Crime
• Rating: 8.5/10

This show is about a man, Walter White, begins to have a midlife crisis around the time he discovers he has Lung Cancer, he decides turns to crime, and begins making meth to leave some money behind in fear that if he dies he may leave his wife in debt. To make things even more complex, his brother in law works for the DEA.

Bryan Cranston leads the cast as Walter White Sr, yes, Bryan Cranston, Hal from Malcom in the Middle. This show in the first episode alone outdoes his great success in any or all of the Malcom in the Middle episodes. With this show he certainly has brought a lot of respect for the man, people loved his character in Malcom in the Middle but once the show was over there was nowhere he could really go, he wasn't too big, and he hadn't shown any real talent and versatility. This show has done everything he needed to show the world he is a very good actor and now I don't doubt that he will become big after this, he deserves it, he really is amazing.

Not only is Cranston an amazing actor but so is the rest of the cast! They're all relatively fresh faces, which is always a good thing when they're all doing wonderful performances. Aaron Paul plays his part very well and doesn't become just another annoying "wigger", which makes the show so much more enjoyable instead of having to drag myself through the scenes with him in it. I was surprised to find out that RJ Mitte (Walter White Jr) actually does have cerebral palsy himself as well as play a character who has it, he does a truly fantastic job, especially in one episode in particular, those who have seen the show I'm sure know what I'm talking about, for those who haven't you can look forward to it.

When I was about to watch the show I was expecting a comedy, after watching brief commercials and whatnot it appeared relatively comedic and I just could not picture Cranston playing a serious role. To my delight this show is a serious one, there are some minor comedic parts in some of the episodes but those come with most good shows. I have no problems with comedy shows, I love them, it's just when it comes to a show that is simply funny, after watching it I can shrug it off despite having laughed my ass off for 30-60 minutes, but with a serious show that is really good, I may be left in awe awaiting the next episode.

The way the show approaches the issues that are in the show are dealt with quite well. Cancer, of course, is very serious, and it is not simply there for the story, it is properly implemented into the show and is taken very seriously, and deals with the issue whether you should get the expensive treatment, be miserable and maybe still die but you might live or just live your last days/weeks/months/years normally. The show is really strong in that aspect. It has a long range of what is presented. It deals with very serious family issues, of course, it isn't particularly easy having a son with cerebral palsy and it is briefly dealt with seriously, another thing the show touches on several times is the general moral issue of is what Walt doing justified? As well as dealing with those issues, the other side is the drug side, the crime side if you will, which is very interesting and entertaining, especially when you get Walter Sr, need for vengeance and mercury all in one room and trust me, that is one hell of a combo.

There are two things that bother me the most about this show though, and these are the MOST bothering things (yes, I repeated myself). I don't like the character Tuco to a small extent, just the parts where he tries too hard to be Joe Pesci's Tommy DeVito from Goodfellas. Another thing is the fact they don't seem to stress very much how incredibly bad meth really is, they do so well in every aspect, maybe they just haven't got around to it yet, I guess they only had 7 episode for season one, hopefully they improve that part, especially when they don't just make dirty meth, they make clean pure meth.

I recommend this show to anyone, honestly, open audience to those age appropriate. If your a fan of Bryan Cranston from his character of Hal in Malcom in the Middle, you will be shocked to see him show such diversity, it's really amazing, as I've said. It's a good all round show, it doesn't spend much time trying to be violent, it doesn't have an f-bomb every fifth word. There is some crafty scripting put into this show. So, please, even if you think it sounds a bit iffy, give it a shot, it's quite good, I promise.

Click me to view an an advertisement for "Breaking Bad"

Re-Animator

"Who's going to believe a talking head? Get a job in a sideshow."

I simply got interested in seeing this film, I'm a fan of "Zombie" films, so I decided I'd give this a shot after reading all the praise for the film. It was decent enough.

• Title: Re-Animator
• Year of Release: 1985
• Director: Stuart Gordon
• Genre: Comedy/Horror/Sci-Fi
• Rating: 6.5/10

This is a film adaption of a tale by H.P. Lovecraft, in which a Medical student called Hupert West knows the way to "re-animate" the dead (bring them back to life).

Well, for those who aren't sure whether this is quite suitable to watch with your parents or little siblings, trust me, it isn't. It's filled with quite a lot of fun brainless (pun intended :D) gore and there is also a fair bit of nudity, now you sickos who have already grabbed their car keys to grab the film just because it has nudity, let me tell you, it's not beautiful, a lot of it is surrounded by either a headless dude or it's a whole lot of Zombie nudity. Yes, put your keys away, and continue reading. There is quite a lot of blood and guts in the film so I guess this goes without saying, but what the hey! Squeamish people, I don't think you should watch this. It's not particularly realistic violence or anything even to the level of violence in the mindless dribble flick Hostel, but still, there is a fair bit of violence.

This isn't one of those films where your puzzled by the explanations they give for how they managed to overcome the impossible and how great they are and whatnot, I can't recall any scientific explanation, simply "Well I got this thing right, what it does is re-animate people, k?", so don't go expecting some intelligent film, this isn't the one your looking for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this film is stupid, because it isn't, if you are interested in seeing this film, and have seen any footage or read anything about it, you should know what to expect, and it's rather obvious from footage whether it's a film you can or can't watch.

It certainly doesn't take itself seriously, some may view this as a comedy, something I guess down the lines like Evil Dead II, I personally didn't find it too funny, it had it's moments, but I wouldn't consider this a comedy, but then again after watching the film it does have that sort of feel to it, but I guess thats simply because it's not a dead serious film (pun intended, again, :D).

