Bob_647 Reviews

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Caringly cinematographed space Opera epic that leaves the viewer flabergasted

[10/10 · 28 June 2020]

Kubrick's universe, and the space ships he constructed to explore it, are simply out of scale with human concerns. The ships are perfect, impersonal machines which venture from one planet to another, and if men are tucked away somewhere inside them, then they get there too.

Kubrick begins his film with a sequence in which one tribe of apes discovers how splendid it is to be able to hit the members of another tribe over the head. Thus do man's ancestors become tool-using animals.

At the same time, a strange monolith appears on Earth. Until this moment in the film, we have seen only natural shapes: earth and sky and arms and legs. The shock of the monolith's straight edges and square corners among the weathered rocks is one of the most effective moments in the film. Here, you see, is perfection. The apes circle it warily, reaching out to touch, then jerking away. In a million years, man will reach for the stars with the same tentative motion.

Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.

2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutes is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technolgy (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.

Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you'll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinema goers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film's plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so.

Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.

And the monoliths? Just road markers, I suppose, each one pointing to a destination so awesome that the traveler cannot imagine it without being transfigured. Or as Cummings wrote on another occasion, "listen -- there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go."

'2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different kinds of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, pure beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of every day films.

Fight Club (1999)

Grizzly psychological thriller with a side thrust twist.

[9/10 · 28 June 2020]

Fight Club is one of the most unique films I have ever seen. In addition to presenting a rather fresh take on life, Fight Club also presents its material in a fresh way. My main interest in the film is in that, in my opinion, it does not present characters for us to think about. Rather, it presents actions for us to think about. I will say that I cannot recall ever having been asked by a film to both suspend my disbelief the way this film asks in its third act & at the same time come to terms with an understanding that there is no room--or need--for disbelief.

Edward Norton stars as a depressed urban loner filled up to here with angst. He describes his world in dialogue of sardonic social satire. His life and job are driving him crazy. As a means of dealing with his pain, he seeks out 12 step meetings, where he can hug those less fortunate than himself and find catharsis in their suffering. It is not without irony that the first meeting he attends is for post-surgical victims of testicular cancer, since the whole movie is about guys afraid of losing their cone.

This movie is literally the first time I ever came upon something that, at first sight seemed incredibly stylish, sophisticated and entertaining. The plot lured you in before turning you upside down, the acting was nothing short of perfect (has there ever been a more memorable character than Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden?), the music, the screenplay (based on what is now my all-time favorite book), the lighting, the pacing, the everything! Virtually everything about this movie took my by surprise, save for one man.

David Fincher, director, was probably the only reason I went to see this movie in the first place. His work on 'Seven' and 'The Game' had me excited to see what he would do next, but I came to this movie expecting a stylish flick that offered a good plot and hopefully some good acting but what I got was so much, much more.

Perhaps these comments will not make sense to the average movie goer who will dismiss this film--and, unfortunately, its premise--as another Hollywood flick filled with gratuitous violence. I'd go as far as to say that this film is not about violence. It is about choices. It is about activity. It is about lethargy. It is about waking up and realizing that at some point in the past we've gone to the toilet and thrown up our dreams without even realizing that society has stuck its fingers down our throat.

Norton plays an average Joe who is living a dead end life. He needs something to change his life. Tyler and Marla will take care of this, and that is all I want to give away. Other comments will tell you more, but I suggest you let it all sink in while watching. As for it's ending, it doesn't rival 'The Sixth Sense' - it blows it away. One of the best movie endings I've seen. Even better if you're a Pixies fan.

It's at about this point that the movie stops being smart and savage and witty, and turns to some of the most brutal, unremitting, nonstop violence ever filmed. Although sensible people know that if you hit someone with an gloved hand hard enough, you're going to end up with broken bones, the guys in Fight Club have fists of steel, and hammer one another while the sound effects guys beat the hell out of Naugahyde sofas with Ping Pong paddles. Later, the movie takes still another turn. A lot of recent films seem unsatisfied unless they can add final scenes that redefine the reality of everything that has gone before; call it the Keyser Soze syndrome.

I would argue that anyone caught, at some point in their lives, between a rock and a hard place--anyone who has reached bottom on a mental level--anyone who has uttered to themselves "Wait, this isn't right. I would not do,say,feel what it is that I just did,said,felt... I do not like this. I must change before I am forever stuck being the person that I am not." These people, they will know what I'm talking about. These people will not only recognize the similarities between Edward Norton's character and themselves--they will be uncomfortably familiar with him. These people will appreciate Fight Club for what it is: a wake up call that we are not alone.

Honestly, how many times have you seen a movie that, with every viewing, gets even more complicated yet so simple that you can't help but laugh. Every time I watch this movie I notice something new about it, such is the depth of what is on the screen. Then there's the tiny issue of the story of Fight Club, penned by Chuck Palahniuk (who has one of the most fertile imaginations around. Don't believe me? Read 'Survivor' and weep!) the story is nothing short of incredible, a pure shock-value social commentary on the state of the world at the end of the century. You'll cry, you'll laugh, you'll do all the clichés but most importantly you'll identify with every single thing on the screen.

The film is a cinematic punch to the head as it challenges the status quo and offers a wakeup call to people immersed in a materialistic world where those who have the most stuff, "win." I think that Fincher's film wants us to tear all that down, reject corporate monsters like Starbucks and Blockbuster, and try to figure out what we really want out of life. It's almost as if the film is suggesting salvation through self-destruction. And it is these thought-provoking ideas that makes "Fight Club" a dangerously brilliant film that entertains as well as enlightens.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

A sweet conclusion to a trilogy full of power.

[9/10 · 27 June 2020]

Not being a huge fan of superhero movies, I didn't have much expectations for Batman Begins. However viewing the 2005 Christopher Nolan production, I was pleasantly shocked. Then after my huge expectations for, "The Dark Knight", Christopher Nolan blew my expectations to the dust. Will the same happen with the 3rd and last film, "The Dark Knight Rises"? Quite simply, Yes! My big expectations were once again, blown away. What a production! This is a true cinematic experience, to behold. The movie exceeded my expectations in terms of action, and entertainment. The editing, sound, score, visuals, direction and action are all top notch.

The Batman series by Christopher Nolan was and is probably one of the best superhero series ever. In an industry where very few sequels have been that good, The Dark Knight, I believe was designed by Christopher Nolan to be head and shoulders above Batman Begins; and it was. The Dark Knight surpassed Batman Begins, end of story. Now that you have accomplished what very few have managed, how do you surpass this one. A daunting and mountainous task indeed. Only now, Nolan wasn't even trying to surpass it. He was merely trying to present a movie that would build on its predecessor. After eight years in seclusion, Batman resurfaces to face Bane, a mastermind bent on destroying Gotham and has ties to Bruce Wayne's past. Christopher Nolan's conclusion to his Dark Knight trilogy should be treated as a wrap up rather than a third installment.

Despite many new characters being introduced, even their conflicts and motives are derived from events that occurred in the previous two films. Such an approach could be seen as a weakness, since the conflict could just end up being sort of a rematch rather than moving the story forward; however, Nolan's approach works terrifically. Over an hour is shot in stunning IMAX, but the film is more touching than it is intense and that's its best quality.

Christian Bale was typically brilliant as Batman, and I felt that Bruce Wayne was more heavily embraced in this final installment. Bale added emotional depth to the character - a plot point that I think went astray in The Dark Knight - picking up from the development made in Batman Begins.

Tom Hardy as Bane was quite simply, terrifying. No longer a dunderhead "enforcer", but one of the criminal masterminds behind "Gotham's Reckoning", coupled with a physical dominance strong enough to send shivers down your spine. Hardy steps in as the genius mercenary Bane, who is slightly bigger, slightly stronger and slightly smarter than Batman, thus making him a challenge best suited for the grand finale. The Joker works best as Batman's arch-nemesis since they are polar opposites, with The Joker standing for everything Batman stands against. Two-Face works best as Batman's most tragic enemy because Harvey Dent is very much like Bruce Wayne the only difference is: Dent copes with his tragedy through revenge rather than seeking justice as Wayne did. Bane works best as Batman's most challenging villain because of his physical and mental superiority-forget the Bane you saw in Batman & Robin. Nolan carefully chose all his villains in the series wisely and executed them perfectly. Hardy had big shoes to fill following Ledger's posthumous Oscar winning performance; while Bane is no Joker, Hardy does a satisfying job and should not be compared to Ledger's performance as they are completely different roles.

Bane, played by Tom Hardy in a performance evoking a homicidal pro wrestler, is a mystery because it's hard to say what motivates him. He releases thousands of Gotham's criminals in a scenario resembling the storming of the Bastille. As they face off against most of the city police force in street warfare, Bane's goal seems to be the overthrow of the ruling classes. But this would prove little if his other plan (the nuclear annihilation of the city) succeeds.

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman/Selina Kyle is a scene stealer. She is completely engrossing. Everyone is so great, the dynamic scenes between the actors are so well done, so well written, and so well directed. The Dark Knight Rises is is emotionally riveting and amazing to view. Hathaway as Selina Kyle defied my expectations. Hands up who was not entirely convinced that that girl from the Princess Diaries could handle an intensely physical role like Catwoman. But here I am, hugely impressed. She added immeasurably to the value of the film. My favorite part is when Batman teams up with Catwoman after he escapes from the Prison, & has her doing odd tasks about the city. It reminded me of when I had different women supporting me in my return to my Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy, Demography, & History. They supported me unconditionally, & were clearly falling for me.

In conclusion, this film is a gorgeous reminder that great writing and direction can enhance any movie-going experience, even superhero movies, which are usually thought of as mindless entertainment. I am wholly satisfied with Christopher Nolan's vision and thank all who worked on this film for bringing such an intricate interpretation of its very famous literary source. I cannot recommend this film anymore than I have, I just have to say everyone and anyone should see it.

This is a dark and heavy film; it tests the weight a superhero movie can bear. That Nolan is able to combine civil anarchy, mass destruction and a Batcycle with exercise-ball tires is remarkable. That he does it without using 3D is admirable. That much of it was shot in the 70mm IMAX format allows it to make that giant screen its own. That it concludes the trilogy is inevitable; how much deeper can Nolan dig?

The Dark Knight (2008)

Gritty, gruesome continuation of the Dark Knight series with Nolan apex realism

[9/10 · 27 June 2020]

We've been subjected to enormous amounts of hype and marketing for the Dark Knight. We've seen Joker scavenger hunts and one of the largest viral campaigns in advertising history and it culminates with the actual release of the movie.

"The Dark Knight" is not a simplistic tale of good and evil. Batman is good, yes, The Joker is evil, yes. But Batman poses a more complex puzzle than usual: The citizens of Gotham City are in an uproar, calling him a vigilante and blaming him for the deaths of police and others. And the Joker is more than a villain. He's a Mephistopheles whose actions are fiendishly designed to pose moral dilemmas for his enemies.

Christopher Nolan has a penchant for realism. We get to experience that in the Dark Knight; that has a script set for its gritty & realistic action scenes, & believable super hero characters that exceed the comic book tree hanging over. The secret, I believe, is the stunning, mature, intelligent script. That makes it the best superhero movie ever made. As if that wasn't enough, Heath Ledger. He, the newest of the tragic modern icons present us with a preview of something we'll never see. A fearless, extraordinary actor capable to fill up with humanity even the most grotesque of villains. His performance is a master class. Fortunately, Christian Bale's Batman is almost a supporting character. Bale is good but there is something around his mouth that stops him from being great. "The Dark Knight" is visually stunning, powerful and moving. What else could anyone want.

Bale's Batman is the definitive Batman because we see everything in this character finally on film. Martial arts skills, cunning, great tactical thinking, forensic application, technological genius to advance or improve Lucius Fox's inventions/technological breakthroughs, intimidating personality, and even a little swashbuckling. The natural petulance of Christian Bale makes his ego and alter ego the most fascinating and complex of all film superheroes. Part of the genius of this movie is that Batman himself, in screen time, is not really the lead.

As for Heath, yes he gets credit for his performance as the Joker. But you have to also recognize Jonathan and Chris Nolan for the writing and treatment of the character. It's not just the fact that Ledger makes the Joker so menacing, but the Nolans have given the character this great manifesto that drives its actions. The Joker's stance on chaos, order, anarchy, the morality of the average modern human being make the character so interesting psychologically. The Nolans drafted a complex character and only a perfect performance could've pulled something like this off. That's how difficult of a role this was, and that's why Ledger's performance is so great. "The Dark Knight" is certainly loud and violent but it's not mindless. It has depth and soul. Even the Joker, in an extraordinary creation by Heath Ledger, is deeply human. My attention was captivated by Heath Ledger and he determines and inspires the breathtaking atmosphere that envelopes Gotham as well as us. The aplomb of Christopher Nolan as a director is mind blowing and his secret, I believe, is his obvious respect for his audience. What he's done is to elevate a popular genre into Shakespearean proportions.

