Sewaat Reviews

FDR: That Man in the White House (1978 TV Movie)

Humerous, Captivating and Wonderful

[9/10 · 26 June 2020]

I have never written a review for a live show before but I enjoyed this so much, I just had to get the word out somehow. Especially as I'm now realizing that this little telefilm doesn't have nearly as much attention on it as it should.

A little bit of background about me: Politics are not my area of interest whatsoever. So I'm not even sure what possessed me to watch this. But wow am I ever glad I did!

I was a bit skeptical if I would enjoy it because it was a one-man-show which means no other actors but one are present during this production. Naturally, it runs the risk of being stale or boring. However, Robert Vaughn's performance as 32nd President Franklin Roosevelt is so interesting and so full of life, I barely even noticed I had sat through the entire 1 hour and 42-minute show until it was over! He had my attention for every single moment. I have since gone on to watch it two more times because it is simply that good.

Another very positive point about this show that I have to comment on is how educational it is without being dull. I went into this knowing only the bare minimum about FDR. (He was president during WWII and the depression, he had Polio, etc.) And I came out of it feeling pretty confident that if I was asked to write a book about FDR, I could probably do it using just the information I got from this show. Granted, I'm sure certain historical details were omitted or dramatized somewhat for the effect of the show, but from everything I've gathered, this telefilm is mostly accurate and didn't take too many historical liberties. This is something I greatly respect as both a history fan and just a stickler for detail and accuracy in general.

Another word about Vaughn's performance (something that I cannot oversell or give too much praise for) is that countless times throughout I forgot what I was watching. I had to keep reminding myself that this was not colourized footage of the real FDR. This was a performance from the early 1980s by an actor who flawlessly disappears into this charismatic and energetic portrayal of a past American President; perhaps one of the most iconic ones ever. Even while confined to a wheelchair for the majority of the show (as the real FDR was during much of his life) he radiates with boundless energy and emotion. I could not take my eyes off of him.

It's impossible for me to pick a favourite scene from this show because I have so many favourite moments from the entire thing. But no matter if it was a funny or dramatic scene, I was greatly moved by the entire performance. The humerous scenes were every bit as good as the more serious moments and the balance between comedy and drama was perfectly executed throughout. I now have a much larger appreciation and tons more respect for both Robert Vaughn and Franklin Roosevelt after viewing this incredible insight on his life both as a man paralyzed by illness and as a United States President.

Anyone who loves History (especially American History) should definitely give this a watch. I also think this would be a great video to show in History Classes. If my History teacher had shown this during class, I think I would have been a lot more interested!

9/10

The Changeling (1980)

9/10 There are no plot holes in this film - you just weren't paying attention

[9/10 · 12 February 2019]

I should probably say first of all that I have already written a review for this film but after reading a few negative ones which were less about reviewing the film and more complaints about how the film had "plot holes", I decided to make a more positive counter-argument to those points, as I happen to adore this film.

I have seen at least two reviews (if not more) here that complain about the following "errors" in the story. However, if they had been paying attention to the film, they would have seen that the elements which they viewed to be "plot holes" are actually all explained or heavily implied right there in the movie. So let's begin, shall we?

#1 Why didn't Joseph exact revenge on his father/his replacement sooner?

Not only does Joseph's spirit seem to not really have a clear grasp on how much time has passed since his death (notice how he uses present-tense when we hear his voice on the tape?) he may not have even realized what had happened to him until maybe it was too late and his father had already passed away himself. However, even if he had, it wouldn't have mattered.

The film makes it very clear multiple times that John's grief made Joseph stronger; and by latching onto and using those negative emotions to fuel his powers, he was finally able to take action after years of being dormant. He hadn't taken any action against his father or his replacement because he wasn't yet strong enough to do so. The medium even says to John very clearly during the AMAZING seance scene:

"The presence in this house is reaching out to you through that loss," so there you go.

#2 Why does the spirit of Joseph turn on John and Claire at the end?

I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation: As I said above, up until that point, Joseph (the ghost) was not strong enough to do the things he was able to do at the end of the movie. Before then, he needed someone on the mortal plane (John) to act in his stead because he wasn't yet powerful enough to help himself. But by the end of the movie, his supernatural powers have increased tenfold. At some point around this time, he made the decision to burn down the house and bring his replacement to it, but in order to do that, he would have to make sure Claire and John do not come back in. I believe that he was acting with the best intentions, even though this decision was executed rather poorly and even recklessly. It was a dangerous way to do it, which makes it look like he's lashing out at John and Claire in anger, however, you have to remember that the spirit in this film belongs to a six-year-old boy, who probably has way too much energy and power than he even knows what to do with. So the wheelchair chasing Claire, and the wind knocking John off of the second floor was really his way of saying, "You two have to get out because I'm about to destroy this place."

But honestly, you can't even blame him for being angry even if that was the case. How would you feel if your own father murdered you and replaced you with someone else because you were sick? Not very good, I imagine.

#3 What was the purpose of the Cora/Bernard family side plot?

There is actually a name for this type of plot device. It's called a "red herring" which is wrong information deliberately given to the characters (or the audience) to make them believe in one thing when the truth is actually far different. If you remember (Minnie) the woman from the historical society purposely gave John and Claire that information in the hopes that it would lead them off the trail of the Carmichael's family history. I'm not saying that she knew exactly what had happened in that house, but it's VERY clear (especially in the second act) that the Senator has always suspected that something about his past doesn't make any sense and furthermore, he does not want anyone to know that, which is why Claire couldn't find the pre-1920 files on the Chessman house. They had been deliberately destroyed or removed.

#4 How could the Senator be in two places at once at the end of the film?

If you recall earlier in the film, during the flashback scene, we get a VERY effective POV shot of the camera moving really fast throughout the house and up into the attic. I believe that what we're seeing is John's perspective as his soul and body are being separated and the entire murder-flashback is being seen from his point of view. The forced separation of his soul/spirit from his physical self was painful and took a huge toll on him, which is why he looks so ill right after the scene. In fact, he even faints after trying to call Claire. But he definitely saw the murder happen, just like we did, as he later admits to the Senator.

Now, keeping all of this in mind, it's plausible then to assume that the exact same thing happened to the Senator at the end of the film. Except this time we actually do get to see his body/soul physically appear in two different places/scenes so that he is able to (finally) witness what really happened in that house. Unfortunately, due to his old age this also causes him to have a heart attack, the strain of the experience, as well as the shock of learning the truth and that his entire life was a lie causes him to die rather suddenly. But I can't imagine a more fitting end for that character, in all honesty.

The only thing that I can't explain in this scene is how John can see this happening (he reacts to seeing the "Senator" in the Chessman house while it's on fire.) Although, it has been pre-established that he has a very strong connection with Joseph's spirit so I have to assume that's the reason.

I don't know how the film could have made this more clear, but there's your explanation anyhow.

