Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Johnny Depp was already a pretty successful actor before the release of the first pirates film in 2003. However it was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) that really launched depp in the mainstream and into the conscious of movie goers on a larger framework. I was first introduced to him through his collaborations with director Tim burton. In many ways actually Depp has always been a cult movie star choosing roles that go against the mainstream , Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, What's Eating Gilbert Grape & Sleepy hollow for example. so that's why it always comes a bit of suprise to think he's part of a franchise that is now in it's third movie.

The film opens with a pretty gripping (and suprisngly detailed for 12A) hanging scene (yes that's right), Family entertainment written all over it :) personally though i can see issues parents would have about it, i wellcomed that darker tone of the film and intro and felt it gave the film a little extra weight and credibility. Though it does seem more and more out of place as the movie goes a long as its not mentioned or a key part of the story, apart from it allows one line to make sense later. actually thats not the only dark scene, there are many moments including gun shots, toe snapping and nasy knife deaths that really do push the 12A to it's limit.

So yes darker tone worked, but maybe not the younger kids. Though it's strange because at the same time as being the darkest pirates movie, it was also probably the most funny, and whacky one. With high voiced pirate kings, monkeys, multiple jacks and rock crabs, adding to this fact. It is 2hrs and 50 mins so yes, it does feel at times as it drags, there's no avoiding that. i'm not evening saying it in a overly negative sense, but when you have to sit for 2hrs 50 mins, its going to drag. The action scenes are great, tension is very good too. The first big scene where Elizabeth Swann & Barbossa meet with Captain Sao Feng. With acting of Yun-Fat Chow stealing the scene it makesfor what is a pretty gripping moment in the film.

On negative side, Character of Jack Sparrow, though good, i didn't find as good as he has been. I felt a lot of his appeal had faded. He had almost become a cartoon version of Jack Sparrow. Though what i did like was the way the film panned out. It's 30+ mins before Jack even appears on screen, i have to praise them for this. For a series basically built on Jack sparrow & Depps performance it takes a lot of faith in the narrative to hold him off for 30+ mins, and was a refreshing suprise. Also, like with the other pirates there are a lot of scenes of pirates explaining things that would seem stupid in any other context and theres A LOT of plot to explain and get through. Which doesn't add to the pace of the 2 hr 50 mins. Bloom & Knightley story is ok and done better than in the other films. In fact Bloom's character gets his best showing in this film and gives his character more depth, even if his acting lacks a whole lot of it.

All in All, my fave pirates next to Curse of Black Pearl. Darker, yet at times funnier than the previous films. it's no huge leap from the others, but its enough to give it a slight edge. Great action scenes, and even though narrative is slow, its still very watchable. In a scene where their ship falls down a huge waterfall and the screen is emersed in water, made me think "wow theres not many movies where you have a visual sight like this". I think for all the negative press it gets, it has made a very unusual and select genre successful again, and every film shows quite a bit of imagination. See this film, expect to yawn somewhere in the middle, but expect to be gripped later with great action scenes and visions of imagination and, well, fun.

Spider-man 3 (2007)

It's been a week and a day since i saw spider-man 3. The main reasons i waited untill i wrote this reivew are 2 fold.

1. I wasn't sure what to say

2. I wanted to gage the opinons of others and see how it did

I'm glad i did. The internet site IMDB is basically your one stop shop for all movies. They do a feature called "top 250" and it is a list of 250 "best" films, in terms of votes by users of the site. It's pretty loose and nearly anything can make it into the list and any big opening film usually makes it into top50 for at least a month or two. So imagine my shock when one of biggest hyped movies of the year, Spider-man 3, did NOT make it into this list. Not only that but currently holds a pretty low score of 6.8/10. Not taking into account, it's part of a major franchise and a summer blockbuster, i am so suprised that it did not feature. So the feedback must of been pretty bad to keep it from a list that any old movie can get into

and the feeback was bleak. Ok so here's my input. First off, i don't think it is as bad as people say it is. For instance, really apart from some storyplots its not far removed from Spider-man 1 or 2 so how come they are good but this isn't? Acting was fine for a comic book movie (or summer blockbuster for that matter). Plus did you see those special effects?? i mean the "birth" of Sandman, when he emerges and takes his first few steps only to crumble is one of most engaging things i have ever watched on the screen. If that is why this movie took so long to come out, to get the special effects done just for that shot, its worth every extra waited week. Sandman is in fact the best thing about this movie. That is not to say it doesn't have other highlights, it does. One of those is the comedy. Now i do NOT mean the "evil" "cocky" "EMO" peter scene, at all. what i am reffering to is a scene where peter meets MJ in a restaurant to ask her to marry him. He trusts the ring in the hands of the Maître d’ and the moments that follow are very funny. Also the character J. Jonah Jameson is also funny, and funnier than his two other performances. Venom is great once you see him but this brings me onto my first negative point....

You wait over half the movie (maybe more) to see full pure evil form of Venom and he keeps ripping his Venom "mask" (lack of better word) to reveal Eddie Brock (actor Topher Grace) 's face. Which seemed very harsh to an audience who i'm sure just wanted to see Venom. Majority of the harry stuff including a convenient placement of a butler who happens to explain to harry death of his father :) The MJ / Harry stuff also seems out of place and well, boring. the movie is also way too long.

Also theres one scene in which during his "evil" (aka EMO) stage peter strikes MJ to the floor. Now i'm sorry but if you are going to do that, shouldn't it at least be mentioned again in the film?? it isn't. She just seems to forget it.

There are issues, but it also features brilliant fight scenes, good comedy, interesting villians (Sandman mostly.). Maybe not quite spider-man 2, it is for sure too long but given amount of charatcer i guess this time was needed. I think people to some extent are just crapping on it because it has soe issues, but hell, it was fun right? had explosive fights? had a good villian and one great one? so i'm not complaining.

all in all, narrative overload is a problem, time is a problem, but action and the sandman more thna make up for it. see it, and enjoy it!

This Is England (2007)

This is a film from british director Shane Meadows. It tells story of a young boy, Shaun, in the early 80s who gets caught up in a violent and racist gang known as "skinheads". They take him under their wing and not konwing better, he goes along with it. Slowly he gets exposed to deep racial prejudice and horrible violence this group is emersed in.

This is a difficult film to watch. The character of shaun is set up as innocent and going through some hard times in his family life having jus lost his dad. So to see him swept up in a world so far away from his personality adds to the dramatic effect and general effect of the film. In terms of acting, there is not one bad word i can say, all are fantastic. Though the subject matter is very serious Shane meadows mainly through Shaun finds in certain way to find humour which makes for a break from what is a very serious and uncompromising film.

Apart from some odd subplots , mainly Shaun's friendship/relationship with punk girl Smelly , though odd, it does kind of work and does provide for some of the lighter moments. especially a scene of kissing in a shed and when she turns up at his house and waits for him with his mum ("it kind of ryhms..it does though right??")

In all in all it is brilliantly directed, and handled overall well given the subject. I will warn you it is a tough watch, especially the scene where the main leader of the group finally snaps and performs a disgusting and violent attack. This is one of few times i have felt geniunely uneasy while watching a film.

this is a strong film with strong cast and direction. In my opinon, a strong contender for best movie of 2007, even this early on.