All the hailing of Ledger's performance are grounded. Watching it will make you feel a different chill down your spine than you'd remember from any other film. It's impossible, quite literally to relate to The Joker. He gets inside your head with his stories of how he got his scars, makes you laugh at his sick jokes, then makes you instantly wonder why you're laughing. All the hailing of Ledger's performance are grounded. Watching it will make you feel a different chill down your spine than you'd remember from any other film. It's impossible, quite literally to relate to The Joker. He gets inside your head with his stories of how he got his scars, makes you laugh at his sick jokes, then makes you instantly wonder why you're laughing.

If Ledger wasn't enough to horrify you - wait for Harvey Dent. Brilliantly portrayed by Aaron Eckhart as Gotham's 'fallen White Knight' and Batman's direct counterpart. His transformation will put Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal look like children's breakfast cartoons. Gyllenhaal had perfect chemistry with both Bale and Eckhart, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman both work well as Batman's 'conscience' and of course, Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon were all solid.

The plot involves nothing more or less than the Joker's attempts to humiliate the forces for good and expose Batman' secret identity, showing him to be a poser and a fraud. He includes Gordon and Dent on his target list, and contrives cruel tricks to play with the fact that Bruce Wayne once loved, and Harvey Dent now loves, Assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). The tricks are more cruel than he realizes, because the Joker doesn't know Batman's identity. Heath Ledger has a good deal of dialogue in the movie, and a lot of it isn't the usual jabs and jests we're familiar with: It's psychologically more complex, outlining the dilemmas he has constructed, and explaining his reasons for them. The screenplay by Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan (who first worked together on "Memento") has more depth and poetry than we might have expected.

In his two Batman movies, Nolan has freed the character to be a canvas for a broader scope of human emotion. For Bruce Wayne is a deeply troubled man, let there be no doubt, and if ever in exile from his heroic role, it would not surprise me what he finds himself capable of doing.

Casablanca (1942)

Perfectly cinematographed & edited angle at one of cinema greatest love tragedies.

[10/10 · 21 June 2020]

As I watched this movie again tonight for what must be the 100th time, I noticed there was a much smaller scene wrapped inside the bigger scene that, unless you look for it, you may never notice. Yvonne, a minor character who is hurt by Rick emotionally, falls into the company of a German soldier. In a land occupied by the Germans, but populated by the French, this is an unforgivable sin. She comes into the bar desperately seeking happiness in the club's wine, song, and gambling. Later, as the Germans begin singing we catch a glimpse of Yvonne sitting dejectedly at a table alone and in this brief glimpse, it is conveyed that she has discovered that this is not her path to fulfillment and she has no idea where to go from there. As the singing progresses, we see Yvonne slowly become inspired by Lazlo's act of defiance and by the end of the song, tears streaming down her face, she is singing at the top of her voice too. She has found her redemption. She has found something that will make her life never the same again from that point on.

There is a scene about halfway through the movie Casablanca that has become commonly known as 'The Battle of the Anthems' throughout the film's long history. A group of German soldiers has come into Rick's Café American and are drunkenly singing the German National Anthem at the top of their voice. Victor Lazlo, the leader of the French Resistance, cannot stand this act and while the rest of the club stares appalled at the Germans, Lazlo orders the band to play 'Le Marseilles (sic?)' the French National Anthem. With a nod from Rick, the band begins playing, with Victor singing at the top of HIS voice. This in turn, inspires the whole club to begin singing and the Germans are forced to surrender and sit down at their table, humbled by the crowd's dedication. This scene is a turning point in the movie, for reasons that I leave to you to discover.

The thing that makes Casablanca great is that it speaks to that place in each of us that seeks some kind of inspiration or redemption. On some level, every character in the story receives the same kind of catharsis and their lives are irrevocably changed. Rick's is the most obvious in that he learns to live again, instead of hiding from a lost love. He is reminded that there are things in the world more noble and important than he is and he wants to be a part of them. Louis, the scoundrel, gets his redemption by seeing the sacrifice Rick makes and is inspired to choose a side, where he had maintained careful neutrality. The stoic Lazlo gets his redemption by being shown that while thousands may need him to be a hero, there is someone he can rely upon when he needs inspiration in the form of his wife, who was ready to sacrifice her happiness for the chance that he would go on living. Even Ferrari, the local organized crime leader gets a measure of redemption by pointing Ilsa and Lazlo to Rick as a source of escape even though there is nothing in it for him.

But what exactly is so special about it? Is it its great genre mix, never equaled by another film? When we think of 'Casablanca' first, we remember it as a romantic film (well, most of us do). But then again, its also a drama involving terror, murder and flight. One can call it a character study, centering on Rick. And there are quite a few moments of comedic delight, just think of the pickpocket ("This place is full of vultures, vultures everywhere!") or the elderly couple on the last evening before their emigration to the US ("What watch?").

The film is directed by Michael Curtis, who Warner Brothers brought over from Austria in 1938 to direct Robin Hood. His direction is such that the camera hurtles through the set of Rick's American Cafe with out ever losing breadth or cajole. The editing could be choppy as the film moves at an intensely absorbing & engaging speed pace, but Curtis keeps his pawns in check & the film resumes a kind of kana of perfection. It really is just perfect. There are only hard to find flaws in the dialogue, acting, or camera.

So is there a weakest link in 'Casablanca'? Every film, no matter how close to perfection, has a minor flaw or two, so one can find them in 'Casablanca', too, if one really tries hard. So yes, one might ask how much sense the entire mambo jumbo about the letters of transit makes. One might point out that Paul Henreid, although his performance is certainly good, doesn't come close to the greatness of any of his co stars. However, the film is so close to perfection that I'm almost ashamed that I'm so desperately trying to find less-than-perfect elements

But 'Casablanca' is not only great as a whole, it still stands on top if we break it apart and look at single lines of dialog, scenes or performances alone. Is there any other film which has more quotable dialog than 'Casablanca'? 'Pulp Fiction' is on my mind here, and 'All About Eve' and 'Sunset Blvd.' come close, too, but still I think 'Casablanca' tops everything else. And not only is the dialog great, it's unforgettably delivered, especially by Humphrey Bogart ("I was misinformed.") and Claude Rains ("I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here"). Many of scenes have become a part of film history; the duel of 'Die Wacht am Rhein' and 'La Marseillaise' is probably one of the greatest scenes ever shot (the only I can think of that would rival it for the #1 spot is Hynkel and the globe from Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'), and the last scene is probably even familiar to the few people who've never seen 'Casablanca'. Am I the only one who is absolutely convinced that the film wouldn't have become what it is today if Rick and Ilsa would have ended up as the lucky couple?

About the performances: So much has been said about the uniqueness of Humphrey Bogart's and Ingrid Bergman's chemistry as Rick and Ilsa, about Claude Rains' terrific turn as Renault, about the scene-stealing performances by Peter Lorre (one of the 10 all-time greatest actors) as Ugarte and Sydney Greenstreet as Ferrari and about Dooley Wilson stopping the show as Sam. I'd love to emphasize here two other performances, one that is not mentioned quite as often and one which is blatantly overlooked: Conrad Veidt as Major Strasser had a really difficult task here, as his character is the only evil one, but still Strasser is not a one-dimensional character, and it took more than 50 years until another actor gave an equally (maybe even more) impressive performance as a Nazi, Ralph Fiennes in 'Schindler's List'. But why no one ever mentions S. K. Sakall, who plays Carl, the jolly waiter at Rick's Café Américain, is beyond me. He has definitely more screen time than Lorre, Greenstreet and Wilson, and probably about as much as Veidt, and he's a joy whenever he's on the screen. I simply love his reaction when the pickpocket ("Vultures everywhere!") accidentally bumps into him, or the reaction to the "What watch" dialogue. Or how he says he gave Strasser the best table, "being a German, he would have taken it anyway". His performance is simply criminally overlooked.

This is the beauty of this movie. Every time I see it (and I have seen it a lot) it never fails that I see some subtle nuance that I have never seen before. Considering that the director would put that much meaning into what is basically a throw away moment (not the entire scene, but Yvonne's portion) speaks bundles about the quality of the film. My wife and I watched this movie on our first date, and since that first time over 12 years ago, it has grown to be, in my mind, the greatest movie ever made.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

The epic is notched up to a scale unimaginable for this conclusion of dramatic proportions.

[10/10 · 21 June 2020]

Obviously, I'm aware of the fact that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is actually one giant movie, but since it was released in parts, that's how I'm judging them. The Return Of The King is the final chapter, and since it is the climax and resolution of the epic journey, it has a little more intensity and urgency than the previous installments.

After the armies of Isengard have been defeated due to an allegiance between Theoden (Bernard Hill), the king of Rohan, and the elves, the main threat to middle earth is now concentrated in the kingdom of Mordor, controlled by the dark lord Sauron. Sauron has turned his eye towards the realm of Gondor, the last free kingdom of men, and the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) must warn Denethor (John Noble), Steward of Gondor of the impending attack, while Aragorn (Viggo Mortenson), heir to the throne of Gondor, and Theoden gather men to aid against the armies of Mordor. The dark lord Sauron needs only to regain the one ring of power to conquer all of middle earth, and two hobbits, Frodo (Elijah Wood) the ring-bearer and Sam (Sean Astin), must continue their journey, directed by Gollum, to Mount Doom, the only place where the ring can be destroyed. Got all that? If not, you need to bone up on your 'Lord of the Rings' before expecting to follow this film.

Special mentions must also go to the camera-work, which made the best possible use of the magnificent New Zealand scenery, and to Howard Shore's memorable musical score. So, looking forward to the Oscar ceremony, I have no doubt that this should be the best film and that Peter Jackson, who has amply fulfilled the promise shown in the excellent 'Heavenly Creatures', should be best director. Best Actor? I would find it difficult to decide between the competing claims of Sir Ian McKellen, who brings wisdom, kindliness and the required touch of steel to his portrait of Gandalf, and of Elijah Wood, who plays the brave and resourceful hobbit Frodo to whom falls the dangerous task of ensuring the ring's destruction. Best Supporting Actor? My own nomination would be for Sean Astin, as Frodo's loyal companion Sam, but several others might have claims, notably Viggo Mortensen or Bernard Hill. Is this the best movie ever made, as some of its admirers have claimed? Possibly not- that is, after all, a very large claim to make. I have no doubt, however, that the trilogy as a whole is the first great cinematic masterpiece of the twenty-first century. It has certainly inspired me to start reading Tolkien's original novels.

The third film gathers all of the plot strands and guides them toward the great battle at Minas Tirith; it is "before these walls, that the doom of our time will be decided." The city is a spectacular achievement by the special- effects artisans, who show it as part fortress, part Emerald City, topping a mountain, with a buttress reaching out over the plain below where the battle will be joined. In a scene where Gandalf rides his horse across the drawbridge and up the tamped streets of the city, it's remarkable how seamlessly Jackson is able to integrate computer-generated shots with actual full-scale shots, so they all seem of a piece.

Jackson's achievement cannot be denied. "Return of the King" is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films. Yes, they will be adrift during the early passages of the film's 200 minutes, but to be adrift occasionally during this nine-hour saga comes with the territory.

Although the movie contains epic action sequences of awe inspiring scope (including the massing of troops for the final battle), the two most inimitable special-effects creations are Gollum, who seems as real as anyone else on the screen, and a monstrous spider named Shelob. This spider traps Frodo as he traverses a labyrinthine passage on his journey, defeats him, and wraps him in webbing to keep him fresh for supper. Sam is very nearly not there to save the day (Gollum has been treacherous), but as he battles the spider we're reminded of all the other movie battles between men and giant insects, and we concede that, yes, this time they got it right.

If one were to gripe, and I suppose there will never be a film made that one cannot find a point at which to grip, it is painfully long running time here. I personally believe that this is the only way such a film could be made, true to the source material and completely engrossing, but I found myself more worried about the pain in my posterior than the emotional final minutes after 4 hours (including ads and previews) that I had spent in a cramped seat. As such, this will be all the better (at least for me) when it's release on DVD (can't wait for the extended...get to see the Saruman scenes that they cut out).

The first two films established Jackson as an incredible visionary, shooting vast landscapes from his native New Zealand. With 'Return of the King,' Jackson really gets a chance to show off. With, hands down, the most beautiful visuals of the trilogy, Jackson makes 'Return of the King' a gorgeous feast for the eyes, while never resorting to McG level over the steepness. Jackson stays very grounded in his characters, not letting the effects tell the story, but only assist the wonderful dialogue and characters. Think of 'Return' as a mix of 'Fellowship' and 'Two Towers,' with enough action and character development worthy of ending a film event of this magnitude.