Conclusion: This film is absolutely masterful. If it left you feeling disappointed because of any of the above "plot holes" then I would encourage you to give it another watch. You might be surprised at how differently you'll feel after a second viewing.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

Astounding and Intriguing

[8/10 · 13 July 2017]

Allow me to begin this review by describing a childhood event for you. I was perhaps 10 years old, sitting in an arm chair that was way too big for me. And on the TV screen, was Planet of the Apes. I had not intended to sit down and watch the film in it's entirety, but that was the result all the same. The outcome? 10 year old me was fascinating and intrigued by what she saw. And the film's incredible twist ending, (which I shall not spoil just in case) left a very deep impression upon me and I have never forgotten it since.

1968 proved to be an important year for the science fiction genre. In the span of only 12 months, audiences were treated to both 2001: A Space Odyssey and this film. Remarkably, both films feature scenes with realistic ape make-up. Or at the very least, it was realistic for it's time. But let's not compare too much.

Younger generations seem to mistaken this film as one of those "campy" sci-fi flicks of the 1960's which have that "so bad it's good" appeal. Rest assured, Planet of the Apes is not one of those films. Rather, it's a deeply thought-provoking and philosophical study on the human race. But what makes this commentary on humanity so different from other sci-fi films is that the film makers chose to explore it through satire. Apes and men are completely reversed. It is the apes who walk around on two legs and capture humans for their amusement and studies while humans are primal and barbaric creatures who cannot speak. Up is down. Backwards is forwards, etc. What the main protagonist, George Taylor describes as "a mad house" is actually quite normal for the ape masses. And it's through such satirical and excellent screen writing that these themes begin to take hold. They are as amusing as they are slightly terrifying.

Held under a metaphorical microscope, the aforementioned screenplay is absolutely phenomenal. It's rife with mirthful and stimulating material. I believe it was this quality which had drawn me to the film so easily as a child. It mesmerizes as much as it entertains. However, it also forces us to confront our own wrongdoings. Evoking all sorts of complex questions for us to observe. Is man really so different from animals? Is our first instinct to destroy? Are we actually civil? Or merely pretending to be? You could argue and ponder over such questions all day long, but thankfully the film still provides a good time even without these philosophical musings.

As far as performances go, they are also (mostly) excellent. Kim Hunter and Roddy Mcdowall are both able to emote so much through their heavy and intense ape-make up. Every time I watch their scenes, I become more and more impressed. Charleton Heston's best moments emerge when his character is rendered temporarily mute. It has always been my hypothesis that an actor's talent can only be truly tested when he cannot speak, only react. When he does speak, he's simply adequate at best. A very arrogant and ham-fisted performance sometimes gets in the way of what could have been an expertly delivered line of dialogue, but these blunders are far and few between.

I consider the original Planet of the Apes to be a definitive sci-fi classic of it's time. And while it is not required to be viewed by anyone who calls themselves a film buff, it is highly recommended that you do. And for good reason.

Suspiria (1977)

Horror has never been this Colourful

[7/10 · 29 June 2017]

Suspiria was directed by Italian film maker Dario Argento and was released in 1977. It is often overshadowed by more popular horror titles of the 1970's, particularly John Carpenter's Halloween which came out the following year. However, as an avid horror fan I find immense enjoyment in Suspiria. It is certainly underrated and unfairly overlooked.

Suspiria makes up for what it lacks in story-telling by presenting us with beautiful, vibrant and striking images. Set designs and lighting which conjure strong emotions of dread and tension. The colour palette was beautifully designed so to evoke both fear and wonder in it's viewers. This is certainly the film's biggest strength. The cinematography is nearly perfect and completely embodies the mood and tones of this morbid, bright thriller.

Another great strength to this film is it's soundtrack. While repetitive at times, it still lends an amazing depth to the film and I cannot imagine watching it without the score.

Of course this film does have a couple of weaknesses. Suspiria was an international production, involving various actors from different regions to collaborate with one another. While some characters look and sound perfectly acceptable, the poor dubbing for some of the non-English speaking cast members is often distracting and takes the viewer out of the experience.

While some of the performances themselves leave something to be desired, Jessica Harper is vulnerable yet compelling as the film's protagonist. And while her character is not necessarily complex, hers is not required to be. Suzy Bannon is the every girl. The ordinary citizen who finds herself trapped in extraordinary circumstances and thus, must try to escape from them. There is something noble to found in a female character who does not depend on other people too much for support and is able to escape from danger entirely on her own. Especially in a film such as this.

Suspiria is a visual masterpiece of Horror. It is tense, atmospheric and full of striking colours and lighting. The story and performances are lacking, but overall it is a entertaining yet very sophisticated slasher film. It's visuals convey more than what mere words can describe. And for that, it should not be overlooked or disregarded.

Beauty and the Beast (I) (2017)

Essentially, a perfect remake

[8/10 · 10 June 2017]

When this film was first announced, skepticism was of course running rampant. The original animated film from 1991 is widely considered a masterpiece and one of Disney's best films. Doing the story justice with real actors of flesh and blood was going to be a challenge. That was no secret. So how does the finished film compare to the original? Thankfully, I found Bill Condon's take on the "tale as old as time" to be surprisingly refreshing. It's a great new spin on a story we're all familiar with. But by taking elements from the original that worked well the first time and changing what did not, this adaptation of Beauty and the Beast is easily what I consider to be the most successful Disney remake we've seen yet.

For the most part, the film takes the setting of it's story very seriously. Costumes and sets are all tailored and designed to perfection. And similar to Cinderella (2015), the film feels more like a period piece then a live action spin on a cartoon. The production design team were clearly trying very hard to make you believe that this is 1770's France and I think they definitely succeeded. There is some great craftsmanship at work here. This might seem like only a minor aspect of the overall spectacle, but Disney has run into some trouble before in terms of accurately representing history. Needless to say, that was scarcely a problem in this film.

One of the most prevalent things about this film I can say for it is that it has one of the most superb casts I've seen in a long while. Say what you will about Emma Watson's singing abilities, but she certainly looks the part of Belle, if nothing else. She is beautiful, intelligent and strong. Everything that we loved about Belle in the original translates nicely to this version. But the actor who deserves the most of my praise is Luke Evans as Gaston. Right from the moment he was announced, I knew he would be nothing but phenomenal in the role. And I was happily correct. Evans brings a fierce intensity to the character that was not present in the original. Gaston, it seems was a part that he was born to play.

Other noticeable performances include Josh Gad as Gaston's meek side kick, Lefou; a side villain who is greatly improved upon in this version; and Kevin Kline as Belle's father, Maurice. He brings a quiet and sincere quality to the character, contrasting greatly with his over-the-top persona in the original. Dan Stevens is also quite excellent as the cursed Prince. Having no prior knowledge of the actor's previous works, I was nervous to see how he would deal with playing such a complex character. Thankfully my worries were put to rest over the course of the film. He exudes a lot of humanity and charm through layers of CGI and has a strong singing voice to boot.

In my humble opinion, Beauty and the Beast is a nearly perfect remake. It changes what didn't work before and keeps what did. It adds new songs which are as equally powerful as the old classics we know. The care, love and attention to detail is hugely apparent in every scene. It is a well crafted and high spirited effort to bring a beloved animated feature to life.