Shattered Glass (2003)

Shatered Glass tells the true story of journalist Stephen Glass who wrote for "The New Republic" magaizne. That is untill it was revealed that half of his stories were complete fabrications. It follows his eventual downfall.

Released in 2003, i've been wanting to see this for ages. The main attraction was that of the actors involved, mainly Peter Sarsgaard, Hank Azaria & Steve Zahn. all of which were brilliant, but a suprise came in Hayden "Darth Vader" Christensen. I was expecting much at all from him, but hell, he steps up the game and is on top form. Playing this shy, desperate journalist who seems out of his depth. The way he played it slowly with at times minor mannerisms becomming more overwhelmed and in over his head with his lies was very interesting to watch unfold. It's hard to actually beleive that he thought he'd ever get away with the extent of the lies he was telling. Another and possibly finest achievement of Shattered Glass is related to character of Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard). The movie starts of portraying him as a jerk, without any real evidence, just through the reactions of other cast towwards his character. Chuck takes over as head editor from Hank azarias character. However by mid way your view has been seamlessly changed to feeling nothing but sorry for Chuck and what he has to put up with in terms of his new job and Stephen Glass.

On negative side it may feel like it drags, as the subject matter is not all that interesting, people at a magazine headquarters. However please do not let that put you off, it is very interesting and the almost thriller style it is done is fantastic. The feeling of unease you get when Glass begins to get more and more diluted by his lies and the situation, the more involving the film is. In terms of cinetograhpy and presentation, it does at times feel like a TV movie but the performances and narrative justify it's place on the big screen.

All in all, this is less a story about some guy at a magazine more of a great charatcer study, not only for glass but Chuck too. See it.

Inside Man (2006)

Inside man is by Director Spike Lee, who is usually known for making politically charged movies, this is for sure his most mainstream and commercially accessible film to date. Boasting an impress cast Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Willem Defoe, Chiwetel Ejiofor & Christopher Plummer. It Starts with this character, Dalton Russel (Clive Owen) explaining this perfect bank robbery, he is about to take into action. Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel) is put on the case and what unfolds is many twists and turns as they try to out smart eachother.First off, all performances are excellent. Jodie foster, who plays a sort of CIA agent who is protecting the concerns of bank owner Arthur Case, who has few secrets about that bank and its contents. Clive Owen plays the smart, cool and collected bank robber very well. Much like the character if Hans in Die hard. i loved the idea of using painter outfits and having the hostages where same as the robbers to allow for swaps and changes, which keeps mystery of really who did it undercover. Denzel is also great and is becomming action movie icon. Chiwetel Ejiofor who is brilliant in anything he's in again is great here as Denzels right hand man. My few issues i have with film are : Willem Defoe has so much charisma that in such small part in this film, he seems out of place. The soundtrack (apart from the intro song) is little off too. Scenes of just denzel walking calmly not really much of important scene, are set to fast paced loud tracks that seem out of place. This seems a little too much for the scenes and takes away from what is cut above most action movies, and kind of dumbs it downThat being said, its a tense, interesting movie that fans of action movies and smart movies alike will enjoy. It's no die hard, but its pretty damn good.

Bottle Rocket (1996)

Wes Anderson's first feature film bottle rocket is also the screen debut of Owen & Luke Wilson. Co-written by owen wilson with Anderson it focuses on 3 aimless young men who attempt to take a life of crime with no apperent reason rather than to make their lives more interesting.

First off, i love this film. It wasn't the first Anderson film i saw, that was The Royal Tenenbaums, but in many ways, it could be my favourite. Ok this changes a lot, but Bottle Rocket has a certain "care free" feel to it , heartfelt and fun. Not as quirky as some of his later films, in many ways, this may be his most mainstream. More accessible fan his follow up movie, Rushmore, it just generally feels lighter than his other works and benefits for it. It also has a (IMO) career performances by both Wilson brothers. Whether it's Owen's portrayal of ever aspiring and hopeful Dignan or Luke's subtle performance as Anthony. Because it was co-written by Owen , that really transfers on screen in his performance, for a debut one, its top notch. You really get feel he has lived with this character.

The romantic subplot of Anthony & hotel cleaner, Inez, is well done and at times pretty hearfelt. It gives the film a solid narrative thread in which to explore the characters further and provides a little deeper context to what was untill then a pretty narrative-less film. Though it sometimes gives into mainstream narrative conventions, especially in the romantic story, you still get the quirky style you came to expect.

Martin Scorsese in a magazine interview stated Bottle Rocket to be in his top 10 of the 90s and in relation to Anderson called him "the next Scorsese". so how can you argue with such praise?? well i'm not going to, seriously, i have no issues with this film, its no.2 in my fave 90s movies . it's quirky, funny, hearfelt, brilliantly shot, as fantastic performances, see it.

Sunshine (2007)

From the director of Trainspotting & 28 Days later comes this tale of 8 astronauts who are sent to re-ignite the dying sun 50 years into the future. While on this mission they get a distress call from the previous ship that failed the mission and has not been heard from for 7yrs. They decide to answer the call and in doing so create many problems for themselves.

You can tell Boyle is calling on sci-fi classics such as Alien & 2001 with this film. Though maybe not as subtle as those films, Sunshine still manages to keep the tension. In fact some of best tention in sunshine comes from the characters interaction with eachother as times slowly become more desperate. A scene in which they realise their oxygen level is running low and they have to decide who to sacrifice to save the rest of the team (and the world) is very well done and tense moment. The film is visually stunning to watch. Not only through the theme and subject matter can you tell they borrowed from alien & 2001 but in sets too. Ranging from the dull corridors of alien or the clean white clinical style rooms of 2001.

Though i do have some issues with it. There is a subplot of the captain of the old ship, who has since been burned beyond recognition. He became addicted to the observation deck in which you can view the sun at full heat. Anyway it goes into almost freddy krueger nightmare on elm street film where he is chasing crew around the ship. Though it does create some good moments, it also comes off as un-needed and over the top. The film also feels at times a little repetative its like "oh man glad we survived that..but we've got another problem" and this theory is repeated throughout. Oh and on a trivial note, why even have an observation deck where it allows you to view sun at full power?? surely thats not safe idea, bad ship design i say!

all in all, even with the above being said, this become very minor points with what is a thrilling, great looking, well acted, tense sci-fi film with wellcomed throwbacks. Very much recommended.

The Weather Man (2005)

Being fan of quirky films, when first heard of this back in 2005 i really wanted to see it and finally in 2007 i got chance too, and well....meh.

Tells story of Weather man David Spritz (Nicolas Cage) who has split from his wife who now lives with their two children. He also has a dying father (Michael Caine) and is hated by the public because of his well paid easy job.

Ok well it sure is quirky and well directed. The general mise-en-scene and all that is fine, what i didn't like was the tone and message it was bringing across. Nicolas Cage is pretty dull in terms of line delivery and persona at the best of times. However having him play a character always down on himself, always complaining and when take into account its played by major movie star who i'm sure has little to complain about, this eventually begins to annoy. In the end i just didn't really care what happened to his character. Though it's not all bad, the story with his wife and scenes between them are funny, a scene where we hear his thoughts is also good, and the respective stories in relation to his kids are also well done. Michael Caine also pulls in a very good performance, and a pretty good american accent.