The bottom line, fans of the films will not be disappointed. Hardcore Tolkien lovers might be upset by plot changes and interpretations made by Jackson and the other writers, however, it is unrealistic to expect a completely true adaptation of the novels, being that film is an entirely different medium. Despite the alterations, Jackson consistently stays true to the major themes and ideas from the original text, while adding some of the finest film making ever put to screen. 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' is one of the most finely tuned and emblematically perfect films ever made. Not only the best of the trilogy, but a crowning achievement in epic film making.

This is the longest of the series, mostly because of the ending that seems to last a while. This was a good ending, and I can see why Frodo did what he did. He, and us the audience, have gone through an incredible ordeal and I think we needed that 20 minute linger. When the battle is over, and the celebrations have ended, there is a sad emptiness felt. The films spanned over 3 years, there have been the extended cuts of course, but after that, it's all over. Peter Jackson gave us an ending that was both appropriate and admirable.

Sorry if I'm being all fan boyish and kissing this movie's ass, but I really admire it. It may not be among my personal favorites but generally this seems to be the movie event of the century. There will never be another Lord of the Rings film, and that's a bit depressing.

There is little enough psychological depth anywhere in the films, actually, and they exist mostly as surface, gesture, archetype and spectacle. They do that magnificently well, but one feels at the end that nothing actual and human has been at stake; cartoon characters in a fantasy world have been brought along about as far as it is possible for them to come, and while we applaud the achievement, the trilogy is more a work for adolescents (of all ages) than for those hungering for truthful emotion thoughtfully paid for. Of all the heroes and villains in the trilogy, and all the thousands or hundreds of thousands of deaths, I felt such emotion only twice, with the ends of Faramir and Gollum. They did what they did because of their natures and their free will, which were explained to us and known to them. Well, yes, and I felt something for Frodo, who has matured and grown on his long journey, although as we last see him it is hard to be sure he will remember what he has learned. Life is so pleasant in Middle Earth, in peacetime.

That all being said, I must say that The Lord of the Rings is an amazingly powerful visual experience. Not even just a visual experience. Peter Jackson has crafted one of the finest written pieces of our era into THE quintessential epic. He supplements the brilliant storytelling of John Tolkien with one of the most awe inspiring collection of films ever created.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Epic & Grandiose opener to an acclaimed series.

[9/10 · 21 June 2020]

All through the movie I kept on having this big large smile sculpted into my face. For the record, I'm 25 years old, and I've read "The Lord of the Rings" in three times for the first time when I was six or seven years old. Ever since then, I read it at least once or twice a year - therefore you can count me as a fan, for I follow the same cult fan procedure with "The Hobbit" and "The Silmarillion" as well. Now onto the movie... Gosh, I saw it more than one time, and I keep wanting more of it. It just never gets boring! I really enjoyed the little stuff that is found throughout the movie for fans of the books (the map on Bilbo's table in his house comes to mind, it is exactly as the one in "The Hobbit" book that I own), and I also incredibly enjoyed the intro sequence with the re-telling of the battle against Sauron from the Silmarillion, never has an ultimate evil being been so well depicted on the screen. It truly is Sauron.

The scope of Tolkien's masterpiece may have eluded film-makers for decades, but director Peter Jackson makes good on his promise: he has not only brought us the tale of Frodo and his bold companions, he has brought us Middle Earth. And believe me, it is big. Sweeping vistas and hang onto your seat camera shots send us zooming through the towering cities and citadels of Tolkien's imagination.

Peter Jackson went out to achieve the impossible and came out with a recreation of the original that is pure and true to the story in every detail. The first time the four hobbits meet a black rider on the road, for example, is absolutely faithful to the feeling of the book. The assault of the riders at Weather Top is another great example, and it captures that feeling of danger, density and atmosphere that are the main characteristics of the tale. Jackson also took some liberties with the story, and made some right choices along the way. If the so called purists may not approve the removal of Tom Bombadil altogether, it should be comprehensible that the travel from Hobbiton to Riven Dell is a very long and detailed one and could easily make a movie on it's own. I felt more uneasy with how short the Council of Elrond was. In the book, the council is where the whole story of the rings is first explained, and many passages from the past ages of Middle Earth are unveiled. It is a fascinating moment of the story, that had to be shortened for obvious reasons.

The actors were great, they were a lot into their characters, and for the first time, I saw elves as they were, quick, agile, terrifyingly effective in battle - just look at how Legolas dialed with the hordes of enemies without a single hint of fear in his eyes - these are elves as they should be. Gimli was great too, I know people seem to think many characters were not developed enough, but by the actions you can learn a lot. With Gimli a lot can be learned about the dwarves, their pride, deep sense of honor and family, their mistrust of elves, their love for strong beer and a good fight against anything bigger, and their sheer hatred for orcs and the likes. Aragorn was totally the ranger character, the ending scene as he walked toward the horde of Uruk Hai warriors was great, his attitude, his clothes, everything about him just cried "ranger". Boromir was very well depicted, desperate to save the people of Gondor, by any mean necessary, robbed of all hope, yet in the end he redeems himself by showing his true valor, deep down, he's willing to die to defeat evil, and when he recognizes his king in Aragorn, on his last breath, I felt like watching a hero die, it was moving. The hobbits were all great, Frodo is deeply sad and fatalist, and Sam is just the 'best friend' everyone would like to have, just as it should be. Finally, we have Gandalf, quite frankly, he looks mighty, Ian IS Gandalf. The face off against the Balrog in the Moria is a memorable sequence, and just shows how strong he really is, to be able to vanquish such a foe. I can't wait for his return

As for the changes, well, I found good reasons behind all of them, and let me tell you right away, I was happy that Arwen saved Frodo, yes, maybe coming from a fan it will look like absolute heresy, but I enjoyed the scene a lot. I did not enjoy it because it was supposedly politically-correct to do so, or that I find Liv Tyler to be absolutely attractive; it was just because I felt like even though it was a big change from the book, it was a very good one indeed, it makes you discover the power, determination, and courage of elves and the fact that even elf women, although great in their beauty and seemingly fragile in appearance do not have anything to envy to their male counterparts. And beside, as Arwen is to become a Queen later on, it was pretty good to see her have a great first appearance.

The Lord of the Rings is a fairy tale of myth and fantasy. Peter Jackson directed a film that was considered, for a very long time, impossible to make, and not only for technical reasons. The narrative roots are incredibly long and detailed, and the story line is deeply connected with the creation of a fantastic continent from a time unknown called 'Middle Earth'. It's author, Tolkien, dedicated a considerable part of his life developing this continent's background, it's mythology and origins, it's different kinds of people, cultures and languages, and therefore it's geographic references are determinant to the unfolding of the story of the One Ring.

I could go on and on, talking about all the different elements that bring this film close to perfection, but I'll end saying that deep down, this is not about action, beards and big monsters. The greatest thing about this film, to me, is that it brought me back to a time when I was in love with a different world where everything was possible. Reading The Lord of the Rings night after night, I came to understand what this thing of 'mankind' really was all about. The corruption of absolute power, the importance and value of friendship, the inevitability of growing up, the strength of hope... That this film could capture that magic, and be a new bearer to it's message of humanism, is a statement to it's greatness. Gandalf's words, that even the smallest person may change the course of the world, and have a part to play in the destiny of all, are immortal.

Still, after some consideration, I now agree with the options made by Peter Jackson, and think that the movie prologue narrated by Galadriel was the wisest choice. The magic is all there when Gandalf shuts his eyes the moment Frodo stands in the council and says "I will take the ring". It is there at Moria's Gate, and at the fall of Boromir. It is a powerful film that doesn't fit the rhythm of the standard Hollywood action movie. It is a film that breeds, that takes time to unfold, it's tale branching in every direction. But even more impressive than the stunning visuals and sound effects like you've never heard before are the actors who breathe life into the characters. Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf is nothing short of awe-inspiring, and Elijah Wood's Frodo is one of the most unexpectedly captivating performances I've seen in a long time. The despair, terror, and determination of the Fellowship is all there, in spades. I left the theater aching... from tensing every muscle during the fight and flight sequences the breathless and compelling kind we haven't seen since Spielberg gave us a desperate charge onto the D Day beaches of Normandy.

Quite frankly, I can't wait for the two other movies... In the meantime, I'll watch this one over and over again. This movie has everything that a good movie needs to have, and more. Plus, it just might bring more people to actually read books that have more pages than the average little 25¢ novel that has no value in it, which is great. Parents, maybe some scenes will frighten your kids, but this movie has almost no blood (even though it has a good share of battle) and the foes are undeniably evil, plus it has good values in it - friendship, courage, responsibility, sacrifice for a good cause, and the belief that anyone can help to change things. This is worthy of Tolkien, this is a movie that will go down in history as being one of the best ever, for sure.

Billy Elliot (2000)

Heart touching gruffy drama set against the 1984-5 Miners' strike

[9/10 · 21 June 2020]

It is also a piece of magic realism, with political overtones. By setting their near fairy tale in the context of a close-knit mining community, and more specifically against the backdrop of the 1984-5 miners' strike - a defining moment of modern British economic and social history - writer Lee Hall and director Stephen Daldry are able to refer to gender and class issues, without turning their work into a political tract, and without losing focus on the central human drama.

Quite simply, this is the best British movie in years. All the characters are intriguing, and the acting is flawless, most notably from 14-year-old Jamie Bell whose acting is utterly convincing, filled with humor and insight beyond his years. He is also a fantastic dancer, and some of the dance sequences are reminiscent of the dance-filled musicals of the old black and white movies.

Lewis and Draven put gritty realism and passion into their roles of a father and son committed to their community and to the miners' cause. They make us feel their despair as they realize that this cause is lost; but also their endurance as they come to terms both with Billie's aspirations and their own uncertain futures - within a few years most UK coalmines would be closed. (The colliery in Easington, the real-life location of the film, closed in 1994.). The scenes of violence between strikers and police are presented uncompromisingly and authentically, but with the occasional touch of humor.

Julie Walters provides an outstanding performance as Mrs Wilkinson, the dancing teacher who recognizes and fosters Billie's talent; and helps him resist his own and his family's inhibitions. She is perfect as the chain smoking, straight talking mentor, who has her own personal disappointments and hurts, which she hopes Billie's success will help heal. To we outsiders watching the movie, Mrs Wilkinson appears as an integral part of the local community; but it is made clear that in the middle 1980s, as far as Billie's family and friends are concerned, she is a middle class outsider, almost as alien as another species.

the movie is as much parable and fantasy as it is realistic. The character of the transvestite Michael in particular seems based more on wishful thinking than on plausible reality; would a gay boy of his age in this neighborhood of this town in 1984 be quite so sure of himself? Julie Walters, a 1984 Academy Award nominee for "Educating Rita," is spirited and colorful as the ballet teacher, and Gary Lewis is somehow convincing as the dad even when the screenplay requires him to make big off screen swings of position. Jamie Bell is an engaging Billy, earnest and high-spirited, and a pretty good dancer, too.

The movie was directed by Stephen Daldry, a well-known stage director, and photographed by Brian Tufano, who has one shot that perfectly illustrates the difference between how children and adults see the world. Billy's friend Debbie is walking along a fence, clicking a stick against the boards. She doesn't notice that she is suddenly walking in front of a line of cops, called up against the striking miners and carrying plastic shields; she clicks on those, too.

No wonder critics have been falling over themselves in heaping praise on Billy Elliot. No wonder it's been holding its own in the box office despite being shown in a mere handful of theaters (one quarter to one sixth as many as the big Hollywood blockbusters) and despite its receiving hardly any promotion at the moment. Its success is being driven by word of mouth. And what is the word? Here is a movie that appeals to your heart, head, funny bone, eyes and ears, and last but not least your feet, for the music and the movement will have you wanting to get up and dance. And it achieves all of this without insulting the intelligence. I sometimes wonder how the movie would have been done by Hollywood: Billy would have been made a more pathetic figure; the people in his life rendered more black and white; characters would have either remained caricatures, or made to develop in the blink of an eye. All such excesses are avoided in Billy Elliot, where the characters develop in a totally believable way, where Billy invites admiration instead of pity, and where the silences, looks and gestures all leave so much to the imagination. The dictum "Less is more" is clearly the guiding principle behind the film.