Now that the next string of Disney remakes have been revealed, we may soon experience a new and prosperous period for the company, one with more momentum and success than the Disney Renaissance. But for now, let Beauty and the Beast serve as the example for how to make a proper and successful remake that doesn't lose any of the heart of it's predecessor. It's a charming, emotional and passionate story that will always be adored for all time.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Transcendental. Masterful. Existential

[9/10 · 8 June 2017]

It is a hard won struggle to put this film into words. Kubrick often left many puzzles behind in each of his films. But in the case of 2001, the puzzles are legion. This is one of the most complicated and powerful films that have ever been made. Watching it is an experience equal to being born again. It is enlightenment in film form. A beautiful insight on humankind that need not be looked at only once.

Rather than breaking this film down into it's essential components and how they work, I will instead focus on what this film makes me feel. By contributing my understanding and interpretations of it, hopefully I can help you to process your own.

Even now, as I type these very words I gaze up at the ceiling and ask myself what is it about this film that makes it so universally ground breaking? I'll reiterate: this film is infamously difficult to describe. But what can definitely be said is that with this film, Kubrick has conjured magic. True and real movie magic. He has gifted us with this incredible story about the human race. And like any good teacher, he instructs us passionately on who we were, who we are and where we are going. Are these not the questions in which we base our teachings on? Are these not the core principles of humanity as we know it?

2001 is light years ahead of it's time. Truly, a masterpiece of the craft of film making. It transcends all verbal description and has made a permanent place in our hearts and minds. It's not up to me to decide if this film is about God, Evolution, Extra Terrestrials or something else entirely. No interpretation is right or wrong. Kubrick has managed to combine Religion and Science Fiction into a seamless and ethereal experience. It is absolutely essential for viewing if you wish to become a film maker. And even if you do not, watch it anyway. You will be doing yourself a great disservice if you do not.

2001: A Space Odyssey is the film which holds all of life's questions and answers. Kubrick captured lightning in a bottle and we are blessed that he was willing and able to share it with us.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

An Exciting Return to an Amazing Saga

[8/10 · 7 June 2017]

When I go to the movies, I aim to experience one thing: escapism. Even if it's for only two hours, I like to occasionally escape this often unfair world we all live in and lose myself in a fictional adventure. And I think I speak for both the young and the young at heart when I say that Star Wars has brought escapism to audiences all over the globe and for many generations over the past 40 years.

I was born in the mid 1990s, so I never had a chance to experience the original Star Wars trilogy on the big screen and this was something that I had a hard time accepting ever since I was a child. I never thought I would be able to see Luke Skywalker, Han Solo or Princess Leia on the big screen ever in my life time. So you can imagine my excitement when I found out that they were making another Star Wars film that was not only inventing an entirely new cast of fresh faced characters, but was also bringing back the cast from the original films, who that of which have not walked on a Star Wars set for over 30 years. So it brings me great delight to be able to tell you that the most recent installment in the franchise did not disappoint.

The new characters of the film are all fully developed and come with their own strengths and insecurities. They don't clash with the old cast, but instead melt beautifully with them in every scene. Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac and Adam Driver all do amazingly well. The old cast of course are all stellar too. They slipped back into their respected characters so seamlessly, it feels as though no time has passed at all.

I was already familiar with J.J Abrams directing style going into this film. He, once again...does not fail to impress. This film is rife with stunning cinematography. The various locations are as gorgeous as they are aesthetically pleasing. CGI is used in this film, but to my relief it does not overpower the organic and practical effects. The environment in which these characters are staged in feels so authentic and believable, you feel as though you are a part of the journey yourself. It's instantly apparent that this film was made by a man who loves Star Wars just as much as we do.

Overall, the film is a triumph. It's a wonderful collaboration of new and old filming techniques that combine beautifully to create the ultimate Star Wars film that everyone can enjoy. It doesn't matter if this is your first experience with the Star Wars saga, or if you've watched all of the films one hundred times over, fans both new and familiar will equally appreciate the love and care that was tirelessly thrown into this dazzling, epic adventure. I anxiously await the next installment.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

Disney's best and darkest film

[9/10 · 5 April 2017]

Despite being an approved family film with a G rating, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is profoundly mature and deeply religious. But that is exactly why I love it.

The very first frames are a beautiful indicator of the nature of this story. A black screen with real Gregorian chants being sung alongside the haunting echoing of church bells. It sets up the film's tone perfectly. As if to warn parents and families that this is not the usual Disney fan fare that they're used to. Indeed, Hunchback delves into deeper and darker territory than any Disney film ever had before. And they are not likely to ever return to this dark place again.

During the prologue of the film, we are given a riddle by one of the film's chief characters: "Who is the monster and who is the man?" This of course refers to the opposing personalities of the hero and the villain of the story. However, it's possible as children that the answer was not immediately obvious to us. I know it certainly wasn't for me. But to be fair, this is a very complicated question for a supposed "children's film" to be asking it's audience: what makes morality? Is it the face you wear? Or the deeds you do?

Speaking of complexity, I've found that the more I re-watch Hunchback, the more I begin to suspect that this film was not made for children at all. Or at least I would believe this if not for the film's very appalling tone problem. Scenes vary between extreme highs and lows of Disney-esque wonder and excitement and then completely reverse into scenes of depravity and danger at the drop of a hat. Comedy is injected at inopportune moments, causing shifts in mood that are almost bi-polar and hard to ignore. However, this is the film's only glaring flaw. In it's entirety, it's a well written and well executed story that delivers glorious emotional moments that feel just as real and raw as any sequence from a live action film.

The voice acting therein is some of Disney's best. Tom Hulce, Tony Jay, Demi Moore and Kevin Kline are all so genuine they seem to completely disappear into their characters. It is this that makes them feel all the more human and so tragically real. Visually, the characters are compelling and well designed. It becomes very enjoyable to catch the little micro-expressions and small facial quirks of the characters as they move and speak. This is without a doubt some of Disney's finest hand drawn work.

In addition to it's visual majesty, Hunchback also has one of the best soundtracks of any Disney film, if not the best. The loud, Latin choirs are intense, epic and chill inducing. The strength the music alone lends to the film is phenomenally powerful. It is sinful that Alan Menken did not win an Oscar for the score. It would have been more than well deserved.

Overall, the film is magnificent. It is a grand and exciting tale that feels just as huge and gargantuan as Notre Dame herself. Nearly every frame could be a painting. The craft and artistry that went into this film is without equal. Even with all of it's mature themes of religious symbolism, sexual desire and corruption of the church, it still manages to be a wholesome film of the Disney brand. At it's core, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a story about heroism, justice and self-acceptance. Children and adults alike would greatly benefit from the messages and morals it has to tell.

La La Land (2016)

Irresistible Fun

[9/10 · 27 February 2017]

It's true. We've seen films like La La Land before. In the first five minutes it becomes all too clear that Damien Chazelle's Hollywood musical is trying to pay homage to all of the ones that came before it. (Singin' in the Rain, An American in Paris, etc.) However, it is exactly this that makes La La Land such a delight for audiences and film critics alike. And it heavily contributes to what could have so nearly been a bland and soulless film.

Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are perfectly charming in the lead roles. They share great chemistry and play well off of one another. I was not a big fan of either star before watching this film. Watching La La Land, I get the distinct feeling that these two were made to star in this film. I can't picture anyone else playing Mia or Sebastian more perfectly. However, despite the love story that takes the fore front of the plot, this film refuses to give us the happy ending we've grown so accustomed to receiving. What a shame that one of the films freshest elements is also it's saddest.

It's also worth noting that La La Land earned the Academy Award for Best Cinematography, an honour that was well deserved. The camera is just as much an esteemed guest in the film as the lead stars. It moves graciously with the actors and enhances the fluidity of the sequences. Beautiful lavender sunsets, a gorgeous planetarium full of starlight and colours that dance and sparkle in the street lights all come to life in this amazing, vibrant story.

I loved La La Land and I am not ashamed of it. It's not a new story by any means, but it is criminally fun and oh so very hard not to become swept up in it's astounding melodies. The criticism for it is understandable, but we should never be made to feel guilty for the films we enjoy. So if your feet start tapping to "Another day of sun" or "City of Stars", then by all means, enjoy it to your hearts content. Film is art. Art is subjective. Never stop falling in love with what makes your soul sing and your heart race.

As a musical, La La Land succeeds in a land slide. But do not forget that this is also a film about winning, losing, love, heartache and most importantly...a film about dreams and those who are brave and foolish enough chase them.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

They didn't find gold, they found themselves.

[8/10 · 22 November 2016]

I had the great pleasure of being shown this film in my Screen writing course at my University and from the moment it ended, it has stayed with me. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a very hard film for me to categorize. It is a film that exists outside of the boundaries and genres; thus creating it's own style in the process. It appears that many films since have borrowed several elements from the story (Raiders of the Lost Ark, There Will Be Blood, etc.) but I can think of none that are exactly like it.

The story is kept neat and simple; three men head off on a journey into the Mexican mountains to find gold. Yes, gold is what they came for but what they found was much more complex. Each character in the film discovers something about themselves as the film progresses. It's more than just a simple screen story; it's an amazing study of character and drama.

Now, for all of my praise the film does suffer from a few inadequacies. I did not particularly care for the second act nor did I find the antagonists very threatening. They played more for comic relief than anything else. However, these are very trivial errors when you compare them to the film's more amazing qualities.

Humphrey Bogart gives a very menacing and powerful performance in this film, though he is not initially frightening. The audience is instead forced to sit and watch as his character slowly descends into madness and is completely corrupted by greed. The role appeals to our morbidly curious side; we crave to look away from the destruction that unfolds from within his character's psyche and yet we cannot pull our gaze away from it. It is Bogart's best acting. Yes even better than Rick from Casablanca and I do not feel bold in the slightest for saying so.

The lead star is only matched by his supporting cast. Walter Huston, speaking about one hundred words a minute in his incredibly endearing, academy award winning role. Tim Holt is also highly capable as the young, impressionable sidekick to Bogart. He stays morally and ethically sound; remaining firmly on the side of goodness and integrity. You can well imagine what kind of brutal conflict this creates between him and Bogart; some of their shared scenes are among my favourites in the film.

This review would be a failure if I never mentioned Max Steiner's amazing score. Sierra Madre contains some of the best accompanying music I've ever heard from a film of it's age. The main theme in particular is exhilarating, powerful and adventurous. I do have the very distinct feeling that John Williams was influenced by this score.

I could probably sit here and write page after page of why this film is so significant, but the best way to know why is to just experience it for yourself. Once again, this film is more than just a simple story. One by one, it progressively peals back layers of itself to reveal the true story underneath. The human psyche, moral codes and relational conflict are all explored to a great extreme and I enjoyed every moment of it. The third act in particular is absolutely exceptional. This film is a mirror to humanity; displaying all of it's worst and all of it's best. Watch The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and you will know yourself better than you ever thought you did.

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Timeless and Immortal

[10/10 · 2 October 2016]

What can I say about this film that hasn't already been said? Well, not much. But it seems a sin that I've never written a review for the most beloved film of my childhood. So I'll do my best to keep this original.

I first saw the film, like many others did....when I was very young. It was probably the very first feature film I ever laid eyes on. Since then, it's been my most watched film. I have very distinct memories of watching it as a very young girl. No less than 4 or 5 years old and being absolutely entranced by it. I know every line of dialogue by heart. I could quote the film forwards and backwards. Needless to say, I am extremely familiar with it.

Even as I got older, I never lost my respect for it. I always felt it was special, even in my teenage years. This film is my safe haven when I'm sick or mentally unwell. It instantly comforts me with warm, fuzzy feelings of nostalgia. I put it on and suddenly I'm a kid again.

I cannot help but smile while watching it. I am a fully grown adult woman now. But that doesn't make me anymore immune to the film's wonderful charms. The Wizard of Oz can melt the heart of even the toughest critic. Of that I am dead certain.

But how does it hold up today? Well, I'm sure you can already guess my answer to that. This film does not show it's age. It's well paced, well acted, well scripted and well designed. Be it 1939 or 2016, it made no difference. Time has not varnished this classic film. Not. One. Bit.

Is it a perfect film? No. In fact, there are a few scenes I would omit. However, I feel it would be inappropriate to rate it any less than 10 out of 10. And the few errors that are present, I can easily forgive. Just because a film is imperfect does not mean it is any less deserving of praise. There is, after all....no such thing as a perfect film.

This is definitely a feel good movie. It's also highly addicting. You can watch it over and over again and never grow tired of it. Such rare magic was captured on the screen here that I doubt will ever be caught again. The songs will stay with you forever, as will it's wonderful, underlying message. Because whenever I turn this movie on, I feel like I'm home again. And as we know....there's no place like it.

The Elephant Man (1980)

A Tragic True Story, Masterfully Told

[8/10 · 20 July 2016]

Those who are already familiar with the real life case of Joseph (John) Merrick, AKA The Elephant Man would know that his is a very sad story. But in the right hands, such a complicated and sombre tale would make a very powerful motion picture. Thankfully, David Lynch's "The Elephant Man" is exactly that.

This is one of the best films I've ever seen in years, without a doubt. As a simple Biopic, it lends itself well thanks to the historical accuracy which accompanies it. There's nothing worse than watching a film that's supposedly based on true account only for it to be over- flowing with inaccuracies that don't do the story justice. And while some fictitious changes were made to the story for dramatic effect, they are few and far between. The Elephant Man as a whole is very true to the real accounts in which it is based on.

Victorian England was such an interesting time period. Some historians tend to glamorize it as a period of progress, which it certainly was. But this film looks at it through the eyes of someone who is incredibly unfortunate. And as a result, the scenery is gritty, dirty and full of mechanical set pieces. There isn't much humanity to be found here. It was a stroke of genius to shoot the film in stark, black and white. It gives off the sensation of looking at the film through old snapshots and photographs, as though we are looking directly into the past.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the film is it's ability to throw a spotlight humanity's worst and most intolerant behaviours. One might even feel shame to know that John Merrick was treated so poorly by fellow members of the human race. But it is important that we acknowledge his suffering so we can remember that it is the content of someone's heart, not the features of their face, which we must judge someone by.