On another bad note though, i feel at times it gets too bogged down with symbolism and because of this sometimes comes off a bit like "We're so clever."
All in all, it does have redeeming qaulties. The family stuff is very funny and well played out. at its core its a heartfelt movie about family but you have to sit through Cage feeling sorry for himself with no real narrative resolution. It's almost as if they said "we're making a quirky movie, heres a check list of things to include" and this ticks every box and comes off as at times as pretentious. Though i'm a fan of Wes Anderson movies, which also get accused of being pretentious, so maybe Weather man deserves a rewatch lol

Blades Of Glory (2007)

Blades of Glory is the story of two rival Olympic ice skaters who are stripped of their gold medals after an on ice brawl and both banned from men's single competition permanently. However they find a loophole in the system that will allow them to compete as doubles, making first ever all male figure skating team.

Being a huge Will Ferrell fan i was looking forward to this, the previews were good, and it was on my top to see list for 2007. Though between this i had seen School for Scoundrels , which was okay but overall falls short. Not even a minor role by Sarah silverman (who i do like) was enough to help the movie. So after seeing this film , which also starred blades of glory star Jon Heder, i was growing ever worried about Blades of Glory. After seeing the film, i asked myself...why the hell was i worred!?

Honestly, i can't remember last time i laughed so much. I've made comments in the past about ferrell and fact he does the same type of movie. Guy at top of profession ends up at bottom of it and has to work way back up, and yes, its the same again. However Ferrell is so good at doing that arrogant, stupid guy thing that his repetition of roles is totally forgivable. Also, though i did enjoy Talladega Nights, i found some issues with it and is probably my least fave ferrell movie (but still very good) here he is back on more achorman territory in terms of character mannerisms. Jon Heder also does his dorky guy , slightly effeminate character , which though not as engaging as Ferrell is still a wellcomed contrast.

What i think confirmed for me it was a success was fact i could pick up to 8 scenes that were (for me anyway) laugh out loud and i want to revisit. Some include Ferrel's character making drunk phone calls to heder's character after a fall out including him drunkedly singing Aerosmith's "Don't wanna miss a thing" down the phone. A scene where Ferrell turns up drunk at his new job as a kids ice show performer (ok its not all ferrell drunk) oh the chase scene and the head falling scene.

All in all, Blades of glory is well worth a watch for any Ferrell fan. Sure its full of cliches and narrative conventions of this genre but hell, with the performances, takes it a cut above the rest. IMO better than Taladega Nights, as good as Anchorman. In fact i'm not fully focused on this review as i'm too busy laughing at the scenes as i remember them!

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

From Dusk Till Dawn was written by Quentin Tarantino with Robert Rodriguez at the director's chair. It tells story of Two criminals and the hostages they take finding refuge in an area and later a building full of vampires, thats right, vampires

Tarantino is a self confessed film buff and his references can be seen throughout his films. whether is the tribute to "Bande à part " with Travolta & Uma's dance in pulp fiction or the yellow jump suit in Kill Bill designed from one wore by bruce lee., he makes it clear he is borrowing from other films. With Dusk Till Dawn what we get is a tribute to the almost B-movie style of movies that were popularised in 1950s. The b movie saw a style that was full of generic conventions, popular with teens because of it's special effects and easy to understand narrative plot. They were quick, cheap escapism in it's finest form.

From Dusk till dawn takes while to buy into , you have to expect this is no epic, its fun experience thats not trying to be anything else. The acting is so so throughout but its somehow okgiven the context of the film. Clooney actually works quite well in the role and tarantino does a pretty good job in his acting role. There's still the sharp witted dialogue you expect from a tarantino film, especially in the road trip to the vampire town or anything before the vampires. It does play a little to much like "good crime movie, interesting...whoa! vampires!??" it comes as a shock, but , given the intent it doesn't take too much away from the previous stuff.

All in all, I enjoyed watching it. it had tarantino's trademark all over it. It has it flaws (acting, some of the plot) but in its defense, it was based on b-movies and grindhouse style films, and thats what they were like, so it could come down to context rather than anything esle. See it, it's a fun movie that cult movie fans will enjoy

La Haine (1995)

I'll have to take down my top films of the 90s as i forgot to add this masterpiece. Having had to study it for film studies in relation to world cinema , i got hands on a copy and watched it again. i have since seen it 3 times and i have yet to be bored by it.

It's set in a struggling estate in the slums of france and we follow the story of said, Vinz & Hubert. Being under heavy control by the local police , many rebelious memebers of the community often riot. After one riot, a friend of Said, Abdel is hospitalised due to an attack by a police officer. After finding a gun, vinz vows to kill a cop if abdel dies, as an act of revenge.

One of my favourite aspects of this film is how we are not forced a main character. Vinz is probably commercially pushed as our protagonist but within the narrative there could be many arguments for each. The story begins and ends on said opening and closing his eyes, do we see it from his view? Hurbet narrates and is the moral conscience of the film, so is he our main man? either way, each character is so rich and deep in diffeent emotional levels it doesn't matter, they are all appealing.

The use of black and white gives it a more raw and real feel and adds to the feeling of pending chaos. Along with the clock titles and soundtrack. Actuality footage of Riots and reports add to this effect. What we also see here is something very interesting, that is a mix of cultures. At its heart its a very french film, but you can see a blending of cultures especially in a scene where N.W.A's "Fuck the police" is mixed with a high cultured french tune, as this song beems out to the estate. Other aspects include american film culture, such as references to Taxi Driver & Raging Bull. It also challenges expectations you may have of a french movie by being a very gritty film, compared to the cafe dwelling, cigar smoking french films we come to expect.

All in all, please see this film if what you want is a well excuted character study, great presentation and well... a damn good film. One of best of world cinema, and one of films of the 90s

High Fidelity (2000)

High Fidelity ticks so many boxes for me, all factors that if said to me i'm like "wheres the movie being shown, i need to see it!?" Some of which include : John Cusack (who i maintain is in my top5 actors list), Jack Black, relationship comedy, about music, told through narration or in a quirky fashion, told through (at times) a timeline, a could go on and on. Based on a novel by Nick Hornby, it tells story of Rob, who owns a music/record store and is compiling (among many other lists) a top5 breakups list, which includes the one he is currently part of, we follow his progress.

I want to start off with jack black, many have said it and i'm not one to argue, though i'm a huge Cusack fan, i have to give this one to jack black, he truely steals the show in his role. Not seen often, but when he is, he scene steals with the best of them, monday morning tape scene being one of funniest scenes i have seen. John Cusack does (very well) his self pitying act as many films has seen him do. Cusack is in many ways reminiscent of Woody Allen in his hay day. Especially when Cusack talks to the camera, breaking the 4th wall, enaging the audience. Much the style made popular by Allen in films such as Annie Hall. Though mostly subtle, certain scenes do break into all out comedy ("fight with Ian 'Ray' ).