The buzz for Billy has been so positive that people sometimes come away disappointed that their lives haven't been changed. So don't go expecting a knock them dead Hollywood roller coaster. Billy Elliot is far more subtle, though the emotional moments are all the more powerful because of that. You can however believe everything that has been said of Jamie Bell. He has an outstanding screen presence and carries the movie on his little shoulders with breath taking naturalism. His dancing is honest and powerful, and very masculine. He makes you forget that all the other actors give the performances of their careers in support. If the Oscar were awarded without consideration for age, career, box office draw or Hollywood clout, Jamie and his movie would win hands down.

One issue which the film tackles head-on is traditional heterosexual male abhorrence of homosexuality. This attitude clearly underlies the shock of Billie's father and brother when they discover his interest in ballet. They would be even more horrified if they realized that his best friend was discovering gay tendencies in himself. It is typical of the sensitive direction that without laboring the point the film indicates by its close that attitudes towards gays changed radically during the 1980s and 90s along with the industrial landscape.

I went into this movie expecting to hate it, and found myself instantly smiling at the playful opening credits with Billy jumping on a trampoline. From there on it just got better and better. The wasn't even a minor character that I could say needed work. The cast as a whole was brilliant - and surprising at times. The father and brother come off as these one-sided brutal characters in the beginning and then as you watch, they become two of the most well constructed and acted characters this year and for who knows how long. Jaime Bell is brilliant for a first-timer and his dance is wonderful. There are also so many layers to the film. From brilliant cinematography to wonderful symbolism both in the script and in the music (listen for the tune Billy is playing on piano in the main score during the big moments). The music on a whole was brilliantly picked and I don't think a single element was overlooked or addressed. If you haven't seen this movie get off your butt & see it! It is truly an experience that everyone should have and I hope to see more from this writer, director and a brilliant new face in Jamie Bell.

Saturday Night Fever (1977)

1970s style film vert dance club mixer

[9/10 · 21 June 2020]

An uneducated Brooklyn teen (John Travolta, in an Oscar-nominated role) lives in a dream world over the weekends as the king of a disco dance floor. Disillusioned, quietly upset with where his life is, Travolta finds solace by dancing in public to Bee Gee's music and finds love with his newest dance partner (Karen Lynn Gorney). The duo practice for an upcoming contest that could mean total success at last for Travolta and the opportunity to get discovered doing what he really loves. Travolta and his friends seem destined to go down a path of destruction though as a soap opera develops for all the key people found within. "Saturday Night Fever" is a total over-achiever as it could have fallen to exploitation tactics of the 1970s, but becomes one of those iconic films that still stands the test of time.

The film is made in film vert: grounded, edgy, & realistic. Camera lenses are used that the film's urban ambience & attitude. The script has infinitely indefinable coarse & cuss verbosity. There are some realistic & graphic rape & fight scenes. But its all to not stop the film's panacea Brooklyn flair m& atmosphere.

While the movie is more apt to be recalled for its impact on American pop culture, few who watch the movie will ever see beyond the admittedly fantastic dance sequences. As a result, many people might never recognize Saturday Night Fever as perhaps one of the best movies ever made about class struggles among white ethnics.

While Tony's friends idolize him, the movie never really does, but it does allow empathy for his plight, because even Tony realizes that he is virtually trapped by the current conditions of his existence. While much might be made of the homophobia, racism, and misogyny of the protagonist and his friends, these things are never excused and the movie goes to some lengths to express Tony's own recognition that these are shortcomings in not only his character, but those borne of a provincial mentality which he desperately longs to escape.

We meet Tony's friends and the girls that hang around them, and we are reminded that feminism has not yet conquered Brooklyn. Some of the girls, especially a spunky little number named Annette (Donna Pescow), worship Tony. He dances with Annette because she's a good dancer, but he tries to keep her at arm's length otherwise. He's caught in a sexist vise: Because he likes her, he doesn't want to sleep with her, because then how could he respect her? The female world is divided, he explains, between nice girls and tramps. She accepts his reasoning and makes her choice.

The Brooklyn we see in "Saturday Night Fever"reminds us a lot of New York's Little Italy as Martin Scorsese saw it in "Who's That Knocking at My Door?" and "Mean Streets." The characters are similar: They have few aims or ambitions and little hope of breaking out to the larger world of success -- a world symbolized for them by Manhattan, and the Brooklyn Bridge reaching out powerfully toward it.

But "Saturday Night Fever" isn't as serious as the Scorsese films. It does, after all, have almost wall-to-wall music in it (mostly by the Bee Gees, but including even "Disco Duck"). And there are the funny scenes (like the one where Travolta shouts at his father: "You hit my hair!") to balance the tragic and sel

John Travolta dedicates himself to his dancing and character, fitting the role with a graceful ease. The film goes into depth at studying characters too, it shows how desperate everyone is to fit in and be able to make an impressive image. The fantastic shots on character's feet show the "strut" in their walk, representing their desire to maintain their reputation of being "cool". All the characters want to be something, while a lot of them will never add up to anything due to their working-class backgrounds. There are a fair amount of American social-comments scattered throughout the film and retaining a surprising amount of intelligent value.

The gloriously groovy and funky soundtrack is possibly the film's finest element. The music accompanies the dance sequences with an amazing amount of memorably robust imagery. The use of The Bee Gees' music is wonderful to listen to and also for helping to create an ambiguous atmosphere of love, drugs and sex. The shooting techniques in the disco are magnificent for filming the dance scenes and fit perfectly alongside the other technical elements.

Saturday Night Fever is a far more professional film than one might expect, it has intelligence as well as entertainment, which is something that makes a more than just admirable achievement. It is a truly remarkable triumph and a film that deserves more appreciation than it gets.

Rear Window (1954)

Hitchcock's trade mark style absolves to an urban rear window

[9/10 · 20 June 2020]

The hero of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" is trapped in a wheelchair, and we're trapped, too trapped inside his point of view, inside his lack of freedom and his limited options. When he passes his long days and nights by shamelessly maintaining a secret watch on his neighbors, we share his obsession. It's wrong, we know, to spy on others, but after all, aren't we always voyeurs when we go to the movies? Here's a film about a man who does on the screen what we do in the audience look through a lens at the private lives of strangers.

After viewing 'Rear Window' again, I've come to realize that Alfred Hitchcock was not only a great movie maker but also a great movie watcher. In the making of 'Rear Window,' he knew exactly what it is about movies that makes them so captivating. It is the illusion of voyeurism that holds our attention just as it held Hitchcock's. The ability to see without being seen has a spellbinding effect. Why else is it so uncommon to have characters in movies look directly into the camera? It just isn't as fun to watch someone when they know you're there. When we watch movies, we are participating in looking into another world and seeing the images of which we have no right to see and listening to the conversations that we should not hear. 'Rear Window' and Powell's 'Peeping Tom' are some of the best movies that aren't afraid to admit this human trait.

It was an innovative film for its time; & Hitchcock still has an icy chill careening down the viewer's as the camera pans through the rear window of the apartment, noting the daily private quirks & quarks of ordinary 1950s American life.

The acting is superb in this film. Jimmy Stewart is unabashedly obsessed as the lead character. Photographers have an innate visual perceptiveness and the ability to tell a story with an image and Stewart adopts this mindset perfectly. Grace Kelly has often been accused of being the 'Ice Maiden' in her films, yet in this film she is assertive and even reckless. Though cool at times, she is often playful and rambunctious. I always enjoy Thelma Ritter's performances for their honesty and earthiness and this is another example of a character actor at her best. Raymond Burr often doesn't get the recognition he deserves for this role, which is mostly shot at a distance with very few lines. Yet, he imbues Thurwold with a looming nefariousness using predominantly physical acting.

Hitchcock was a stickler for detail. For instance, he aimed the open windows so they would show subtle reflections of places in the apartment we couldn't see directly. However, there were certain details included or excluded that were inexplicable. Would Thorwold really be scrubbing the walls with the blinds open? Would Lisa be conspicuously waving at Jeff while Stella (Thelma Ritter) was digging up the garden? Moreover, wouldn't Lisa have taken off her high heels before climbing a wall and then a fire escape? This film had numerous small incongruities that are normally absent from Hitchcock films. Though these are picayune criticisms, they are painfully obvious in the film of a director known to be a compulsive perfectionist.

When watching 'Rear Window,' it is better to imagine Alfred Hitchcock sitting in that wheelchair rather than Jimmy Stewart. When the camera is using long shots to watch the neighborhood, it is really Hitchcock watching, not Stewart. Hitchcock's love of voyeurism is at the center of this movie, along with his fascination with crime and his adoration of the Madonna ideal.

'Rear Window' is one of the most retrospective movies I've ever seen. In a span of two hours, it examines some of the most recurrent themes in film. When we watch 'Rear Window,' it is really us watching someone watch someone else. And all the while, Hitchcock is sitting on the balcony and seeing our reaction. It is an act of voyeurism layered on top of itself, and it allows us to examine our own behavior as we are spellbound in Hitchcock's world. The only thing that I feel is missing in the movie is a scene of Jeff using his binoculars and seeing himself in a mirror. Why did Hitchcock leave it out? Maybe because it would have been too obvious what he was doing. Or maybe he was afraid that the audience would see themselves in the reflection of the lens.

The Wrong Man (1956)

Under rated Hitchcockian venture in New York City

[8/10 · 20 June 2020]

Based pretty much on the actual events & people of a miscarriage of justice that took place in Queens County, New York in the early 50's. The names of most of the people who took part in the event are unchanged in the movie and the location shots where the actual events took place add a touch of dark realism to the movie. The basic plot revolves around a musician who worked at the world famous Stork Club who was misidentified by witnesses and arrested because he resembled an armed robber. Hitchcock dwells on the slow descent into helplessness and powerlessness that a citizen endures as he wends his way through the NYC (or any other) criminal justice meat grinder.

There are chilling shots of his transport , by paddy wagon, into the Ridgewood Felony court and the Long Island City House of Detention. The lawyer he hired, Frank O'Connor, (his real name) went on to become District Attorney of Queens county and was later heavily involved in the infamous Kitty Genovese case. Not your typical Hitchcock film but one well worth seeing if for no other reason than to see one of Henry Fonda's better performances as the quietly stunned Christopher Emmanuel (Manny) Balestrero who sees his life, career and family endangered by forces he has little control over.

Hitchcock's crucial style is evident right from the opening credits. Over the credits, there's a shot of the hopping Stork Club; the largely unseen band plays a lively tune as the camera pans left, and settles on one static view. Then, in a series of very unobtrusive dissolves, the nightclub crowd thins out. The jazzy music, composed by Bernard Herrmann, grows softer, less energetic; by the time we get to the director's credit, it's nearly closing time. As Manny walks out of the Stork Club and to the subway, he passes two beat cops, and as the camera follows, a composition resolves itself of the two cops flanking Manny, like, perhaps, protective angels watching over him as he descends to meet his train. From that moment on, though, the police are presented as surly, near-malevolent representatives of a system that wants to place Manny in captivity. (The lead detective in Manny's case is played by a gruff Harold J. Stone, but the movie's secret weapon, performer-wise, is Charles Cooper, investing the junior detective with a constant oily smirk that makes him read as an out and out villain.)

The films runs more like a documentary in it's approach, and it feels inherently 'real'. The casting of 'every man' Fonda in the role of Manny Balestero, a man accused of crimes he did not commit, works very well as we can feel empathy for Fonda and place ourselves in his position. Ditto with Miles. She is so convincing in her role as the mentally fragile wife Rose that her scenes are almost uncomfortable to witness. Portraying a person self-destructing is one of the hardest tasks an actor can face, but Miles does it subtly and movingly. It is a brilliant performance that ranks alongside Bergman's role in 'Notorious' and Wright's 'Charlie' in 'Shadow Of A Doubt' for best female acting honors in a Hitchcock film.

The film is not "scary" in the way that a normal Hitchcock thriller is scary, but is nevertheless frightening. In the average thriller, we feel anxiety on behalf of the hero; here we feel anxiety not only on behalf of Balestrero, who runs the risk of being imprisoned for a crime he did not commit, but also on behalf of society as a whole. This is one Hitchcock film with a serious message, intended to show that miscarriages of justice can occur all too easily. The director emphasized this message in the opening spoken prologue in which he addresses the camera directly, a prologue that replaces his normal cameo appearance. The possibility of an innocent man going to jail is all the more chilling for the fact that no one has given perjured evidence or deliberately attempted to frame Balestrero. The witnesses genuinely believe that he is the guilty man, and the police remain dispassionate throughout. Certainly, some of the elements of criminal procedure shown would not be permissible today (suspects being arrested without being informed of their rights or of the crime of which they are suspected, interviews being conducted without a written or taped record being kept, two witnesses allowed to be present together during an identification parade), but this does not lessen the film's impact; anyone with any knowledge of the law will be aware that innocent people can still be convicted in the twenty-first century.