This was about how good I expected it to be, I had hoped though it would be better, but it was still enjoyable, it wasn't a magnificent film nor was it a bad one. It was worth the hour and a half because it was still quite enjoyable. There isn't much else in my opinion to say about the film, if you simply watch the trailer you get the gist of what to expect from the film. I'd recommend it to people who did like Evil Dead II and does enjoy horror films that aren't particularly scary but more just a have-fun and enjoy sort of horror.

Click me to view the trailer!

I'm Not There

"It's like you got yesterday, today and tomorrow, all in the same room. There's no telling what can happen."

Recently, I've gotten into Bob Dylan's music, I also watched a few interviews with him on youtube, etc. After reading up a bit on this, and watching the trailer I decided I'd watch this despite I reading that it apparently wasn't much of an accurate perception of Dylan. The person who said that completely misunderstood the film.

• Title: I'm Not There
• Year of Release: 2007
• Director: Todd Haynes
• Genre: Drama/Music
• Rating: 8.5/10

This film is about 6 characters who all play a different aspect of how Bob Dylan is viewed by the public, this is not a biography or a chronicle of his life. As I've said, it is how he is seen.

Christian Bale is Jack, he portrays Dylan's "Folk" music era (I don't like saying that, as said in the film "Everybody knows I'm not a folk singer") and is told by those who knew him like a documentary, reminiscent of Scorsese's Documentary on Dylan, "No Direction Home". Bale is definitely the weakest link in this film, his acting was mediocre at best, it felt very forced, he tried too hard to look and seem like Dylan and it was very obvious.

Marcus Carl Franklin plays Woody Guthrie, a young African-American boy who has traveled across the United States, whom is inspired by the real Woody Guthrie. The boy has the words "This Machine Kills Fascists" written on it much like Guthrie did too. The real Woody Guthrie inspired a large amount of "Folk" musicians. Franklin plays his part very well, he certainly doesn't feel like Dylan nor should he, really. This aspect of the film was quite interesting, and Franklin definitely plays his part with obvious pride and maturity.

Ben Whishaw plays Arthur Rimbaud (the real Rimbaud was a poet) who is quite rebellious and throughout the film is in the same room, it looks like an interrogation room where he talks about pretty much what is happening in the movie, narrating it if you will. I don't know if this is relevant to this aspect, but I do know some fans believe the government grabbed Dylan because of his songs being quite protesting and brainwashed him, which led to his new electric style. Regardless, Whishaw does a great job in his role, it is quite obvious too he is trying to do common traits of Dylan I've noticed in some of his interviews, but unlike Bale he does them smoothly and they feel like they are common.

Richard Gere plays Billy who is more focused on being the elderly Dylan of today, though it is set in a different time. Richard Gere performed well enough, much better than I had expected, I had my doubts about him. He was well supported with a brilliant script though. During his aspect it seemed more to me that he wasn't as much as Dylan as the surroundings were, an example of this I guess is when you see a man seeing a song during the memorial of the woman who has died, he wears white makeup much like Dylan did to mask his emotions during rough times, also wearing a similar hat as I've seen when Dylan had the makeup on, I can't really think of any other examples from this aspect, but you get my point.

Heath Ledger plays Robbie Clark who is a famous actor in the film, this aspect of the film focuses more on Dylan's disfunctional personal life. Ledger unlike Whishaw, Bale and Blanchett I feel Ledger makes the part seem more of his own instead of trying to become Dylan, or anything like that, sure I guess there are some minor elements which he is trying to implement to remind you of Dylan, but they aren't near as significant as those others. Ledger in my opinion shines the most in this film and after watching an interview with him on "I'm Not There" it is clear he "gets" the film, which is definitely a bonus.

Last but not least, Cate Blanchett plays Jude Quinn, Blanchett definitely had the hardest part to tackle of the entire cast, her part focuses on Dylan during the height of his fame. Her part starts just after he "sells out" and goes electric. Blanchett as well tries to feel and look like Bob Dylan, and she succeeds the most in this aspect, as well her acting was fantastic, it was easy to forget that it was a woman, which wasn't a problem in the first place anyway. Her part was not just the hardest but it was the most important and it was gone about perfectly. She deserved her nomination at the Oscars, but if you ask me, Ledger was the best in this film.

The music, as expected, was terrific, I'm not sure exactly what the theme was that kept going throughout the film randomly but it didn't sound like a part of a Dylan song (I feel ashamed with fear that it actually is) but instead an original score. The music was definitely an important part of this film, though the bulk of it was cover songs, minus the finale song "I'm Not There". The films cinematography was terrific, every frame seemed like art, 'twas amazing.

Another aspect (a word I've used a lot today) of the film I enjoyed was seeing parts which were quotes from Dylan himself, or references to his songs. As well, minor reenactments of some of his interviews, example, in the car where Jude Quinn says "How can I answer that if you got the nerve to ask me?", this just added to my enjoyment of the film.

I highly recommend this to Dylan fans, DO NOT expect a biography of Dylan's life, this is not what this is, and to be honest, I'm quite glad, because the way this was done was very creative and original. Anyone could watch this, I guess, but it may not make too much sense and it will be a lot less significant than if your a fan of Dylan. If you did want to see this film, I recommend you at least watch and read up a little on Dylan just so you know a little about the man, even if you don't like his music.

Click me to view the trailer!