An interesting issue also comes in case of director Stephen Frears. He has the ability to make films of totally oppisite genres and make them truely beleiveable. Whether it's "The Grifters" a crime/drama, The Queen a bio film, Dirty Pretty Things a thriller or a subtle comedy in case of this film, each genre is totally emersed in its subject. Which is tough to pull off for a director who decides to make many different types, rather than sticking to one and becomming a safe almost auteur as some choose to do.

What we have here with high fidelity is a great study of relationships, their effect on us and our character, how it can effect our later lives.

All in all, i have no real complaints. so how do i finish? well in the theme of the movie and our protagonist, i can olny think of one way..right?

Top 5 reasons to watch High Fidelity

1. Jack Black
2. John Cusack
3. Frears
4. The Soundtrack
5. Cus i said so.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

The word of mouth movie of 2006. It seemed everyone who saw it fell in love with it. They'd say "have you seen it yet??" "you need to see this film i saw last night" and such to that affect. So after hearing so much praise for it, i decided, "hell, now i need to see it".

It follows the story of Olive who is shortlisted for Little Miss Sunshine beauty contest. At first it appears her family can't take her because of the money it would cost to make a trip to where the place is being held. oh and the family, well heres a set of characters. There's Olive's dad Richard, who is a motivational speaker. His wife Sheryl, and her brother who was commited to hospital after trying to take his own life, Frank. The reason is later revealed that he was a teacher who fell in love with a male student who later broke it off with him and he couldn't take it. Olive's brother Dwayne who takes a vow of silence untill he gets his pilot licence and then thers drug adicted grampa. the family decided to travel to the place in a now trademark of the movie, yellow VW bus.

First off i have to praise Steve Carel as Frank, wow. he plays this conflicted, confused character to perfection. The character point of his sexuality was never over played and played with a harsh realism. It makes it almost impossible to think that he was once brick the weather guy in anchorman, this performance is utterly convincing and heartfelt. Along with Carell my second fave performance was from Paul Dano as Dwayne. Though a majority of the film he plays silent, the moment he brakes this silence (for a reason i won't reveal because best if you go in fresh) is IMO the finest scene in the movie and i was hooked to the screen, brilliantly done. Also seeing the different dynamics play play out on screen is great, watching different hybolic characters act a scene together is great.

On negative side, it does take some strange twists. one scene (and you'll notice it straight away) it takes this unneeded and out of place turn into a broad almost slapstick comedy. It works in context of family sticking together, but suddenly feels like a caper/ slapstick which is huge contrast to the previously subtle comedy. Another issue that other people have brought up that it kind of goes easy on the subject matter. though it touches on the issue it never goes any deeper and kind of scares off. The subject is that of media influence and the importance of todays society has put on appearance and looks. It sort of deals with it but in the end bows out to what is a rather tame finish.

all in all, a heartfelt film, that though great, maybe isn't quite what people say it is. it takes a turn for worse with one or two scenes, but little miss sunshine makes for a damn good watch and one of better movies of 2006.

Fargo (1996)

In my opinon the Coen brothers are one of the most talented and underrated people working in film today. All you have to do is look at their work and realise how much talent they have. They are able to switch between comedy (Raising Arizona / Big Lebowski) to crime dramas (The Man Who Wasn't There). Fargo, released in 1996 is closer to some of their earlier work, such as Blood Simple. A more violent work, almost horror film was the first by coen bros and fargo seems like they are revisiting that area

Fargo tells story of Jerry Lundegaard , is experiencing fiancial trouble and in a panic comes up with an unusual plan to hire someone capture his wife and demand money of his wife's wealthy father. He hires Carl Showalter (Steve Buscemi) & Gaear Grimsrud (Peter Stormare). Along with this we also follow the character of Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand), a cheif who is assigned to the case.

it's an unusual story tackled in a quirky manner and takes quite alot to stick with. However, what coen bro movies are so good at doing is mixing genres. So in fargo you have a crime / drama / thriller / comedy all in one. Many non comedy movies that attempt comedy moments, the comedy usually falls short, cringe worthy and out of place. With fargo it never does, i think its mainly done by the charisma and effort but in by the actors. Steve Buscemi is fantastic as is peter stormare. William H macy does his quiet normal guy thing put in weird situations pretty well, but he always seems to play same type of charatcers. The story of Marge Gunderson's character provides a much needed counter story to the main story. her character is more down to earth and provides a real balence to the more hyberbolic aspects to the film. A lot of the more subtle comedy comes from her character, and the role is brilliantly acted.

Fargo is a film full of rich characters, an interesting and engaging story. One other issue i want to bring up is the tone of fargo. It uses very strong genre conventions. It has an almost film noir feel, guy captures someone, hired hitmen, a cheif on his case all conventions much to feel of a traditional film you would expect to see in 1940s. However, it doesn't match entirely. The characters aren't clear black and white, good and bad. It dosen't use any proppian narratives. We are meant to dislike the bad guys, but in this case they are funny and audience engaging. William H macy's character, the main character, is a confused charatcer and is not easy to read. all of this being said, Fargo is a 90s classic, though not my fave Coen bros movie (big lebowski being my fave) this is still a great film that i fully recommend.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy started life as a radio comedy sketch in 1978 on BBC radio 4. Then transformed into series of 5 books spanning 1979-1992. A TV series in 1981. My first intro was through the tv series which i loved. So many years of have passed and fans have built up visions in their minds and in 2005 a feature film is made.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy stars Martin Freeman in lead role of Arthur Dent, from The office fame. American rapper Mos Def takes role of Ford Prefect and Zooey Deschanel of Trillian. All performances are fantastic, especially Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox. Zooey deschanel (who i love seeing in anything) is again great, Mos Def also does great job. So should be great right? meh.

Well, i was entertained but it was missing alot. Theres so much more, or just better stuff they could of featured. However my main issue is not with what they did or didn't put in, its a narrative issue. The relationship narrative of Dent & Trillian was added in as a hook for marketing and gives film something solid to base itself on. Thats where it fails for me. It loses it's charm. The appealing factor of Hitchhiker's Guide was it was all something about nothing. It was quirky, random and you didn't know what you were going to see or read next. So having it tied down with a (well acted) but poorly placed love story, just takes away some of the original intent of the story. It turns that story into an almost hugh grant'ish sloppy brit rom com, which goes against everything hikers was all about. Such as in one scene after Dent puts fish in his ear, in the book it leads to a convosation about existance of god and makes light of the issue, which is not in the film, shame in my eyes.

I could of done with more of the book narration, which from personal stand point was my fave part of the book & tv series. Again this was lost for narrative safety. Visually the film looks bright, bold and appealing, all costumes look great and keep in mood of the series by not resorting to CGI. What this movie did do well (while sacrificing artist orginial intent) was appeal to a new audience. It made a film where you didn't really have to have had read the book or seen tv show, it brought it back into public consciousness and for that it was a success.