Appropriately slow moving to keep in check with Hitch's low-key approach for this one. New York in the 1950's was possibly never photographed so darkly real as it is here. Boasting great performances from the two leads, this is a must see Hitchcock.

Using real locations in New York City, the great many character actors that make up the police and everyday people (there is some very good casting in the insurance office scene), and a musical score that is decidedly vintage Herrmann, Hitchcock uses this sort of documentary realism to heighten his own subjective approach (all the images of prison bars, the film noir type lighting and staging, the use of space in the rooms). It all works to help the story, which goes against the grain of the 50's era thriller, and it works extremely well.

In fact, for my money, I would rank this among my top five or so favorites in Hitchcock's whole oeuvre. It's a bold statement to be sure, but for the particular cinema fan, this brings on entertainment on a truly dramatic scale and, until a certain point I won't mention, is unrelenting.

"The Wrong Man" is a very sad and touching story of the injustice against an innocent man, affecting the health of his family. Henry Fonda is amazing in the role of an ordinary man, who accepts passively the situations, believing on God and praying for strength and justice. Vera Miles is fantastic in the role of a wife who believe she has part of the guilty for the action of her beloved husband. This movie was filmed in many authentic locations, and is a very different work of Alfred Hitchcock. Maybe due to the theme be so serious, Hitchcock appears only introducing of the story, and does not have any other small participation as he usually does in his movies. The black and white photography, with shadows, and the score of Bernard Herrmann, complete the magnificence of this great under rated movie.

Troy (2004)

Stretched epic with some awe cinematography

[9/10 · 20 June 2020]

Loosely based on Homer's 'Iliad', Wolfgang Petersen directs this epic war film, with an ensemble cast including Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Sean Bean, Brian Cox, Rose Byrne, Garrett Hedlund, Peter O' Toole, Brendan Gleeson, & Tyler Mane. Set in 1193 B.C., this movie tells the story of a war between the two cities of Troy and Sparta, and the story of one of the bravest warriors to roam ancient Greece named Achilles. King Agamemnon (Brian Cox) is ruler of Mycenea, but wishes to rule an empire, so his army slowly conquers the rest of what is now Greece. The only threat to his empire is a neighbouring country called Troy. Agamemnon's brother Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson) is tired of war, so he negotiate's peace with the Trojan princes Hector (Eric Bana) and Paris (Orlando Bloom). Upon leaving, Paris reveals to Hector that he has taken Menelaus's wife, Helen (Diane Kruger) with him, as he loves her. Menelaus goes to Agamemnom to start a war, and Agamemnom manages to convince legendary warrior Achilles (Brad Pitt) to fight among the Greek army. Hector and Paris arrive in Troy, and tell their father Priam (Peter O'Toole) of the upcoming war. Agamemnom arrives on the beaches of Troy with 1,000 ships, but after day 1, Achilles refuses to fight, and instead cares to Trojan prisoner Briseis (Rose Byrne). Over the next two battles Hector kills Menelaus, Ajax (who is the Greek's best warrior after Achilles), and Achilles's cousin, Patroclus, and finally Achilles decides to don his armour and face Hector in a duel to the death.

Brad Pitt delivers one of the best performances of his career as Achilles, giving the right amount of power and strength. I couldn't care less about Pitt until seeing this movie as he does an outstanding job portraying Greece's greatest warrior. No, he's not the bulkiest warrior to ever grace the earth, but he's fast as lightning, confident, expertly skilled and deadly accurate. Even his voice completely fits the role. I have been a longtime critic of Brad Pitt as a second tier talent who became famous only because of his looks, but in this film he surprised me. He is the true star of the film. Achilles is easily the most interesting and entertaining character. I applaud Brad Pitt's effort in making his character a tragic hero. Achilles acknowledges that he is not the son of a goddess and is not immortal or invulnerable. The movie basically shows us how a rumor can blossom into a legend unto itself. Achilles' legend becomes immortal. He even refers to this in my favorite scene when he is inspiring his men and starts the invasion heavily outnumbered and still triumphs. Later in the same scene he scoffs at the so called gods the Greeks and Trojans worship by decapitating the statue. I found this scene symbolic of the movie itself. The gods are nothing to both the characters and audience

Eric Bana is also terrific as Prince Hector, trying to negotiate peace between Troy and Sparta. Besides the supporting cast, Peter O' Toole is just perfect playing the king of Troy.As for beautiful women, there are only a couple mention able: Diane Kruger plays Helen, "the face that launched a thousand ships." Some have complained that she's too plain for the role, but I disagree. I'm not a fan of hers or anything, but she looks pretty dang sharp to me (not to mention has an impressive behind shot). Besides, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. If Paris deems her worthy of starting a war, who are we to disagree? Also on hand is cutie Rose Byrne who plays Briseis, the virgin priestess whom Achilles converts to the pleasures of the flesh.

This movie contains some of the most elaborate action sequences that I've ever seen on film. The costumes and the art direction all stay true to the ancient Greece setting, and they all create a realistic feel to the movie. This movie is perfectly well-made, from the distinguished art, to the intense battle sequences.

Wolfgang Petersen's film benefited from the effect "Gladiator" and offered the possibility of expanding commercial horizons towards a movie that achieved a big commercial success . The hand of the director carries out an interesting story as well as thrilling and unsweetened , reasoning the causes and motivations of their roles , taking their time and giving large doses of artistic genius . If you are accustomed to battles as Braveheart or Gladiator, you will enjoy with "Troy" , a great epic that shows the limits of the legend , which allowed Petersen to take some particular elements based on the "Illiad" of Homer . The battles are breathtaking, thousands of people took part though mostly were staged by means of computer generator . The tale is pretty violent , the struggles are very bloody and savage , in fact , Brad Pitt and Eric Bana did not use stunt doubles for their epic duel . The main cast is formed by big names who give acceptable acting .

The script was written with a mind to keep the important details of the original story intact but to make it as realistic as possible. The gods are there but only in spirit. They don't get directly involved in the action like the original. I think this is a good thing as well. Troy looks like historical recreation rather than a literal translation of the poem. In one scene I thought there was an unlikely event and researched only to find it actually is in the Iliad. When the writer was asking for too much, he was in fact being true to the text. My bad. I haven't seen that much gladiator movies in my time, but I can safely say that "Troy" is one of the most remarkable and action-packed motion pictures that audiences will never forget. "Troy", in my review, "action-packed, beautifully well-made".

Das Boot (1981)

Grind breakingly realistic war drama.

[9/10 · 14 June 2020]

The film is like a documentary in its impact. Although we become familiar with several of the characters, it is not their story, really, but the story of a single U-boat mission, from beginning to end. There is a brief opening sequence in which the boat puts out to sea from a French base, and a refueling sequence near the end, but all the other scenes are shot inside the cramped sub, or on the bridge.

Part of the "power" of the film comes, I think, from a certain restraint in the direction. So often, films which aspire to move the audience quickly fall into melodrama, over acting, and over blown images. Too much. These often succeed in the immediate response (usually crying) but fail to impact the viewer on anything more than a surface level. Here, it is the small moments which fill the screen. Everywhere, all around is War, but for these men as we witness them, war does not begin with a capital "W". It is reality, not a grand concept. The director lets the story shock and horrify the audience, not by forcing it, but by letting the story just tell itself. Drama, tension and resolution occur naturally in Das Boot, which contributes to the very real impact of the film.

And it's not shot in tidy setups, either; the cinematographer, Jost Vacano, hurtles his camera through the boat from one end to the other, plunging through cramped openings, hurdling obstacles on the deck, ducking under hammocks and swinging light fixtures. There are long sequences here--especially when the boat is sinking out of control--when we feel trapped in the same time and space as the desperate crew.

And despite the fact that most of the film takes place inside a cramped submarine, Das Boot is never boring to look at; in fact, it's a visually spectacular film (given the dated special effects, who hold up reasonably well and add to the old-school charm). And the freedom of the camera in those tight corridors came as an incredibly pleasant surprise. The color and composition of the shots in those tight quarters. Particularly upon approaching the first destroyer when we get the first real glimpse of the interior prepped for war. It is both haunting and beautiful.

Das Boot gives us plenty of time to know these characters, discover how they kill time while waiting for orders, how they feel about their job and each other. Then when the action finally starts: how they deal with the possibility of dying deep underwater, how they react to the sounds of a sub going deeper than it should, the look on their faces as a destroyer is heard pinging them, and dozens of little personality quirks--subtle details that bring the crew to life. It truly does feel like an epic about a submarine crew, and I'm interested in some day viewing the 6 hour TV version.

Jurgen Prochnow delivers the most believable performance of a ship captain I've ever seen on film. All the emotions register on his face--his concern for his own life, ship, and crew; his hatred for the decisions he's forced to make; the disbelieving joy of beating the overwhelming odds--while simultaneously holding it back so the crew sees a strong unmoving man forever in control of the situation. His performance is, in a word, brilliant.

I can go on for a long while: over three hours of wonderful visuals and strong performances, a sparse but great score (this film's lack of music is quite appropriate, making the presence of music much more impact in its key places). Realistic writing from people who lived the experience first hand. As I said, I can go on for awhile but I'll sum it up and end this review with one statement: Das Boot is the definitive submarine movie.

Schindler's List (1993)

Dramatically characterised depiction of the Holocaut that filled by sorrow as ever.

[9/10 · 14 June 2020]

Schindler's List is based on a 1983 novel, Schindler's Ark. It tells the story of the efforts of Oscar Schindler, a German, to help Jews during the Holocaust. Played by Liam Neeson, Oscar is not an easy character to comprehend. It takes you time to fully understand who he is. He is a person who might come across selfish to you at first. He is an opportunistic businessman. He comes across as one who, even during the wartime, is trying to find opportunities to make money rather than worrying about people's lives. But deep inside, he has a heart bigger than the most and at a time when Jews were struggling to find a helping hand, he helped more than a thousand Jews. He is not a person who will give you sympathy for you are going to lose someone close, but he is one who would take actions to save your closed one and not tell you when he does. You can see this in the movie when a Jewish lady approaches him begging to get her parents out of the concentration camp and into his factory. At first, he not only denies her help but also lashes out at his assistant showing frustration how his for-profit factory has come to be known to people outside as a charitable harbor for Jews. But you can hear the pain he feels for that lady and all the other Jews in his frustrated voice. Later in the scene, the lady's parents are shown being escorted out of the concentration camp into his factory.

The Holocaust is a dark and touchy subject for many. Many believed it never happened, despite meticulous records kept by the Nazis themselves. Those who lived through it were scarred forever, and even now can barely bring themselves to discuss its horrors. Despite the controversy around the event, there is one thing for certain, Steven Spielberg created a masterpiece with Schindler's List. It is a film that will find no equal in terms of bleak, crushing drama. It sets out what it intends to do marvelously and leaves the viewer emotionally drained and questioning humanity itself.

Schindler's List is a difficult film to watch. When you see the true atrocities of the Holocaust, your jaw drops. When you see the pain that all of the innocent people were going through, the only thing you can do is cry. The true goal of all Holocaust films is to make you feel sorrowful, and Schindler's List did that to me. If you want to see the best depiction of the Holocaust, make your way towards Schindler's List.

As Oscar is setting up his factory, the German Schulz Staff is brutally evicting all the Jews out of their houses and moving them to ghettos and later to labor camps. As Oscar and his wife helplessly watch eviction of a ghetto from a hill overlooking it, he realizes the dreadfulness of the war and that he needs to look beyond the factory profits and help the Jews. The atrocities that the Jews face will touch your heart. In a scene of a labor camp, as little children are being taken away by German Schulz Staff guards from their mothers, a child runs away to hide. He tries a few places including outhouses but finding them occupied by other children, he dives through a toilet seat in a toilet pit to hide. The fear of life on the face of the little child as he settles in the toilet pit will bleed your heart.

Despite the dark and sad story-line, the movie has many snippets of humor. As Oscar's manager is cleverly hiring Jews in the factory by keeping the SS in dark, he also hires an old man without a left arm as a metal polisher. The state of the old man is sad and the act of the manager is kind. But the subtle humor in the situation is difficult to miss when Oscar comes to know about the old man and frustratingly asks his manager how the old man is useful for the factory.

The film is in black and white, a very conscious choice by the director that makes the subject matter, already disturbing, even more so bleak and harrowing. The movie depicts concentration camp life is fairly dismal, with constant brutal oppression by Nazi camp guards and the sadistic Amon Goeth, with a terrifying portrayal by Ralph Fiennes.