This brings me to my next point. The cast of this film is superb. Anthony Hopkins shows his range as an actor who in this case, has not been cast in the role of someone sinister. His portrayal of Dr. Treves is admirable and saintly. Taking the role of the audience and responding to Merrick in a way I believe most of us would: with unconditional kindness and respect. His character is a statement which brings out the best and most noble of mankind.

John Hurt completely disappears into the make up and character of The Elephant Man, giving what I believe is the best performance of his career. It must have been challenging to emote underneath such heavy prosthetics, and yet he manages to make us sympathize and support Merrick at every rise and fall of his character arc. Having been snubbed for the Oscar of Best Actor is an unforgivable sin of the Academy.

This is an incredibly moving picture. I was hard pressed to hold back tears during it's final act. When seeing the story unfold through the lens of a camera, we feel more intimately close to the story and to the man himself. And if the memoirs of the real Dr. Treves are to be believed, after such a trying journey to be accepted as he is, Merrick's soulful line to him towards the end of the film is a relief to hear:

"My life is full because I am loved."

Eraserhead (1977)

Is everything fine in Heaven?

[8/10 · 26 June 2016]

I put off watching this film for five years, so it was always in the back of my mind. On a post or just a click away in a related video. I even tried to watch it about three years ago but shut it off after the first ten minutes. I just assumed it was going to be one of those movies that was too weird for me to even comprehend. I was too scared to even try, so I avoided it.

But then my curiosity for the film became riled up again when I saw a clip from it on YouTube. I became entranced and then realized that even after all this time, I still had a copy of the movie in my possession. Untouched and unwatched. Finally, on a Tuesday night with nothing better to do...I sat down and watched Eraserhead. It's taken me some time to fully process the film, find the answers I needed and complete my honest analysis. With all of the information I've gathered, I can finally deliver my conclusion.

This is the most bizarre film I've ever seen in my life. To sum it up briefly, it's dark, tense and fraught with terror. I consider myself to have a very strong stomach when it comes to violence and body horror in film. And I can say honestly that there were many sequences that made my skin crawl with disgust. But in the best possible way. It was a superbly thrilling experience. I had absolutely no idea what to expect.

It wasn't that the film was overwhelming; it actually suffers from the opposite problem. It's too subtle and not enough explanation is given. For example, the characters in the film do not behave like any decent human beings you'd find in the real world. They display habits and behaviours that are suddenly triggered like a bomb going off and then are never spoken of again. Swept under the rug and leaving the viewer scratching their heads, wondering what possible relevance could that have to anything? The breath of fresh air and definitely the only character that we can relate to on a basic, human level...is the film's protagonist, Henry Spencer. The only person in the film who reacts normally to the events that unfold throughout the story. But even he is eventually led astray into the surreal and dream-like world in which he inhabits.

It was many days before I realized that Eraserhead is a film that is not meant to be understood. You're not supposed to feel any particular way about it. Some critics would have you believe that this is a ploy used by David Lynch so he can watch us in delight as we scramble to try and find a deeper meaning to it. But I prefer to think of it like this: With Eraserhead, Lynch is laying out all of the cards on the table for us to see and observe. He isn't hiding anything. He has no tricks up his sleeve. He makes suggestions here and there but everything else is left to our own minds. He's putting the truth in our hands, essentially. Think about it: when was the last time you watched a film where YOU, the viewer...got to decide what the film was about? That is a very rare and beautiful thing to behold.

My advice? Try not to look to deeply into the film and just accept it as it is. Or not. It's entirely up to you. But if you tilt your head and squint to try and find a deeper meaning, you'll only be left with a sore neck.

Perhaps that's what the meaning of the title has been all along. In order to spare yourself the headache of over-analyzing it, you would do well to "erase your head" beforehand. Clear your mind of whatever you thought you knew about story telling and toss it out the window. The only expectation to be had about the film is that it will change the way you look at movies forever.

Batman (1989)

The First Dark Knight

[8/10 · 26 March 2016]

Long before Ben Affleck, Christian Bale or even George Clooney donned the cape and cowl; Michael Keaton surprised and terrified audiences of the late 80's and became the first definitive Batman to tread in darker and edgier territory. And since then, no other Batman film has been able to achieve that perfect balance of comic book surrealism and gritty real world tone.

It's hard to imagine nowadays, but before 1989 people would have scoffed at the idea of Batman being a "serious" superhero. The very name itself conjured images of the campy Adam West TV show which were full to the brim of clichés, montages and over the top action sequences. It seemed impossible up to this point that Batman could be the dark and serious crusader that we know him as today. So a group of talented minds came together and sought to create the realistic and gritty version of Batman that the character's creator, Bob Kane had always envisioned he could be. And they succeeded. Big Time.

This success is due in part to three major components. The first being the look of Gotham city. In Burton's film, it looks incredible. Straight out of the pages of a comic book and transitioned flawlessly onto the silver screen. It's dark, stylistic and almost post-apocalyptic. My favourite on-screen version of Gotham to date. The second component that really makes this film work is Michael Keaton's portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman. For years I've always been quick to jump to the defence of this version of the dark knight for a few reasons. The first being that Keaton did not have to change his voice to play an intimidating Batman. The second was that he portrayed Bruce Wayne in a very convincing manner. Humble, sophisticated, reserved but humorous when need be. The best use of his subtle wit is when he confronts the Joker in Vicki Vale's apartment upon being asked: "Bruce Wayne? N'est-ce pas?" His response is simply "Most of the time."

And finally the third component that makes this film work is of course, Jack Nicholson as The Joker. Need I say more? Certainly not the most mysterious or intimidating Joker we've seen (that honour goes to Heath Ledger) but, his portrayal is my favourite because of how seamlessly the character transitioned from comic book to movie screen. He is completely psychotic, hilarious and oh so fun to watch. No one could have done it better.

This film is by no means perfect. It certainly has flaws but most of which I can completely forgive because for me, this IS a believable Batman story because of how it's presented to us. I can wholly believe that Keaton IS Batman and Nicholson IS the Joker. The use of colours (or lack of!) make this Gotham look brutally dystopian. Striking visuals go hand in hand with genuine performances. And an absolutely thrilling musical score by Danny Elfman takes it all to perfection.

If you're a Batman fan by any stretch, ignoring this film would be a dreadful mistake.

Black Christmas (1974)

A Christmas film that's full of surprises

[8/10 · 6 November 2015]

If you're getting tired of re-runs that show the same Christmas films every Holiday season and you happen to also enjoy horror films, then I would strongly recommend that you take the time to watch Black Christmas this year. It will be worth every minute of your time.