All in all, its a fun film, i laughed, i had a good time. Just don't go in expecting alot of originality of the source material, expect a hollywoodized version with good performances and a nice (safe) attempt at a classic of modern pop culture

Glastonbury (2006)

Glastonbury is a documentary film released in 2006 about , you guessed it, Glastonbury music festival. It was directed by Julien Temple who is also responsible for directing other music films and dvds (such as music videos for Blur). I was expecting alot from this, being fan of many different styles of music and many of which featured on this doc. however i would rank this film under Disappointing. The main reason is, it didn't tell you much. One main purposes of a documentary is to inform and at same time entertain, this struggles to do both. What it does do well is capture the feeling of the times and vibes connecting with gigs such as Glastonbury or Reading, with use of archive clips. I did learn that the earlier glastonburys looked insane with hippie types stripping and dancing, setting things on fire and chanting, much like a cult lol. So it did well in showing great footage, but well, thats about all it had to its name. It starts off tracking home made videos of a group of people who attended a recent glastonbury and i thought "oh this is cool, from eyes of fans , real and gonna be interesting see how they got on". However that soon stops. They pull out all this clips and they go on for ages. Like you can be watching an archive clip of people dancing for like 5 mins at a time (and they use it alot) with no narration or interviews. The few interviews it did have were quite funny and interesting (such as a few from owner of the land) but there just wasn't enough. It showed near whole songs by bands. It actually felt vety much like watching it on TV, you wait ages to watch the song you want, then something else comes on.

It's mainly that i didn't learn much i didn't already know, it was alot about the old glastonbury's not much about new ones or anything leading up to them. As i say it catches the vibe well but just doesn't work well as a documentary.

300 (2007)

Greek epics have never really appealed to me. They always remind me of those types of movies that would be on TV in background on a dull sunday afternoon. Having never seen gladiator, Troy or Kingdom of Heaven, i am working on a sort of stereotype i had in my mind going in. Though i am a fan of battle movies and huge fight scenes, because of the massive sets and depth of detail, but i just hadn't seen enough of the genre. However, having seen the trailer for 300, i was attracted to it due to the more sci-fi element (mutants) with almost lord of the rings feel. So, the marketing worked on Me.

300 is the story of warriors, The Spartan, against an army of well over 100,000 members of persian army. Our almost proppian hero in this case is King Leonidas, who fights for sparton army. We see him as a child being trainned and follow him to adulthood where he has since has a wife and son who is trainning now. Leonidas declares war on parsians, mainly due to pride, and goes back on the ruling council and acting government at the time in doing so.

directed by Zack Snyder and based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller who is also the brains behind Sin city. Which brings me to my first point, The visuals. Sin city was praised for staying loyal to the style of the original novel and having looked at some screens in research, 300 also keeps to the style. The gold tones, bold reds and dramatic light effects all feature. I think it is important to stay loyal if your making a comic book movie and not to sell out to industry pressure , to comprimise the artists original vision, just dumb it down and make more money.

One first things that struck me was the narration which at first i wasn't keen on, but it eventually won me over. It seemed at times it was merely the voice of captions in the comic or just narrating actions. "the sparton raised his sheild" it almost had a feel of a book being read to you, which takes time to get used to, but i feel in end it gave the film some extra edge. The violence is interesting in this movie. it's not realistic, it's more a hyberbolic violence (for exanple : Kill Bill) than maybe you'd find in a war movie. However, looking at the screens from novels its just following the violence depicted in it. The fights were gripping, and really well excuted, though it was done in stages, it was like, fight, rest, fight.. so on. i guess this is realistic as you wouldn't go in spears blazin' but at times made it drag a little. Acting was slightly on dodgy side, but pretty good. some cheesy moments (the apple? the head flying? the guy falling and camera follwing him?) but these were still entertaining. Another point i liked were the level of interesting characters, the god of persian army, the mutant warriors, all very iconic looking. This other character i wished they had used more was this fat mutant guy with a skin blade arm thing, was was ace.

Overall, escapism, alot of style, great battle scenes, drags a little and bit cheesy at times, but i really enjoyed it and it was one of those "wow that was cool" type action/epic movie. I recommend you see it if you liked lord of the rings too.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

Will Ferrel like many comedians has found his groove. picked something, a style or persona he's good at and started churning out money making summer hits. More power to him. Carrey did it in the 90s, Sandler has them too. It's a basic format, reminds me of that south park episode where cartman pretneds to be a robot thinking of new adam sandler movies "adam sandler, meets this girl, but shes a tree" "adam sandler is a rich guy who learns lesson of life". Much to this theory i've heard to sell it too distributers Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby was pitched as "will ferrel is a NASCAR driver" and they got the deal on that alone. As i say, if they can do it, fair enough. Will ferrel's movies have a running theme too, he is usually a dumb guy at top of his chosen field who has a sudden decline and is bettered (Anchorman , Talladega Nights).

So with that said the narrative of Talladega Nights, is that Will ferrel is Ricky bobby, successful NASCAR driver who is top of his game :). With his best friend and driving partner Cal Naughton, Jr. (played by John C. Reilly) rule the NASCAR world. That is untill French Formula One driver Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen) hits the scene. Having also dominated his field, he enters world of NASCAR in hope Ricky bobby will beat him, so he can prove himself. In meantime, during the fall of ricky his best friend Cal Naughton, Jr. stars affair with ricky bobby's wife and ricky is kicked out of his home. and takes his two sons with him to move in with his mum.

i've seen Ricky Bobby 3 times, once in cinema and twice on DVD. having been huge fan of Anchorman, i had high expectations with this film. i'm happy to say, i really like it. Sport comedy movies are hard to buy into unless you like that sport. Though some can really hit the mark (Happy gilmore, Kingpin and Nacho Libre..yes wrestling is kinda a sport!). A trademark of these movies is the final scenes are of the final contest of this sport being played out. These are very hard to make funny as you have to balence the sport and comedy, enough to get point across (kingpin / Libre did it brilliantly). Talladega Nights also does it, especially the very end result.

Personally some of funniest scenes to me were : the knife scene, the highlander rant, all of Sacha Baron Cohen's scenes, the cugar stuff and Ricky bobby's dad. On negative points, the shake and bake joke gets bit annoying and in general Ferrell's dumb guy thing is little tired after a while, especially when they could have fallen back on Cohen or Reilly. Also, looking at trailers for his new one, Blades of Glory (which i do wanna see) you really get the idea from his character that it might aswell be Ron Burgundy or Ricky, but hell , i still wanna see the movie, so his style is working. oh i do recommend you see his short but movie stealing role in wedding crashers though, which is most different out and out comedy role ive seen him do (excluding elf) The drama aspect of this film with the dad narrative is pretty well excuted and is pretty good on its own right (Gary Cole "office space" is ricky's dad and is brilliant)

All in all i laughed quite a bit, not up to many repeat viewings, no anchorman, but Sacha Baron Cohen is fantastic, Ferrel is funny doing what he does best and its a very fun, acessible movie. gather up some friends and watch it, you'll have a laugh.

Saw II (2005)

(---SPOILER---- though there are few spoilers, it is hard to explain some points without mentioning spoilers from first film, so read with caution)

Which is better Saw or Saw 2, its a damn close race.

The first film, Saw, was a movie that drew me in, i was hooked and at the end i was on edge of my seat, an effect that very few movies have had. Saw was a fairly low budget, semi art house film that used implied violence rather than all out violence and grim scenes (bar the razorwire scene, which was pretty tough going).