What is most amazing about this film is how completely Spielberg serves his story. The movie is brilliantly acted, written, directed and seen. Individual scenes are masterpieces of art direction, cinematography, special effects, crowd control. Yet Spielberg, the stylist whose films often have gloried in shots we are intended to notice and remember, disappears into his work. Neeson, Kingsley and the other actors are devoid of acting flourishes. There is a single-mindedness to the enterprise that is awesome.

Overall, Schindler's list is a heart-touching and a powerful movie that will force even a cold heart to warm for a moment. The movie is engaging and will keep you engaged for the entire three hours. It is a must-watch.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Classic Kubrick cinematography of the Vietnam War.

[9/10 · 13 June 2020]

A superb ensemble falls in for for Stanley Kubrick's brilliant saga about the Vietnam War and the dehumanizing process that turns people into trained killers. Joker (Matthew Modine), Animal Mother (Adam Baldwin), Gomer (Vincent D'Onofrio), Eightball (Dorian Harewood), Cowboy (Arliss Howard) and more experience boot camp hell pit bulled by a leather lung Drill Marshal (Lee Ermey) viewing would be devil dogs as grunts,maggots or something less. The action is savage, the story unsparing the dialog spiked with catching humor. From Basic training rigors to Hue City combat nightmare, Full Metal Jacket scores a cinematic direct hit.

The film focus on a two-segment look at the effect of the military mindset and war itself on Vietnam era Marines. The first half follows a group of recruits in boot camp under the command of the punishing Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. In the hell camp the dehumanizing process turns people into trained killers. From boys in to a trained mean machine killers. It's the late 1960s at Parris Island, South Carolina, the U.S. Marine Corps Training Camp, where a group of young Marine recruits, after having their heads shaved, are being prepped for basic training by the brutal Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey), whose orders are to "weed out all non-hackers". Hartman gives each of the Marines nicknames; one pragmatic recruit who talks behind his back becomes "Joker" (Matthew Modine); a Texas recruit becomes "Cowboy" (Arliss Howard). And finally Leonard Lawrence, a 6-foot 3-inch, 280 pound, slow-witted recruit with low intelligence and ambition becomes "Gomer Pyle" (Vincent D'Onofrio), and the focus of Hartman's brutality, because the overweight boy cannot keep up with the other more physically fit recruits in the grueling obstacle courses.

Ermey plays a character in the great tradition of movie drill instructors, but with great brig and amazingly creative obscenity. All situations in the Marines and in war seem to suggest sexual parallels for him, and one of the film's best moments has the recruits going to bed with their rifles and reciting a poem of love to them.

The first half more focuses on training basics preparing recruits before they ship them to Vietnam and point view story telling from Private James T. "Joker" Davis (Matthew Modine) and about torture physics of a young men who is a marine recruit in the platoon lead by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman his Parris Island drill instructor who tortures him by punish his whole squad for his mistakes. And how that young man turns in to a killing mean machine that blows Hartman's head off! And than Pyle sits down on a toilet, places the muzzle of the weapon in his mouth and pulls the trigger, killing himself.

For the most part Kubrick got Parris Island right on the money. And why shouldn't he have, since his screen drill marshal, Lee Ermey was in fact a real drill marshal before he started acting (he played another drill marshal in "The Boys of Company C," an earlier and lesser Vietnam flick)? He had a built in technical adviser. The screams and insults and profanity and physical punishment were all part of the drill marshal's armament. When you're facing up to 75 young strangers you need to immediately establish absolute authority and hang on to it for 13 weeks. Furthermore, you want to break the breakable as soon as you can. Every platoon has it's Private Pyles and though none ended up as he does in "Full Metal Jacket," they simply disappear from the ranks, never to be heard from again. Nothing Ermey as Sgt. Hartman does is exaggerated.

In scene after scene, the war/sex connection is reinforced, and it parallels the personal battle between Ermey and D'Onofrio, who at first fails all of the tasks in basic training and then finds he has one skill: He is an expert marksman. It is likely that in a real boot camp D'Onofrio would have been thrown out after a week, but Kubrick's story requires him to stay, and so he does, until the final showdown between the two men.

The combination of the demented treatment the recruits receive in boot camp with the combined hours of boredom, seconds of terror feel of the Vietnam scenes is intense and not for everyone, but feels real. I love how the film focuses more in a city of Hue and the battlefield starts their. The battle scene sequences are outstanding and terrific! They look real, There are dozen's of body's out their. We first see Tank driving trough the city of Hue the city's are filed with fire, burning buildings and destroyed houses and street is full of blood. Sergeant Animal Mother ,the nihilistic M60 machine gunner of the Lusthog Squad is one of the most beloved characters in the movie and he is at best a supporting cast member. But you wouldn't even think about Animal Mother being just another guy. He is so memorable that you look at him as one of the stars of the show.

And so to the direction. It's Kubrick. It's good. Once more there's excellent cinematography - check out the haunting, almost claustrophobic landscapes of Vietnam. There's some lovely use of filters (that haunting blue). There's a brilliant subtle score, that's eerie when used, but never intrusive. There's a very good command of pace - the viewer is never left idle or bored, and the story (particularly in the tremendous first half) flows along smoothly. Great touches abound throughout check out the many examples, such as the opening scene of Hartman marching right up to the recruits (and to the camera), spitting and screaming vindictive comments, almost as if at the viewer. Some may criticise the almost disconnected feeling you have in the battle scenes towards the end, but I found their stillness, their quietness, and raw power, far more effective than the flash-bang wizardry employed in tripe such as 'We Were Heroes'. I can blather on about Kubrick for ages. so I'll stop now.

Is 'Full Metal Jacket' perfect? Not quite because of the 'two halves' syndrome. Although they do contrast and complement one another, the first half is very much the stronger half. The second feels weaker against it. In and of itself the second half would normally be regarded well, but it doesn't have the visceral power that the first does. I love both bits, but I do love one bit more. This makes the movie suffer just a little. There's so much to like here though that I can't criticise too much and so much to cherish (especially in the lines delved out). Once more the main man succeeds. Definetely worth seeing.

Spider-Man (2002)

Comically cool introduction to the Spider Man legend.

[9/10 · 13 June 2020]

The appeal of the best sequences in the Superman and Batman movies is that they lend weight and importance to comic-book images. Within the ground rules set by each movie, they even have plausibility. As a reader of the Spider Man comics, I admired the vertiginous frames showing Spider Man dangling from terrifying heights. He had the powers of a spider and the instincts of a human being.

Spider-Man takes most of its cues from 1978's Superman: The Movie. Peter Parker's journey from unassuming geek to high-flying hero mimics the Man of Steel's in story and tone. The colorful comic spirit of Richard Donner's gleefully exciting original is all here, just Marvel fiend. Raimi and screenwriter David Koepp approach Spider-Man's origin with reverence for Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's original story. Koepp's script hits all the beats you'd expect (Spider bite, wrestling match, great power, and all that), but it also includes, unexpectedly, an intelligent, eloquent emotional foundation. Raimi and Koepp understand who Peter Parker is, and how his transformation into Spider-Man can metaphorically parallel his development as a character. In being confronted by new and strange spider powers, Peter is also confronted by the responsibilities of manhood. Koepp takes Stan Lee's best idea (That Peter Parker should grapple equally between super villains and everyday problems), and pushes it to its logical max.

Peter's infatuation with girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) is given equal importance to his struggle with Norman Osborne's manic alter ego, the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). The result is pretty well timeless. The quintessential Spider-Man story. A coming of age tale that gracefully weaves together every important aspect of the wall-crawler's myth into a grand concoction of pure Spider-Man.

Enhancing the story is one of the great casting jobs in motion picture history. First and foremost is Tobey Maguire, who was a revelation as Peter Parker/ Spider-Man. Like Christopher Reeve before him, Maguire completely defines the role. His Parker is a good kid; shy, dorky, and believably square. He radiates with innocence and later, teenage anxiety. As Spider-Man, he's delightfully charismatic. Lively, but never annoyingly brash in the way other Spideys have been. In the costume or not, every subsequent Spidey will live in his shadow. Maguire's casting was a stroke of genius, but it was no anomaly. Kirsten Dunst is a luminous Mary Jane, and she and Peter's romance sparkles with charm. Willem Dafoe relishes his Green Goblin role, with a voice and presence that burn with comic book intensity. Peter Parker was crucial in the evolution of Marvel comics because he was fallible and had recognizable human traits. He was a nerd, a loner, socially inept, insecure, a poor kid being raised by relatives. Ma Guire gets all of that just right, and I enjoyed the way Durnst is able to modulate her gradually increasing interest in this loser who begins to seem attractive to her.

I also liked the complexity of the villain, who in his Dr. Jekyll manifestation is brilliant tycoon Norman Osborn and in his Mr. Hyde persona is a cackling psychopath. Osborn's son Harry is a rich kid, embarrassed by his dad's wealth, who is Peter's best and only friend, and Norman is affectionate toward Peter even while their alter egos are deadly enemies. That works, and there's an effective scene where Osborn has a conversation with his invisible dark side. The origin story is well told, and the characters will not disappoint anyone who values the original comic books.

But Spider-Man belongs to Sam Raimi. A Spider-Man super fan since childhood, Raimi was destined to bring the web slinger to life. The offbeat sense of violent fun and jubilant cinematic showmanship that made Evil Dead and Darkman so entertaining is precisely what was needed to bring Spider-Man's New York to dazzling light. And what a creation Raimi's Spider-Verse is! The tone, with a precarious balance of larger-than-life action and textured character moments, never wavers once. Raimi crafts in Spider-Man, a New York where the archetypal comic book mainstays: the cackling villains, the wise-cracking heroes, and the pedestrians who shout to the skies "Look, it's Spider-Man!", fit just as well as the richly drawn human characters. Raimi and the creative team behind the film's production design deserve the highest of praises. There is nothing else that combines style and realism to such astonishing effect. It's as if forty years of comics have been distilled into a real world somewhere alongside our own.

Spider-Man showcases Sam Raimi at his exuberant best. Every frame of this movie is bursting with life. Whether it's the often gripping action scenes or the carefully crafted soap operatic drama, Spider-Man is an enthusiastic piece of crowd-pleasing entertainment, a passionate celebration of the Spider-Man Myth, and above all, a work of unparalleled quality. Blockbusters, especially superhero movies, with their all but guaranteed profits, can often breed lazy film making. Sam Raimi and company fly in the face of that conceit. The filmmakers have taken the time to really craft this film. Wrapped up in all the soaring spectacle is something real; An enchanting love story, a poignant morality tale about becoming the man you will be for the rest of your life.

That movie starts the string of the spider man that I'm grown with and raise the bar really high for the next super hero movie which comes soon after it. This part is really good synthesized. I can tell much more good thing about the movie but you can make them on your own.

Hulk (2003)

Interesting, quality look at an unusually cursed super hero.

[9/10 · 13 June 2020]

Like the Frankenstein stories that are its predecessors, "Hulk" is a warning about the folly of those who would toy with the secrets of life. It is about the anguish of having powers you did not seek and do not desire. "What scares me the most," Banner tells his only friend, Betty Ross, "is that when it happens, when it comes over me, when I totally lose control, I like it." Ang Lee's "Hulk" (the movie's title drops "the") is the most talkative and thoughtful recent comic book adaptation. It is not so much about a green monster as about two wounded adult children of egomaniacs. Banner (Eric Bana) was fathered by a scientist (Nick Nolte) who has experimented on his own DNA code, and passed along genes that are transformed by a lab accident into his son's hulkhood. Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) is his research partner; they were almost lovers, but it didn't work out, and she speaks wryly of "my inexplicable fascination with emotionally distant men." Her cold father is General Ross (Sam Elliott), filled with military bluster and determined to destroy the Hulk.

Spiderman (in particular) follows the exact steps you can read in a tutorial for film making that may be neat to watch but leaves no space for surprises or artistic inputs. Ang Lee seems to have taken especially this thought very seriously and created a piece of art that the average pop corn formula film liking movie goer may find hard to digest. No doubt, this movie is not made for assembly line film lovers. It is constructed very thoughtfully and goes beyond the interpretation of a superhero. It plays with the chaos that erupts out of the events rather than glorifying another world savior.

There is no real good and evil, there only is an overcharge from both sides that don't know how to master the situation. The American movie goer averagely wants black and white sides, a proud United States flag waving and a hero that saves the day (nation and eventually the world, maybe even the universe). Nope, not in this one. While most of the other films establish superheroes as something that fits perfectly into our society, Hulk plays with the idea of what would happen if unknown uncontrolled unnameable power surfaces and that both sides act incredibly humane. At this point 80% of movie-consumers are out and 90% of movie-lovers come in (that number is small as we know).