Black Christmas is a Canadian horror film and the second that I've had the pleasure of seeing. The first being The Changeling, which has a very similar tense and eerie atmosphere. However, Black Christmas definitely appeals more to a tongue-in-cheek sense of humour so it's definitely the funnier of the two films. The jokes are really well done and do a marvelous job of lightening up the mood at appropriate moments. But that's not to say that the film's more unsettling scenes aren't superb either. They're masterfully well executed, invoking mystery and suspense at every twist of the plot.

The cinematography is fantastic. I am not sure if it was the first film to employ the use of a camera that could strap onto an actor's head but it's used to great effect in the opening scene of Black Christmas. The acting from Olivia Hussey, Keir Dullea, John Saxon and the rest of the supporting cast leave nothing to be desired. Everyone is clever and convincing as their characters. They feel very authentic and none of them had to resort to chewing the scenery, as is often the case with slasher films.

I wish I could go into detail about the movie's more brilliant aspects, but it's far better than you go into this film knowing as little as possible. This film will keep you guessing right until the very end. It plays you like a fiddle the moment you press play but you'll enjoy every moment of it. Black Christmas is thrilling, terrifying and darkly humorous. A very different twist on your typical Christmas film.

The Exorcist III (1990)

Exceeded my expectations

[7/10 · 24 July 2015]

Nowadays, sequels are terribly frowned upon. They're infamous for being cheaply made only with the intent to grab money from people with the promise that it'll be just as good as the original. I had purposely skipped The Exorcist II because I had heard that it was laughably bad and not worth watching whatsoever. And initially, I wasn't even going to see this one. But I'm sure glad I did.

George C. Scott plays the protagonist: a detective who's investigating a string of murders that are uncannily similar to the Gemini Killer case; a serial murderer who's victims are killed in grotesque and sinister ways. But there's only one problem: The Gemini killer was supposedly sentenced to death 15 years earlier, so he's left to figure out how he's able to kill again. Without giving anything away about the plot, I will tell you that the Gemini Killer is played by a phenomenal actor who I'm personally a fan of. Brad Dourif appears in only two scenes in this entire film, but damn do they stand out. He is absolutely enthralling. Dourif is able to invoke such rage, ferocity and insanity without coming off as completely over-the-top. He subtly creates a tragic yet terrifying complex of personality traits embodied into a mesmerizing performance. It was an absolute delight to watch him in the film.

Thankfully there are other things to like about this film aside from Dourif's amazing performance. There are several well shot scenes that are just as disturbing as they are compelling. The last act in particular had me on the edge of my seat: it's the most tense I've ever been while watching a film in a long time. With that said, I wouldn't exactly classify it as a "horror" film so much as a suspense/crime drama. But it still has some fairly creepy moments.

However, one thing that disappointed me was George C. Scott's acting in the lead role. Being such a seasoned and well experienced actor at this point in his career, you'd think that he could never give a bad performance. But unfortunately, he does in The Exorcist III. If you looked up "chewing the scenery" in the urban dictionary, I'm almost positive you would find his name there. Scott poorly delivered so many lines that I would actually find myself laughing during some scenes, but for all of the wrong reasons.

Now to be fair, this may be the fault of William Peter Blatty who at best, was an amateur behind the camera. And clearly he was better at writing than he was at directing. He may have given Scott unclear or vague instructions which caused Scott to become confused and just wing it as best he could. Also, I should mention that not all of Scott's scenes are bad, but had a more experienced director been on set, things might have worked out differently. Scott's less than par acting in this film is the reason why I won't give it a higher rating than a 7.

But overall, it's a great film that really exceeded my expectations, especially in the last two acts. It's as good as sequels come and I would recommend it to fans of the original film. One thing that people might find surprising is that it actually ties into the first Exorcist film rather well. I believe it's worth watching for Brad Dourif alone, but there's some additional scenes in the film that are also worth checking out. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you keep an open mind this film will definitely shock you.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

An Untouchable Classic

[9/10 · 6 July 2015]

As someone who doesn't particularly enjoy cartoons as much as I did when I was younger, it really says a lot when I look at a film like Who Framed Roger Rabbit as an adult and say that I absolutely love it. I was first introduced to WFRR when I was very young. (Probably 5 or 6 years old.) And I don't remember much from it, but what I can recall for sure is that I did enjoy it. But now that I'm grown up, I actually enjoy it even more.

It's a phrase we hear all the time and more often than not, it gives us false hope that the film will be exactly as it promises: "Fun for the whole family!" they tell us. But most of the time, movies that try to sell by using this title are false advertising and end up as unmemorable failures for both young and old audiences. But you can rest easy because this is not the case with WFRR.

For starters, the tone of the story itself is a masterful combination of family friendly humour and dark euphemisms that are so complex they will go right over a child's head. So adults can appreciate them without fear of their kids becoming tainted by suggestive themes. It is perfectly equated in the light as well as the dark side of humanity. And that is something that is not easily achieved by an ordinary film, much less one that is partially geared towards children.

There's a whole multitude of things that I could give this film praise for. To name the best ones: there's the skillful animation, the seamless interaction of the human characters with their toon counterparts, the clever themes of a classic 1940's film noir that blend absolutely beautifully with the cartoonist nature of the story, the top-notch acting from Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd and others; and last but not least, the pain-staking amount of detail made to every single interaction between man and toon. Over all, the techniques used worked to excellence and don't fail to astound even by today's standards. You can almost feel the animator's blood, sweat and tears through every great effort to convince us that these toons are real and are just as human as their living, breathing co-stars.

Because I consider the film to be so nearly perfect, there is very little that I could complain about (and I don't think I could even if I tried!). Sure, there are some scenes that might come off as a tad out-landish or zany but hey...that's the nature of cartoons. And when used in combination of brilliant acting that's so faultless to the point that you constantly forget that the actors on set are interacting with things that never actually existed; it gives you a better appreciation for cartoons and 2D animation in general but also for the extremely talented cast who gave it their all to make these gimmicks a success.

As a whole, the film is staggering in both technical achievement and story. It has a lot of heart to it, great humour and a wonderfully crafted script. If you're looking for a film that both fully grown adults and small children will like, this is the real deal. There's no false advertisement to be found here; you don't get any more genuine than this. Everyone should give Who Framed Roger Rabbit a watch because you won't find more fun anywhere else!

The Invisible Man (1933)

A thrill ride unscathed by the passage of time

[8/10 · 12 November 2014]

Most students of film history know that the 1930's is considered the golden age of monster movies. Many of the world's most iconic monsters made their first appearances during this decade. They are images that we can never forget and still pay homage to in this contemporary era. But unfortunately, not all films were created equally. And some have become swept under the rug of obscurity. The Invisible Man is one such film. But for what reason, I am not quite sure. It still holds up remarkably well today for a few prominent reasons.

The first I can think of, is that the special effects used to achieve the "invisible appearance" of the story's protagonist are indescribably fantastic. There are not enough words in the English vocabulary that I can use to praise this film enough for it. Without giving away too much about how the effects were achieved, the film crew behind The Invisible Man essentially invented the very first green-screen technique long before anyone knew what a green screen was. Take a moment to imagine how mind-blowing that must have been for audiences in 1933, let alone today.