Saw 2 follows the story of John (aka Jigsaw) a cancer patient who captures victims and puts them in situations which they have to over come or they will die, in attempt to make them value their life. An interesting narrative within Saw 2, is that Jigsaw is caught by a SWAT team and detective Eric Matthews. Matthews had previously been called out by jigsaw with a message left on on of his traps. When they find jigsaw he tell Matthews that he has something that might interest him. He guides him to a set of monitors that reveal he's trapped a group of people in a room, with deadly gas being aired into the room. If he doesn't follow his rules, they will die in 3hrs, one of those people, is Eric Matthew's son, Daniel.

What's interesting about this narrative is that it takes a very mainstream approach. a group of people in a situation having to work together, is very much a blockbuster teen-horror movie narrative. This is huge departure from original saw, and it does feel, sometimes like they sold out. Not only in the teen-horror mainstream narrative, but also with the traps. The traps were actually a very small part of Saw, only about 4 traps were featured, Saw 2 jumps up the traps count. It does feel like they called a meeting and said "nobody cared about the subtle parts of film and want traps, make more traps, make more money." However, it isn't just traps, just alot more. In a way you can very easily seperate the film into two parts. The main trap of people in house is your money making hook, but the scenes with jigsaw and matthews are more of a throw back to original. IMO the best bits of the films come from those scenes, tense cat and mouse between the two, sharp script and brilliant intensity, in those scenes, makes the movie. Grizzly out right violence is plentyful (though not quite much as Saw III) and has more narrative importance than Saw III. With references to original saw , horror movie influences ("Last house on the left") it adds depth to what could be a pop corn sequel.

In fact, though more mainstream, the scenes with jigsaw and matthews are so rich in intensity and top notch cinetography, pulls this into a cut above the rest. My favourite of Saw movies often swiches between 1 & 2. Acting apart from Tobin bell (jigsaw) & Donnie Wahlberg (Matthews) is bit shakey but they were people stuck in a room with little effort to explain deeper character attributes, so they did pretty well. The editing and cinetography is top notch and not much of a difference from Saw. Just more of fast edits and music video style cuts. All in all, not as subtle as Saw, but as sequels go, i really really liked it. High intensity, hooks you in just as much as first one..the ending, well its awesome and just as good as Saw. I very much recommend this, but see Saw 1 first.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

With Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, it's a situation of alot of hype, but does it live up to it? well, it sure as hell does. It tells the story of this young girl, Ofelia, who travels with her pregnant mother to live with her stepfather, a ruthless captain of a spanish army. Ofelia reads alot of fantasy books and has a big imagination, just before leaving with her mother she spots a dragon fly type creature she beleives to be a fairy. This dragon fly creature follows her is indeed a fairy, who leads her to an old fawn in the center of the labyrinth. She is told that she's a princess, but to prove herself must undertake several tasks for these fairytale creatures. However, in meantime the captain is undertaking a violent war and has little remorse for Ofelia's mother or Ofelia herself. His only concern is that ofelia's mother is pregnant with his child, who he beleives is a boy, and that boy must be born, even, due to complications, if it risks the mother's life.

Recently i've been studying "shock cinema" in film studies class, and how they use different elements to shock you. In case of Labyrinth, the shock comes in form of violence. The way it was promoted and marketed would have you beleive this was a fairly harmless fairytale story with wonderful creatures and stunning visual effects. It has those, but this is set to a very hostile story of power, greed, violence and war. This is backbone of the movie and i beleive is prime reason Ofelia is in this fantasy world, to escape harsh reality of the actions taking place around her. The visuals and creatures in the movie are all a joy to watch, a scene in which a creat (pictured at start of review) is chasing ofelia is very stunning. With the disembodied parts, detachable eyes he places in his palms, he has to adjust while chasing her. mise-en-scene used and the non diegtic music adds to the tention. With many references to story much like this such as "Alice in Wonderland" & "Wizard of Oz" you can see relation between ofelia and those respective characters.

Some have said the Captain character was over the top. Which he is, but i liked that. his hyperbolic almost cartoonish villainy, adds to fairytale aspect of the iflm, he is much like a villian you would read about in a short story or comic book. Keep in mind, this is in no means a kids movie, though the fantasy elements, tihs is a vivid violent look at war, birth, greed and struggle laced with a running fantasy story.

The final scenes will grip you, as will majority of the film. The cinetography is well placed and hooks you in. Music is fantastic and adds to the scenes.

Final point i want to make is about the director Guillermo del Toro. being born in Mexico, this is film set in his native country and is subtitled. However what really interests me is he is able to make this art house films such as Pan's (and his earlier work) yet he also transfers into the blockbuster market, being director of comic book movie, Hellboy. So he is able to be a big commercial draw and make smaller films such as pan's.

I cannot stress enough how great this movie is, best of 2006. See this film, even if your not usually keen on world cinema, this is movie about love, family, imagination, greed and war, all things that will transfer, any language.

Ghost Rider (2007)

Another film based on a lesser known marvel comic series. It tells the story of Johnny Blaze (the name alone lets you know the feel of this film) a stunt motorcyclist who sold his soul to the devil as a young man to save his father's life. As a result he is now the devils main guy, who he can call opon at anytime to do his bidding. As a subplot the devil's son (oh yes you read right) is causing all types of trouble which allows for the action scenes. oh and Johnny Blaze meets up with his old girlfriend from his younger days. Oh did i mention his head goes on fire at night and rides around on a bike?..well he does.

first off , the film is pretty bad but, kind of in a good way. it's a perfect example of high concept where narrative and deeper contextual meaning is thrown away for a hot chick and explosions.some of the lines are laughable, the acting is pretty plain, though cage is usually pretty subtle and down beat. It guided you along when you didn't need it, i mean it isn't memento, we get the story, we don't need a shadow of the devil to appear when lightening struck, just so we know who he is, we got it. However as stupid as that was, it did make me laugh. At the end of the day we have to remember it is based on a comic book and it's only working with the content its based on and comic books tend to have hyberbolic characters in crazy situations. The special effects are pretty ace, first time Cage's head is engulfed in fire to reveal the skull (in cartoony manner, not as graphic as it sounds lol) is quite impressive. The bike chases look cool, the bike itself looks cool. The story is pretty simple and doesn't try to be anything else, its kind of story you might see in episode of buffy vampire slayer.

The love story subplot, really isn't that bad. in a way, it is the audiences point of view. in certain scenes, one in which cage tries to explain his situation to Eva Mendes, who plays roxanne, with words used you get the idea the film makers are saying "we know this is pretty silly premise, but stick with us".

in terms of narrative its not great, and is a throwaway popcorn film but, i have to admit, i did enjoy myself. The story , lines and general tone of the movie had a good feel to it. It wasn't trying to be anything it wasn't, it got few good laughs, it had pretty good action scenes and visual effects. It's no spider-man 2, It's no batman begins, but for pure fun, not goo for technical stand points, but a good popcorn flick.

see it if you love comic book movies, don't see it if you love good movies but see it if you want to have a fun, escapism movie going experience

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Being first film from quentin tarantino he attempts to make a low budget film that will shock and grip you. From it's exciting beginning to tense, explosive end, Reservoir Dogs lets you know "its here and here to stay" and it does. After finishing it stays with you, whether you remember the lines, the cinetography, the acting or the music, theres so much to love about it. However Reservoir Dogs nearly never got into production. Harvey Keitel who also starred in the movie was so impressed by the script that he put up the funding to get it secure and into the works.