The crux is that this movie does not know who it's aimed at. The intellectual Ang Lee connoisseur picks his nose when it comes to the Hulk, simply due to its humble roots, while the average pop corn cinema goer is slightly irritated when confronted with the films odd approach to comic movies. This means that only viewers which are a bit of both can truly appreciate this masterpiece.

The movie brings up issues about genetic experimentation, the misuse of scientific research and our instinctive dislike of misfits, and actually talks about them. Remember that Ang Lee is the director of films such as "The Ice Storm" and "Sense and Sensibility," as well as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"; he is trying here to actually deal with the issues in the story of the Hulk, instead of simply cutting to brain less special effects.

All the other elements for a good piece of entertainment are there and present: Eric Bana is, as usual, fine as the tormented soul which manifests itself in green rage, Jennifer Connelly is as solid as ever and Nick Nolte steals the show with what is a truly weird turn as Bruce Banner's/the Hulk's dad. The visual effects are beautifully executed as well. There is not much left to be desired.

Five years later the audience won and an assembly line version was released, not as bad as some others but definitely not as creative and visionary as this one. Great job Ang!!!

Office Space (1999)

An eccentric cry at modern burocracy with its own funny quirkiness.

[9/10 · 13 June 2020]

As the movie opens, a cubicle slave named Peter (Ron Livingston) is being reminded by his smarmy supervisor (Gary Cole) that all reports now carry a cover sheet. "Yes, I know," he says. "I forgot. It was a silly mistake. It won't happen again." Before long another manager reminds him about the cover sheets. "Yes, I know," he says. Then another manager. And another. Logic suggests that when more than one supervisor conveys the same trivial information, their jobs overlap, and all supervisors after the first one should be shredded.

Peter and his friends have a permanent case of 'the Mondays.' Stuck in dead end programming jobs in an uncaring corporate environment, with a series of ridiculous, annoying and dysfunctional co-workers, Peter has motivation problems. At the request of his equally aggravating girlfriend, he subjects himself to occupational therapy via hypnotism, but just as he reaches a deep trance state, the hypnotist drops dead, and Peter is left in a state of blissful lack of inhibitions. And as things begin to go wrong, they actually get better - through the films twisted (but oh so truthful) logic.

Easily one of my favorite comedies, and sort of a source of medicine for the pains of working in an office with complete idiots. Ahh, cubicle life. Anyone who's ever worked in a corporate office can relate to this film on some level, and can probably swear that they know someone exactly like one of the characters depicted here. Mike Judge really captures the aspect that makes office life so miserable, which is without a doubt the characters that you must deal with that your personal life would normally exclude. There is no question that he must've had his own bout with the way of the office bitch, as he shows that he knows it all too well. Out of the comedies I've seen, I can most identify with this one.

Peter is in love with the waitress at the chain restaurant across the parking lot. Her name is Joanna (Jennifer Aniston) and she has problems with management, too. She's required to wear a minimum of 15 funny buttons on the suspenders of her uniform; the buttons are called "flair" in company lingo, and her manager suggests that wearing only the minimum flair suggests the wrong spirit (another waiter has "45 flairs" and looks like an exhibit at a trivia convention).

The movie's dialogue is smart. It doesn't just chug along making plot points. Consider, for example, Michael Bolton's plan for revenge against the company. He has a software program that would round off payments to the next-lowest penny and deposit the proceeds in their checking account. Hey, you're thinking--that's not original! A dumb movie would pretend it was.

Arguably one of the most quotable movies of today's average working stiff's generation. Lumberg and Milton are such classic characters you must be seriously independently wealthy and never worked a day in your life to not be able to identify with a classic movie like Office Space. Thank goodness dudes like Mike Judge exist in Hollywood. I can't imagine a world without a great little flick like this still kicking around. While it would never be considered Oscar type material, I can't help but to think that after all these years, this movie remains among the most tragically over-looked and under appreciated comedies. For no great critical reason other than pure fun factor and pop culture relevance, Office Space remains firmly, a true classic of our time.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Paced, effect comedy with a twist.

[7/10 · 13 June 2020]

Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy, a sensationally arrogant and dumb San Diego news anchor. His goofy co-stars (including Paul Rudd & the scarily dim Steve Carrell) are also his only friends until Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) arrives to spike their testosterone punch. Soon she's sharing Burgundy's desk and his bed. But the men resent this woman (the first female anchor ever, apparently) and humorous trouble brews. Fred Willard plays the boss and straight man, which is a bit of a disappointment. He's too hilarious to be so serious. Anchorman tells a simple story: acclaimed (and consequently arrogant) news anchor Ron Burgundy is forced to adapt when an attractive new female member of the Channel 4 news team (Applegate) begins changing the way he and his quirky news team work. That's it. This story is predictable, prescription esquire, boring. But Anchorman does not draw it's strength from story. It draws from the hilarious situations. It draws from randomness. It draws from brief but memorable cameos. It draws from those 100 or so unforgettable one liners.

As apposed to many, many, other comedies, Anchorman actually gets better as it moves along. Most of the time a comedy like this will use up all the laughs in the first hour and then try to take a serious, lovey dovey turn in the last act. There are more laughs in the last half hour than in the first half hour, which usually is never the case. It's as if there was some mathematical comedic formula that spread the laughs out in a way that it was consistently funny. Or, maybe they just got lucky. I do not know.

I loved all the characters in the movie, every role no matter how small had a great moment or two. Will Ferrel of course, the star of the movie who is just perfect as Ron. He's so so funny cause he's such a lovable idiot. Even Christina Applegate, who was in a role that quite honestly anyone could have done, is able to make it her own and provide some laughs. There is a scene that has a lot of cameos that was hilarious as well. It was one of those moments that takes you completely by surprise.

"Anchorman" is completely over the top, and ignores any boundaries. That really makes it work. "Anchorman" is broad stroke farce done well. Will Ferrell demonstrates great comedic gifts. I want to see what he creates next. For now, "Anchorman" is just great fun, and very funny stuff.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Even more exciting than the first, with revamped action & effects.

[9/10 · 13 June 2020]

Neo, Morpheus, Trinity, and the rest of their crew continue to battle the machines that have enslaved the human race in the Matrix. Now, more humans are waking up out of the matrix and attempting to live in the real world. As their numbers grow, the battle moves to Zion, the last real-world city and center of human resistance.

It is a good sequel who doesn't deserve to be hated for it. Keanu Reeves and all other cast crew did outstanding performance on their works. Nearly 12 years later have passed since no movie has come close to tapping into the myth, world and action that was created in Matrix Reloaded. For fans of action movies, the story can be as straight forward as you wish it to be, following the path of Neo as man kind's savior. For those who wish to dive deeper, you can see how far the rabbit whole really goes because the amount of hidden references, back plots and information in this movie is immense. For a film The Matrix fans this wouldn't be an action movie without some action. There's plenty of it, and it's perfectly done. The computer generated image effects creating more Smiths are astonish, were cutting edge for the time, and still look great (whoever said differently below is simply incorrect) -- even if they're completely commonplace today. Insane action ensues as a well done plot follows.

For as far as the action sequences are concerned: Groundbreaking. You'll see stuff that you've never seen before. Sometimes the scenes are a little lengthy, which harms the narrative, but that is compensated easily by the visual spectacle. And yes, the Architect at the end is difficult to understand, but when you watch the film more than once, you'll find out that it does make sense what he says. All together this movie may not be as fantastic as 'The Matrix', but it is definitely a good movie that will keep you thinking for a while. Were the film separated itself from other action packed films is of course in the underlying philosophical and religious aspects. Once the film has been watched a few times for the effects you can begin to see some of the elements. I don't think its possible to fully translate and analyze every element of the film. Mainly because every element can be analyzed in a bunch of different ways. Without spoiling too much I can say that if you look hard enough you will be able to find Plato, Baudrillard, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christian elements and some more. The people who tell matrix lovers to get a life for searching the Matrix for a deeper meaning ought to open their eyes and watch the film one more time. With that I'm not saying that you can't be intelligent if you don't like the Matrix I am simply asking you to give it another chance. You really won't regret it.

Effect wise Reloaded is a feast. There is literally something to look at in every scene. The "real" world has been given a face lift to make it more interesting. The real effects, however, take place inside the matrix and just like in the first film the effects are absolutely ground breaking. Rivaling the likes of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and that is saying something. The people who think the story is pretentious and the dialog stubby will undoubtedly get their adrenaline fix in the action scenes. Some scenes had me holding my breath and gasping at how beautiful and overwhelming it all was and as much as I love the philosophical aspects of the film I can watch it for the effects themselves as well. Without spoiling anything I can say that lovers of cool fight scenes and effects are in for a hell of a treat with this one. For as far as the action sequences are concerned: Groundbreaking. You'll see stuff that you've never seen before. Sometimes the scenes are a little lengthy, which harms the narrative, but that is compensated easily by the visual spectacle. And yes, the Architect at the end is difficult to understand, but when you watch the film more than once, you'll find out that it does make sense what he says.

It is obvious that this sequel to The Matrix takes the story to a whole new dimension. Different characters define the working of the matrix, and the meaning of life itself, in different ways, depending on their ontological background. A conclusion is not given, which adds to the movie a kind of postmodern quality. All together this movie may not be as fantastic as 'The Matrix', but it is definitely a good movie that will keep you thinking for a while.

The Matrix (1999)

An expertly crafted action film from the formula; with some redefining action mark trimmings.

[10/10 · 7 June 2020]

"The Matrix" is a visually dazzling cyber adventure, full of kinetic excitement, it uses formula when it's getting interesting. It is not a letdown when a movie begins by redefining the nature of reality, and ends with a shoot-out. We want a leap of the imagination, so it does not mind in case of obligatory climaxes with automatic weapons fire.

Acting wise the film works excellently. I won't say that there aren't any issues because there are but overall the acting is pretty flawless. Keanu Reeves plays the main character, Neo, or Thomas A. Anderson and while he is not the perfect actor I think he does a pretty good job in The Matrix (and the sequels). He doesn't have the longest of lines which was probably a deliberate choice from the directors and it works because this gives him a better opportunity to work on posture and facial expressions and I must say that overall his body language is very good. Very clear and well defined. Laurence Fishbourne plays Neo's mentor Morpheus and he does an excellent job of it. His lines flow with a certain confidence and style that makes his character somewhat unique and interesting. Carrie-Anne Moss does a good job as well and succeeds in looking both cool and sexy in her leather outfit. Joe Pantoliano, a critically underrated actor does a brilliant job of bringing his character, Cypher, to life. I can't say much about him because his character is pretty essential to the plot and I certainly don't wan't to spoil it for anyone. Gloria Foster appears in a relatively small role that will have greater significance in the following films and she does a very good job. The best acting is provided by Hugo Weaving, however, in his portrayal of Agent Smith. It is really something to watch him act out the changes in his character. Agent Smith gains some human traits like anger, sense of dread, hate and eventually even a sly sense of humor (mostly in the sequels). Two thumbs way up to Weaving who has created one of the finest screen villains of all time.

But what makes The Matrix several cuts above the rest of the films in its genre is that there are simply no loopholes. The script, written by the Wachowski brothers is intelligent but carefully not geeky. The kung fu sequences were deftly shot -- something even Bruce Lee would've been proud of. The photography was breathtaking. (I bet if you had to cut every frame on the reel and had it developed and printed, every single frame would stand on its own.) And the acting? Maybe not the best Reeves but name me an actor who has box-office appeal but could portray the uneasy and vulnerable protagonist, Neo, to a T the way Reeves did. But, come to think of it, if you pit any actor beside Fishburne, you're bound to confuse that actor for bad acting. As Morpheus, Fishburne is simply wicked! Shades of his mentor-role in Higher Learning, nobody exudes that aura of quiet intensity than Fishburne. His character, battle-scarred but always composed Morpheus, is given an extra dose of mortality (He loves Neo to a fault.) only Mr. Fishburne can flesh out

Effects wise the film is simply stunning and it deservedly was awarded the Oscar for best effects (and was regrettably cheated out of a nomination in the Best Film category) ahead of even Star Wars. The reason that I think The Matrix deserves the Oscar for best effects is simply that the effects in The Matrix are more innovative than the ones in Star Wars. Just take a look at how many times the effects have been spoofed and you'll probably agree. The effects also help in the symbolism of the film and in creating a very dystopian atmosphere not unlike the one seen in Blade Runner and this works brilliantly. The film looks beautiful at all times and today 6 years later (my God has it already been 6 years?) the effects still hold their ground against new science fiction films. Add the effects to the brilliant editing and you have a visual masterpiece on your hands. Very well done.