I could go on about the film's visual effects for decades. But this Universal classic would still not even be as half as good as it was if not for one stellar performance: Claude Rains as the title role. I cannot even imagine another actor in this life, or the next who could have played Jack Griffin with as much ferocity, exuberance and madness as Rains. He doesn't just chew the scenery, he swallows it whole and then comes back for seconds. His rumbling, powerful voice makes even the most elegant monologues sound like the rantings of a lunatic. But he never gets so ecstatic that it becomes an over-acted affair. It was a marvellous casting decision on Universal's part.

These two things create the supportive foundation for which the film's success is built upon, but it is also laced with witty dialogue and hilarious characters who appear in appropriate moments, delivering comic relief when it's needed. And the age old theme of man meddling with scientific forces beyond his control is a tale for the ages that never seems to lose its touch. And nowhere is this more apparent than in The Invisible Man.

I invite you to give it a watch and more likely than not, you will be pleasantly surprised by how well it holds up. I strongly believe that The Invisible Man remains popular today through sheer curiosity. People will watch this film today, a little more than 80 years after it was made and still scratch their heads in wonder, as they ask themselves "How did they do that?" This is movie magic in action, my friends.

Phantom of the Opera (1943)

It's no Phantom, but it is an opera!

[7/10 · 13 October 2014]

Even though I have never read the book, I have always been fascinated by the story and the characters of The Phantom of the Opera. I've seen the 2004 adaptation (which is a fairly decent film in my opinion) and I tried to watch the 1925 version with Lon Chaney but found it to be a bit boring even for my tastes. Now, when it comes to this film...I feel as though the 1943 Phantom of the Opera falls swiftly in between the two extremes. It is neither a "true" musical, (the only musical parts being the actual performances on the opera stage) nor is it a "horror" film like it's silent predecessor. Rather, it is a melodrama centering around a gorgeous, talented young Opera singer(Susanna Foster), her two suitors and a meek, lonely violinist who becomes our mysterious, brooding Phantom. (Claude Rains.)

What makes his performance in particularly interesting, is that unlike Chaney, or even Butler's version of the masked opera ghost....Claude Rains gives us a Phantom that is all too human. Perhaps this is meant to symbolize that anyone can become a "phantom" if they are pushed to their limits, as opposed to some mysterious monster who we cannot relate to whatsoever. In this adaptation, the phantom is not born with his deformity. Rather, it is an unfortunate consequence of his own actions and wrong doings, which I thought was a very interesting alteration of the plot.

It's obvious that Rains' performance as a man-turned-monster is the highlight of the film. But it has more saving graces than I initially expected. The vocal talents of Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy are marvellous to say the least. And the spectacles of the Opera performances themselves are very pleasing to the eyes and ears. There are several charming comedic moments between Christine and her two suitors who are constantly competing for her affection. The cinematography is also quite brilliant. Establishing shots effectively show the Opera house's splendour from all of the best angles and are used very effectively. However, by far one of the best things of this film is it's soundtrack. It's beautiful, tragic and sad all at once. Particularly the "Lullaby of the Bells", which is a reoccurring theme.

Overall, this film exceeded my expectations. It's certainly no "horror" masterpiece like the Lon Chaney version. Nor is it a noble blockbuster as the 2004 adaptation. It's an interesting and unique interpretation of the story with a great performance from Claude Rains. It does show it's age but if you enjoy classic musicals at all, then you will certainly be able to appreciate it.

The Shining (1980)

My Favourite Horror Film

[9/10 · 14 June 2014]

Show any conspirator a Kubrick film and they can give you a theory to match it. But few films of have ever sparked more confusion, frustration or controversy among theorists than The Shining.

One hesitates to even call it a film. Because it's so much more than that. It's an experience. I even struggle to call it a horror film. It's story seems to transcend reality itself and delve deep into the workings of an unsteady mind. There is something very dubious, dangerous and deeply personal about this movie that is very difficult to define. But I think I speak for everyone when I say that there is no escaping the unsettling paranoia when one feels while viewing this film. It equates to the anxious feeling one experiences when feeling as though they are being watched, even though they are alone.

The disquieting tones of the film do little to put the audience's mind at ease. During it's over two hour run time, we have to endure the harshest psychological mind games that visual story-telling can abide. From a setting standpoint, The Overlook hotel is so much more than it appears to be. It's a danger zone for paranormal energy and madness. Helplessly watching the characters of the film slowly lose their grip on sanity is terrifying to watch and yet we don't dare look away. As the story carries it, it begins to reveal a savage father's hatred for his family, and ghosts and spirits coax his inner demons out from where he tried to bury them until they take their hold on him altogether.

The Shining is more than a simple movie. It's an experience unlike any other, one that may make you feel as though you are descending into delirium. But it is well worth it. Watching it once is not enough. You have to watch it a few, even several times before you can finally understand all of it's complex and inter-woven concepts. And even then, no one can really say for sure what the film is trying to say. Though we have tried desperately to decide on what it means....more than 30 years later, we still don't have a clue.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

My personal favourite of the original trilogy

[8/10 · 10 May 2014]

Newcomers and Fans alike often misjudge or overlook Return of the Jedi as being the weaker film of the original trilogy. And usually for very trivial reasons. However, I have reason to believe that this film has become criminally underrated.

By far the biggest and most major improvement that keeps Jedi separate from A New Hope and Empire is the rapid character development of Luke Skywalker. It cannot be denied that his skill with the force has doubled, if not tripled since the last film. For lack of a better term, he is a bad-ass in every sense. The fight on the Sail Barge in the first act is intense right until the end. Luke continues to grow and test his power as the film goes on. But that's just his development for his physical abilities. Internally, Luke has become far more mature and wiser than he was in the previous two films. He makes smarter decisions, doesn't act so rash and is considerably less "whiny" than he was thought to be in episode's IV and V.

The visual effects have improved vastly since the last film. It was only a three year difference, but you can really see it. There are more stunts, more spectacles and more work put into the light saber effects. It's overall, a step ahead from it's predecessors. Not a very large step, but a step towards improvement nonetheless.

Han Solo and Leia's relationship comes full circle. And it's a beautiful thing. The writers managed to execute a romantic sub-plot without it being campy or unnecessary. It's really satisfying to see them being reunited, after all of the childish feuding they went through in the first two movies. It's a nice touch to the last chapter of the trilogy.

The trio of confrontation between The Emperor, Vader and Luke is extremely climatic. Everything comes together in this last act. The light saber duel between Luke and Vader is the most passionate of the trilogy. It is far more psychological than previous light saber duels, making it one of the most dramatic and symbolically powerful. The ending celebration on Endor is light hearted and leaves you with a feeling joy. It's the perfect ending to a near perfect trilogy.

Although Return of the Jedi is not a perfect movie and it lacks the same excitement that The Empire Strikes Back contained so well; Jedi is my favourite because it's a more quiet and subtle Star Wars film. At times it plays more like a Shakespearean drama than it does an sci-fi film. But I don't believe that's a bad thing. If anything it helps to further enhance Jedi's flavour and further solidify it's unique place in the franchise. Jedi is a terrific ending to an awesome Trilogy. I pity those who fail to see it's under-stated brilliance.