Incase you don't know Reservoir dogs is story of 6 guys all teaming up for a bank robbery. all using aliases to protect their real identity. However it all goes wrong and one of guys Mr. Orange gets shot, by cops. The speed in which the cops arrive lead the guys to suspect they have a rat in their group, so rest of film is a sort of "who dunnit" to discover who the rat is.

One of key thing about reservoir dogs is it can be easily seperated into key scenes that are all fantastic and better than most scenes in other films. The ear scene of course being the one most people reference, it is indeed tense and violent. Other outstanding scenes include Mr orange's sniffer dog/drugs story, final showdown, closing scene, Mr White / Mr Pink confrontation and many more. Acting is fantastic throughout, Tim Roth as Mr Orange was a standout given the layered character he had to portray. That's another aspect that sets film film apart from others and into the classic status, in most films you get one maybe two characters that people remember and become cult icons, here, you have pick of like 6. All characters from this film are so well thought out and delivered. From nervous Mr pink to calm and cool mr blonde, we have charatcers that have gone down in film history. A brutal film that cleverly unfolds with every inovative shot, and of course the now heavily used fragmented timeline. Have to remember that was cutting edge at the time seen as fresh and new, now most people demand money back if you don't see the end first :) of course i exaggerate but it did set a standard, which is highly replicated.

All in all i don't think i really have a bad word to say, i probably do if i think hard enough but looking back at all great stuff, seems little petty to mention those now. so if you haven't seen reservoir dogs, do, its directed brilliantly, acting is top notch, mise-en-scene and fantastic soundtrack (diagetic and non)...but above all...its cool.

Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)

As soon as i heard about this film, i really wanted too see it. I was (and still am) fan of quirky dramas / dark comedies (Royal Tenenbaums, Pallbearer, Eulogy) so i was looking forward to this film. to be honest, and i knew the premise before hand, people sitting around talking rubbish, it was bit boring. I thought i'd like that style, but as i say, just found it boring. IMO the best skit was Steve Coogan & Alfred Molina's "Cousins?" where they debate that they might be related and we see aduring fans come and meet molina while not knowing who coogan was and he attempts to name drop to get some attention. In a way, its the most mainstream segment, so what does that say about me?? Another reason i wanted to see this was bill murray, who is pretty much brilliant in anything. Though may be bias, his skit with rappers RZA & Genius was second best skit. An example of the bordem was a segment Renée which was a scene where tihs woman just sits there and drinks coffee, thats it. i'm all for arty stuff, but c'mon? Though when it was funny it was very funny, Bill murray, Molina, Coogan, iggy pop too and some of white stripes stuff was good, but i expected more.

overall i was mostly just disappointed by it, maybe deserves a rewatch.

Casino Royale (2006)

I hadn't seen the last few bonds, goldeneye being most recent i had seen all way through, which by the way i really like. This is the story of bond before / just as he gets his 007 rank, a prequel of sorts. it also features the beginings (in pretty lighthearted way) of some of bond tademarks we know (origin of the Aston Martin, Shaken not stired ect.) I'd like to get one issue out the way, which is just me, probably didn't bother ANYONE else. However if its meant to be start of bond, then shouldn't it be set ages ago and the mention of 9/11 and all cool technology be gone. :) i know they were just taking poetic license, to make a exciting film and it would of been insane to make it makes sense timeline wise, but it does make me laugh. Then again in that case my theory is all to pot anyway due to never aging bond and always looking shockingly different :):)

i guess first i should state my point on the whole Daniel Craig as bond deal. I thought he did great job, aspect he brought was a more ruthless street wise bond and that was an interesting take on the character. The romance story here is pretty damn good, it reveals reasons behind Bonds attitudes towards his relationships, and give the character more depth than other bond girl storylines have before. really Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) as she is seen as strong, makes bond re-evaluate his life and such , of course theres the proppian narrative in play at times as her as "Damsel in distress" but the relationship vibe seems stronger in this one to other films.

The action sequences are good, somestimes OTT, but guess expect that. I think it tried to focuse less on the gadgets, which in this "all style no substance" world we live in, was good to see. Not saying there were no gadgets, there were, but don't expect invisable cars speeding across ice. Though this all style can be seen in the action sequences, though in its defense, action s cenes are trademark of bond, so can't really complain. the final one in the old building was pretty ace, but the crane one was, fun, but bit crazy. We do see a bond in conflict here, which is a refreshing dipiction. It does drag a little in middle, and some action sequences i can't remeber why it was there (plane one??) but overall soild, fun, and best since goldeneye, even though i haven't seen between them, i've heard they are really bad, so i can assume :)

Spider-man 2 (2004)

For me my guidlines that i use to rank any superhero movie are Tim Burton's Batman & Batman Returns, always has been and probably stay like that for a while. Having seen them as a kid, i may be bias as they hold memories but hey, they're my favourites. I didn't really know much about spider-man before seeing the first movie back in 2002, but i liked it. however Spider-man 2 improves on Spider-man in nearly every aspect. Some of ideas are the same, the bad guy is someone peter parker looks up to in both films, untill they have something happen to them and turn evil, but hey, what comic book doesn't do that? Peter parker is pretty conflicted in this but from i've seen its x10 in spider-man 3. Personally what makes this film work is that looking at it, its easy to assume its just another comic book movie, but no, its not. it manages to balance the action and emotional aspects brilliantly. You have Alfred Molina, a stage actor of theatre and every experienced playing role of Doc Oc. Personally i think he's the ground of the film, he ties it together, it gives it that extra level of professionalism that makes it a cut above the average comic book flick. The action scenes (train and bank heist especially) are thrilling and really cool to watch unfold.

The love story of peter & Mary Jane is given alot of screen time which i think helped the film, cus it gave it depth, and thats what this film had over spider-man 1. it was about peter, not spider-man.

In all, one of highlights of 2004, up there with best comic book films and well...roll on Spider-man 3.

Smokin' Aces (2006)

Story of a Vegas magician, Buddy 'Aces' Israel, who befriends the mob, is the target of several hitmen and woman, after he ratted out the mob to the cops. The mob have hired some of the most ruthless hitmen. Georgia Sykes (Alicia Keys) , Jack Dupree (Affleck) and among others a "Mad Max" style of german warriors, Tremmor Brothers. Buddy is coked up and laying low at top level of high class Vegas hotel, and its just matter of which killer gets there first. At same time the cops, headed by Ray Liotta & Ryan Reynolds, try to find him first to save him so he can continue to give the police info.This is pure pop corn action movie fun, a slightly clever ending that doesn't really make to much of a deal, but its pretty good. sure it maybe a example of death of narrative cinema, but hell, i liked it. Jeremy Piven gives a fantastic performance and is really the highlght of the movie. The different level of hitmen is interesting, best being Alicia Keys, Tremmor bros and this guy who steals faces of people to sneak behind detection (yes you read right). As i said its fun, throwaway stuff. a good way of doing it is, it's better than Guy Richie's Revolver and just as good as Lucky Number Slevin. It's a action movie for the "Fast & Furious" generation of movie goers, but its better than the usual. I Recommend it, Jeremy Piven steals the film but don't expect to be challenged, expect to enjoy it.