The reason that I think The Matrix is more reviewable than pretty much any other film is the story and the philosophical and religious elements of the story because with every viewing I catch something I didn't see the previous time I watched it. Without spoiling the film I think I can mention a few of the more obvious elements. Obviously the film draws on the Messiah myth as Neo is a clear reference to Jesus with the analogy of his name (Neo = one, as in The One) Aside from the Christianic elements the film also gets its inspiration from Budhism, Gnosticism (Gnosis = knowledge) but is also inspired by Plato and his analogy of the Cave and Jean Baudrillard's essay, Simulacra and Simulations. Explaining these elements would make this review go on forever so aside from mentioning them I will not comment on them further.

People will say what they want to say about how good The Matrix is but the bottom line is this: finally there's a philosophical film that has cut through this generation. My generation. The Wachowski brothers probably scribbled a little P.S. note when they finished the script saying: think for a moment about your existence. What is the Matrix, you ask? Something that's closer to reality than you think.

The Incredibles (2004)

A clever, intelligent animated film concerning the classic comic book super hero theme.

[8/10 · 7 June 2020]

Basically, this is a story of a man encountering a mid life crisis and leaping headlong into it without a care or a thought for his family, proving exceedingly selfish and failing to see the good in his life. Meanwhile the wife is left to try and look after the family. Really, that's the story. Now, what Pixar have done is drop in the idea that the parents are Superheroes, banned from being Super many years previously by the Government and the people, trying to live a normal life. Add to the mix that some of their children have inherited their own powers and that the Super villains are planning a comeback, and you have this wonderful movie.

On the surface, "The Incredibles" is a goof on superhero comics. Underneath, it's a critique of modern American uniformity. Mr. Incredible is forced to retire, not because of age or obsolescence, but because of trial lawyers seeking damages for his unsolicited good deeds; he's in the same position as the Boy Scout who helps the little old lady across the street when she doesn't want to go. What his society needs is not super deeds but tort reform. "They keep finding new ways," he sighs, "to celebrate mediocrity."

I often find that animated movies aren't paced well, that they either have too long or too short an introduction to the characters, or the events that lead up to the pivotal point of the movie are unbalanced against the climax, all sorts of combinations. Not here, this move is perfect and well balanced, the story takes you along just when you are ready, and there were no points where I wished we could move on, or something could happen quicker.

Brad Bird's previous film was "The Iron Giant" (1999), about a misunderstood robot from outer space, and the little boy who becomes his friend. It had a charm and delicacy that was unique in the genre, and "The Incredibles," too, has special qualities, especially in the subtle ways it observes its gifted characters trying to dumb down and join the crowd. Kids in the audience will likely miss that level, but will like the exuberance of characters like Dash. Grown-ups are likely to be surprised by how smart the movie is, and how sneakily perceptive the script is.

It was interesting to see the comparisons and links to other famous Superheroes through comic lore. Definitely with nods to The Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer and huge nods to The Watchmen. My only concern is that there is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven't read the graphic novel will be saying "That's the Incredibles movie" when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.

So what little touches make The Incredibles so appealing? How it starts to deconstruct the idea of a superhero, perhaps, as well as how the family unit is shown in the usual conventions under unusual and funny circumstances. As an example, one of our heroes Mr. Incredible, a.k.a. Bob Parr (voiced wonderfully by Craig T. Nelson), goes to visit a woman who fixes and creates the uniforms of superheroes. In one scene she explains why a cape is not a good idea. This is the kind of scene that might not make it into most Hollywood movies, and would sometimes if not often be discredited as being too 'smart' for kids to get. But by appealing to a kind of level late teens and adults can relate to, it reaches a higher, far more intelligent plane. In fact, many of the best scenes in the film take on what we all know in films displaying the 'family unit' and morph it with the power and imagination of superheroes.

Overall, The Incredibles is a film that is, in a way, what audiences wish they could get and rarely do- it's a film with wit and observance, a kind of video-game where the results are not as expectable as can be. Some kids may not get it as much as adults might, which is just as well, as it sometimes operates on a level like Antz did, only through the sphere of Disney. In other words, if you say the teaser trailer, which involved the out-of-shape Mr. Incredible trying with all his might to buckle his tights, you'll know what the film could bring. Personally, I can't wait to see it again

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

Paul Green Grass's high octane action directing sprawls to a halt at the serie's conclusion.

[9/10 · 7 June 2020]

Paul Green Grass picks up his quintessentially action film style of shaky camera, close camera angles, & choppy editing in perfect synchronicity with the sound for the series' conclusion; grinding it to a halt with a dramatic finish inundating the Central Intelligence Agency with harassment crimes against its own agents. Green Grass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.

Run, Jason, run. The Bourne films have taken chases beyond a storytelling technique and made them into the story. Jason Bourne's search for the secret of his identity does involve one in pulsating empathy for his dilemma. As a MacGuffin, it's a woozy. Some guy finds himself with a fake identity, wants to know who he really is and spends three movies finding out at breakneck speed.

It's just so intense. Bourne says to Simon Ross (Considine) "This isn't some newspaper story, this is real" and in the audience you almost believe him. The camera shakes, but remains steady enough for you to see everything and feel like you're there with Bourne as he tries to elude his pursuers, and the performances are so good that these guys seem as though they are the characters they're portraying, instead of just being actors performing well-written roles. The action scenes are so brutally fast paced and well choreographed that they seem instinctive instead of planned to the minutest movement; the stunt work is nothing short of amazing.

"Ultimatum" is a tribute to Bourne's determination, his driving skills, his intelligence in out-thinking his masters and especially his good luck. No real person would be able to survive what happens to him in this movie, for the obvious reason that they would have been killed very early in "The Bourne Identity" (2002) and never have survived to make "The Bourne Supremacy" (2004). That Matt Damon can make this character more convincing than the Road Runner is a tribute to his talent and dedication. It's not often you find a character you care about even if you don't believe he could exist.

The pacing is just incredible. It keeps driving forward towards its conclusion, but not so fast that it leaves you struggling to piece together the plot; the script delivers the information you need as quickly and clearly as possible before moving on to the next tense action set-piece. While they're often simple (the Waterloo sequence is essentially just a man on a phone being watched by a man on a phone) they're charged with such dramatic intensity that you can't take your eyes off them. The film is just so focused on powering forwards that you can't help being swept along by it.

The Bourne Ultimatum has a great plot, awesome writing, fantastic direction, suspense, and some of the best action of the summer. Matt Damon delivers possibly his best performance to date. He has the conviction and swelling desire of the troubled assassin. There are some intelligent humor here and some fine suspense. The reactions to certain events will have you either laughing(in a good way) or cheering on.

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

Green Grass hurtles you through this paced up sequel.

[8/10 · 6 June 2020]

Paul Green Grass steps in the director's chair, with his quintessentially action film octane buff & thrilling direction style. The film picks up a style of its own. It would replicate this in the third installment the Bourne Ultimatum. It chiefly involves shaky camera, close camera angles, & fast choppy editing in perfect synchronicity with the series' awe sound.

The casting is still great, with Matt Damon bringing a dead pan portrayal to the Bourne character. Hes very good in this role, which commits a great success to the whole of the movie. Supporting players Brian Cox and Julia Styles, along with newcomer Joan Allen, all provide stellar support for Bourne. The action is intense and really well done, and the plot is thrilling and will surprise you quite a bit.

The movie is assembled from standard thriller ingredients, and hurtles from one action sequence to another in India and Europe, with cuts to parallel action in Washington and New York. What distinguishes it is Bourne's inventiveness. There's a scene where he takes about four seconds to disable an armed agent and steal his cell phone contact list, and you're thinking, this is a guy who knows what he's doing. And how about the innovative use he finds for a toaster? It's neat to see him read a situation and instantaneously improvise a response, often by using lateral thinking.

The camera work is extremely fast paced, and overall it has a gritty, captivating style. The camera is unstable. It was obviously done intentionally by design choice, but not excessively overdone. Through action scenes that had you at the edge of your seat, you'd just come to realize that you can see what the heck is going on. This makes these scenes easy to enjoy. But not only was it the action scenes; even during quiet still scenes the camera would always seem to be moving. Just to serve as a warning, it's pretty much like that throughout most of the movie, so brace yourself for an adventure of epic proportions.

We have a pretty good idea, long before anyone else does, because the movie observes the Law of Economy of Character Development, which teaches us that when an important actor is used in an apparently subordinate role, he's the villain. But the movie doesn't depend on its big revelations for its impact; the mystery is not why Bourne is targeted, but whether he will die. He survives one lethal trap or ambush after another, leaping off bridges, crashing cars, killing assailants, and finally limping a little after a chase that should have killed him.

Because it's plot heavy, The Bourne Supremacy requires the viewer to watch, and the large amount of talking goes some way to distancing this from most other action movies. However, this could also be seen as a good point as it can not, at times, hinder the movie in the excitement stakes and make it easy viewing for those that do like their action. The movie spans across Europe to a number of different countries including Germany, Britain, France and Russia and this keeps it exciting as it allows the landscape of the movie to change constantly and the film doesn't dwell in the same area. In fact, the film is very efficient on the whole and it never overindulges in anything, which compensates for the amount of talking and allows it to be exciting. Despite it being more stealthy than most, time is still found for a number of high-octane sequences including fist fights, explosions and the great car chase that looks as if it could have been lifted straight out of Grand Theft Auto.

With all of these elements together, you got one great action thriller that in many cases even surpasses Identity! Movies like this are hard to come by, in todays times with many action pictures that just don't work and become tedious. Definitely see The Bourne Identity before this don't fret: you will be very entertained.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

A good state to the classic meat & butter espionage thriller

[9/10 · 6 June 2020]

The crew of a fishing vessel find a body floating in the middle of the ocean. They bring it on board and the improvised 'doctor' finds two bullets on the back and a Swiss bank account implanted in the hip of the body. The 'body' indeed is not dead but unconscious: he is Jason Bourne (Matt Dammon), a CIA secret and very well prepared agent with amnesia. During the period of fishing in the sea, he recovers his health. Once on shore, he decides to go to the Swiss bank and then to the American Consulate. There he meets Marie Helena Kreutz (Franka Potente, from 'Run Lola Run' and 'Anatomy') and they two together will pass to the most spectacular actions along the film. The great Matt Dammon and Franka Potente are perfect.

I Bourne is trained. Is he ever. He speaks several languages, is a formidable martial artist, has highly trained powers of observation and memory, knows all the spy tricks and is a formidable driver. We see that during a sensational chase scene through the streets of Paris, much of it through narrow alleys, down flights of steps, and against traffic

While "Bourne" does not have a particularly deep plot, it is consistent and focused. The focus is entirely upon Bourne and how he is to deal with having no memory of his past, being hunted without knowing why. Some people have complained about being confused by the movie. I for one, do not need to have everything spelled out since in many cases this smacks of unreality in the first place; the essence of espionage is drawing conclusions from very sketchy information.

Douglas Liman, the film's executive producer, directs it. He directs the traffic well, gets a nice wintry look from his locations, absorbs us with the movie's spy craft and uses Damon's ability to be focused and sincere. His direction seems to slow down the piously choreographed chase scenes & martial fights to focus on heavy exposition between Damon & Potente's characters as they unveil they myriad of mysteries regarding Bourne's fishing out of Mediterranean waters & his very identity; before expert action film director Paul Green Grass took over in the second film & speed the film up with his shaky hand held camera & fast editing & mixing style. Liman does not playing out the film as a stage play in which we are acquainted with the characters' mystery & conspiracy strung ids & limited superegos.

The fights are just impressive, which, as other reviewers have pointed out, are among the most believable martial arts based fight scenes ever seen. No big grand gestures or Olympian kicks just fast, nasty moves designed to inflict maximum damage with minimum effort.

This movie is better than the sequels in the Bourne series due to the romantic interest between Jason and Marie and the humanity expressed in the script versus the action in the sequels. The script has some special lines, such as Jason's "Just keep on talking, it's relaxing," and "How do I know that?" and Marie's "I said I was your personal assistant, I just asked for it" and "Nobody does the right thing," and the dying agent's line "We always work alone." The story raises issues about organizations which tend to eliminate their own members. In the end, truth and justice win out on an individual level, if not a societal level which, it seems, was the author's message.

Nonetheless, a great opener to a trilogy that Green Grass would enhance by letting the script dissolve in the film with the pace & mood of a classic, nearly Hitchcock, espionage thriller. The entire story is a set up for the martial arts and chases. Because they are done well, because the movie is well crafted and acted, we give it a pass. The Bourne Identity is excellently paced and brings a great deal of realism to the spy genre. The fight sequences are fast and believable, the car chases are accurately choreographed and the character of Jason Bourne is vulnerable and easy to identify with.