Spider-Man (2002)

A classic childhood favourite

[8/10 · 21 April 2014]

Though my memories are vague, I recall seeing this film for the first time around the age of seven years old. Most clearly, I remember feeling an abundance of joy whenever this movie was put into my VCR player. And when Danny Elfman's amazing score began it's first notes with the visual of the Columbia pictures logo....I felt a rush of child-like wonder and excitement fill me. I knew I was in for a treat.

What can I say about this movie, now? Well, I can tell you that some of it's bigger strengths lie in the casting decisions. And look no further than the decision to cast Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spiderman. At the story's beginning, Maguire comes off as a dork and a nerd. Exactly as he's meant to be. But when pushed to the extreme, his character can change from mild-mannered teenager to heroic vigilante when need be. It's a fantastic blend of realism and fantasy that one expects from a super-hero. And this version of Spiderman is no exception. But the actor who really over-shadows the whole production, is Willem Dafoe as Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin. His bi-polar tendencies make for an extremely shifty and mysterious performance. He comes off as being both terrifying and hilarious when the situation calls for it. If the film had not possessed the amazing talent of either of these stars, than perhaps it wouldn't have been nearly as charming.

It can't be denied that the film suffers from a sprinkling of corny moments. Both from the characters and the action sequences itself. Fortunately, these silly moments are few and far between. And the drama and intensity of the story arc over-shadows anything that can be considered too over the top or ridiculous. It is the darkness that this film weaves(no pun intended)ambiguously into the plot that saves the film from becoming another "kid-friendly" super hero bomb.

Though it can be sometimes laughable and cliché in a certain light, it's without a doubt one of the more passionate super hero films to date. It underlines the moral message of courage and responsibility. Both things that turn a boy into a man as Peter comes to term with through-out the story. So, in a manner of speaking...Sam Raimi's 2002 marvel masterpiece could be considered the most elaborate coming of age story yet. Combined with the compelling spirit of what it truly means to be a hero.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

An explosive cartoon for adults

[9/10 · 24 February 2014]

What can I say about this film, other than it was just extraordinarily great? It is totally unique in it's place on the cinematic scale, unparalleled by any comedy or cold war drama that came before or after.

The movie's best strength by far is it's cast. All of the best players are here and they hold nothing back: Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Slim Pickens, Sterling Hayden...they all play such diverse characters. Each of them are all so utterly insane in their own ways and yet so believable. How each actor managed to do this with such expertise is beyond me.

Funny enough, the story is still just as relevant now as it was back in it's hay day. One would think that because the cold war is long over, the film would start to show it's age. But the reality couldn't be farther from. Audiences both young and old continue to find enjoyment in this film. The endearing and politically charged script rolls off the tongue so fluidly and makes for a sharp, viewing experience no matter what your age or historical expertise may be. It is this value which I believe has made Dr.Strangelove feel ageless. And like most timeless films, the themes of the film are universal. Every citizen of every nation in the world knows and understands the effects of war and how damaging they are to society. Which is why so many people resonate with the paranoia and anxieties that these characters bring to to the story.

Dr.Strangelove is no less than a brilliant masterwork of film making. It is a fuming concoction of raging testosterone, American patriotism and gruesome comedy. All of this contrasting with the very real threat of nuclear war makes for a very efficient and cathartic story. The film's only weakness would be that it is certainly not to everyone's tastes. But then again, no Kubrick film is.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

A Sequel that surpasses it's predecessor

[8/10 · 31 December 2013]

Though somewhat controversial, J.J Abrams Star Trek Reboots are masterfully well crafted and Into Darkness is certainly no exception.

This film definitely brings it's name sake to the Trek Universe. It delves into darker and more intense territory than previous. The most striking thing that I noticed about this film was how seamlessly universal themes of love and sacrifice bleed out from the real world and into the fictional realm of this story. One of the very first scenes involves a dying child with her frightened parents at her side. The exchange that follows forces us to imagine ourselves in the same situation. What are the limits of your compassion? Would you do anything to save the ones you love? It's amazing to me that a simply science fiction film can ask such profound and philosophical questions such as these.

The film certainly has heart but it doesn't falter in other aspects either. This is truly a beautiful film. The cinematography and colour palette's certainly please the eye. This film takes us to a few different locations and each one feels as vibrant and real as the last. The acting is superb as well. The cast from the first film all come back to reprise their respected roles, along with some great new comers too. Benedict Cumberbatch in particularly gives a powerful performance as Khan. A super-human terrorist hell bent on revenge. His brutal and icy demeanor is extremely intimidating. He is doubtlessly one of the best movie villains of the 21st century.

Star Trek: Into Darkness takes every stake and risk to the next level. It's a thrilling and excellent sequel to an equally rock-solid reboot. The characters are more fleshed out and expanded upon and the threat of danger is cranked to the maximum. I really enjoyed this one and I'm sure fans of the 2009 film will too.

The Changeling (1980)

An Underrated Masterpiece of Horror

[9/10 · 7 December 2013]

If you're looking for an honest, classy horror film with charm...then look no further than Peter Medak's The Changeling. And don't let its age fool you, it still holds up beautifully well in this day and age.

The premise is fairly simple. George C. Scott plays a grieving composer who has just lost his family in a car accident. He moves into a large house to hopefully find some peace and quiet. But if we already know one thing, it's that we know he isn't alone in the house, or else we wouldn't have our story. Indeed, there is more than one occupant in that house and they are not among the living.

At first the film showcases your typical haunted house fluff. Doors opening and closing, piano's playing by themselves, etc. But as the film begins to pick up the pace and certain mysteries are exposed, these things are no longer so simple. The movie makes an unexpected turn from horror drama, to murder mystery in the middle of it's second act and soon our hearts are beating as fast as the plot is thickening before we even know it.

In short: The Changeling does not disappoint. It is one of the best films I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. I can't even begin to explain how much I admire it and how much of an impact it has made on me as an aspiring film maker. Unfortunately, it is also a film that has slipped through the cracks of obscurity and into the shadows where only the most well informed horror movie buffs are able to find it. This is very undeserving considering it's production value and how well it's made. There are several scenes in the film that are enough to give one intense goosebumps. The Seance scene is one such example. It is deeply unsettling and will absolutely get under your skin if you allow it to.

The acting is great and completely authentic. The film features a great cast and solid performances from the immensely talented George. C Scott and his wife Trish Van Devere. Both actors are well fit in their roles and add a touch of originality and sincerity to their characters.

The atmosphere is just incredible. The film respects the intelligence and imagination of it's audience by showing very few on-screen scares. Instead, The Changeling relies on sound, tension and slow burning thrills. These elements work on a psychological level in order to effectively impact it's audience. I have never seen another horror film that operates on such an intelligent level nor have I ever experienced one that made me feel so emotionally vulnerable.

This Canadian horror film is worthy of just as much praise as classics such as The Shining or The Exorcist. Give it a chance and you'll be very glad you did.