Brotherhood (2004)

This heart breaking story of two brothers forced to fight in Korean war is one of most moving pieces of film i have ever experienced. We start of in 1950 Korea we see two normal young adults, brothers, living their day to day life. Jin-Tae who works hard to earn money for his family and brother, Jin-Seok. War is announced and Seok accidentally signs up for the army and Jin- Tae joins to help his younger brother, earn medals to send him home.However Jin-Tae becomes slowly poisoned by war. He gets taste for it and becomes reckless and risks lives of himself and his team mates, Jin-Seok included.The war scenes are brutal and breath taking. However, above all, this is a story of family, friendship and love, and how war can comprimise this. Brotherhood is my Fave war movie and possibly IMO, one of most affective dramas. I'm not ashamed to say my eyes welled up slightly on final scene. I cannot stress how amazing tihs movie is. From its excellent cinetography to the fantastic acting, i cannot recommend it enough. It is VERY brutal and not for weak at heart, however, for a great story of family, violence and heat break, see it. It's Awesome.

The Departed (2006)

I've always had an on off relationship with Martin Scorsese Movies. I didn't care for Taxi Driver or Raging Bull (which i will explain in later reviews). However i loved Goodfellas & Casino, and really liked The Aviator. Scorsese here makes possibly his most commercial film yet. Film going action fan teenagers will love it, and "get it" more than maybe his other films, as this is quite accessbile. A remake of a fantastic Asian film, Infernal Affairs, it tells story of Two men from opposite sides of the law are undercover within the State Police and the Irish mafia. Mob boss Frank Costello, played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson, has sent one of his men, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) into the state police is a rat. Unkown to him (for time being) state police have also done same sending Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), a hard working cop, into his gang to bring back info to the police.As i'd already seen the original and loved it, and knowing remakes can suck, AND that i had a luke warm appreciation of Scorsese movies, i was worried to say the least. Thankfully i thought it was great. Sure its mainstream, but it is gripping. it moves at a fast yet not too fast pace that kept me interested. Dicaprio gives IMO his best performance so far, Damon also, though not to level of Dicaprio does fantastic. Nicholson of course steals the show, but when doesn't he? Look out for great roles by Ray Winstone and Mark Wahlberg. Another element i enjoyed was the soundtrack, the title intro motage set to Dropkick Murphys' "Shipping To Boston" was very effective. Without giving anything away, many have found the ending to be over the top and there only for shock value. I'd like to say that i thought the ending was fine. It's just like original really, with few added moments, but i enjoyed the ending and have no issues with it.In all, My fave Scorsese movie next to goodfellas and Casino. Scene stealing performance by Nicholson and great action through out. See it !

Casino (1995)

It's 1995 and Martin Scorsese releases Casino. Having already a string of movies many consider to be among best ever made, Casino had alot to live up too. Goodfellas in 1990 was his nearest success (however he did release Cape Feare in 91) and Goodfellas to this day remains his highest rated film on IMDB (not that thats much to go by). Teaming again and so far, for final time, Robert De Niro, Casino is story of Sam 'Ace' Rothstein who is mainly a small time crook trying to conquer Vegas. However he has baggage, his old friend Nicky Santoro played by Joe Pesci. Soon Nicky causes trouble with his methords of dealing with people who get out of line and is banned from all casinos in vegas and this affects Sam's reputation. Sam in meantime falls for a hustler, Ginger. Ginger however is still in love with her fomer boyfriend and pimp Lester Diamond. So Sam has to deal with all this well at same time trying to stay on good side of vegas' elite.

This is as you'd expect a pretty brutal film. a couple of torture scenes involving those who won bit too much for casinos liking, as they are very old school way of working. It's a fantastic film, long but never feels too long. The "friendship" between Nicky and Sam is played out so well, included a great scene where he meets him in the deserts of vegas to basically say "shape up or leave" cus he was ruining him at the time. Sharon stone who plays Ginger is great, however that story does get repetative. She's always leaving then comming back and he just accepts it, several times. However thats only point i can think that i didn't like. Some say "its just goodfellas, in vegas." sure, it probably is, but, if it ain't broke why fix it ? It does have narration like goodfellas aswell but i found this narration to be better. its more lighthearted, especially at the beginning. Actually for first 15 mins is basically 90% narration, it slowly gets less and less, but you don't notice it.

its a great film, maybe not quite goodfellas, but not far off.

Alien 3 (1993)

Underrated, best way to start this. After the classics Alien & Aliens, this had alot to live up too and despite a few falls, i like it. It picks up the story and the ship that Ripley (Weaver) Hicks, Android Bishop and Newt had used to escape from in Aliens has crashed. We find out in (a brilliant) opening sequence that their sleeping pods had been broken into by a face hugger Alien. We later find out that in crash landing all but ripley had been killed and Android Bishop was desroyed. Also Ripley had been impregnated by the face hugger alien and was now carrying an alien egg in her. They crash land on this Prison unit planet and Ripley is forced to stay there due to lack of other options. A dog, used by people of this prison planet to help search out ripleys destroyed ship, is unluckily enough to to be victim of the alien and the alien is transformed into a alien on four legs, unlike to legged in first two filmsFirst off i loved the idea of alien on 4 legs and ripley having an alien in her, all approached brilliantly. it's also worth mentioning the Director was david Fincher who would later go on to make classics like Fight Club & Se7en. Though prison idea works, i liked the ideas i've heard were nearly chosen before film was made. one of them had it being set in a religious community in a huge wooden floating sphere in space. I thought this was interesting as the Alien could of been shown as comming of the devil in eyes of the monks on this wooden planet and would of brought up many interesting dimetions. However, the inmates in the prison do have a monk like out look and feel to them, so i guess they kept the idea, kind of.may not be best of series, but it looks great, it's kind of slow and some of the dialog isn't great, but it has got atmosphere. It's tense when it wants to be and direction is great. Given the little time Fincher had to make this, he did great job. Not the best, but it had hell of alot to lvie up too.

The Deer Hunter (1978)

My second fave War movie just behind korean movie "Brotherhood". Deer hunter presents a steller cast De Niro, Walken & Streep. Michael, Nick, and Steven are three buddies from the steel mill town of Clairton, Penn.They are like schoolmates, hanging out in a local bar and enjoying weekends of deer-hunting. Michael and Nick are also both in love with Linda, who seems to juggle both of the men. It displays the harsh reality of war both from point of battle field, but it is more a study of how it effects friendships and families. At just over 3hours long it first hour and half takes place before they even get to war. it documents their everyday lives, working, hanging out and a 45 min scene of one of their weddings. fully painting a picture of their friendship before tearing it apart with brutal scenes of war. This film found its place in film history for the "russian roulette" scenes, which are very hard to watch. they are indeed tragic, tense scenes as you'd expect and amazingly planned out. This film is truely a classic, see it, but be warned, its exremely raw and real dipiction of war. Also probably my fave performance by de niro (yes raging bull / Taxi driver included) and Walken steals the show. a harrowing film, tense, all of this added to by setting up a normal life narrative, tearing it apart by violence.

See it, it's Classic, amazing.