movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

"If you lose this war don't blame me."

The 1920s was the era for old black and white movie comedies. This era was ruled by three factions: Charlie Chaplin, The Marx Brothers and Buster Keaton. The General is a very short (75-minute) but classic silent film from Keaton.

Back in the days when these films were released it was pivotal to include a bunch of fantastically hilarious sight gags to keep the audience entertained for the film's duration. Because silent movies are images being shown to simple piano music these sight gags were a necessity. Up until I finally watched this movie I would never have known how side-splitting the humour of 1920's slapstick truly is. As much as I love watching Charlie Chaplin's old movies, Keaton is also a guru when it comes to his art of being an acrobatic comedian.

The General was not a success when it was first released, but over the years the film now regularly appears on lists of the greatest movies ever made. The plot is really quite straightforward: Johnnie Gray (Keaton) is a Southern train engineer at the start of the Civil War. Johnnie is encouraged to enlist by his girl Annabelle (Mack) who believes it is an honourable and courageous thing to join the army.

But Johnnie is rejected when trying to enlist. Unbeknownst to him, it's because the enlisting office believes he will be more useful as an engineer as opposed to a soldier. Annabelle doesn't believe Johnnie's story, instead thinking that he's a coward who refuses to enlist. Unless Johnnie is wearing a uniform, Annabelle will not allow him to speak. Meanwhile a group of Union spies decide to steal a locomotive. Predictably, they choose the locomotive belonging to Johnnie. And in the process of stealing it they also unintentionally kidnap Annabelle. Now it's up to Johnnie to save both of his loves - his girl and his locomotive.

The General is beautifully constructed. For such an old production I would never have expected to see such scope and scale. Some of the battles (non-violent, of course) feature a whole heap of extras as well as some extensive sets. It's obvious that the film was made with a lot of love. The stunts were executed remarkably. There are countless occasions when I found myself laughing or cheering when Keaton performed a highly amusing acrobatic stunt. The stunt gags get better quality as the film moves along. The final train chase was both highly entertaining as well as being frequently hilarious.

And in those days what you see is what you get; some of the stunts were performed without any insurance on hand or many safety precautions. Everything looks real and this is what makes the film so special. We will never see shots like these filmed during present day without the aid of digital effects. A tragedy and a fact.

Surprisingly, The General is one of the most accurate portrayals of the Civil War. Every detail is meticulously designed; props, costumes, sets, etc. Top marks for precision, Mr. Keaton!!

The General is probably Buster Keaton's most famous production. The film is a total riot from start to finish. It's hilarious and it carries a high sense of excitement. The fantastic music was another asset that made the film a lot more exhilarating. The film is very deserving of all he accolades it received, and then some. One of the best silent movie comedies made to date!

"What's the matter? Haven't you ever seen a gun before? What do you want me to do, count three like they do in the movies?"

Regarded as one of the essential Bogart/Bacall films, The Big Sleep is a stimulating plunge into an entertaining slice of detective fiction. Filmmakers these days just don't make movies like The Big Sleep anymore; the film is stylish and atmospheric, set in a world where tough guys are tough guys and women were babes.

The highlight of the classic picture, of course, is the rich screen partnership of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall (they were married at the time). When one thinks of Bogart, his big break usually springs to mind; that is, The Maltese Falcon. Howard Hawks is no John Huston; however Hawks' refined direction sets the atmosphere of intrigue and exhilaration. From the first scene I was already hooked; sharp screenplay, witty line dispensing from first-rate cast, classy atmosphere. It's this combination that keeps the audience spellbound from start to finish.

Based on the Raymond Chandler novel of the same name, Bogart plays private eye detective Philip Marlowe who is given the assignment of sorting out a simple blackmail case for a wealthy old man. The case involves the man's younger daughter Carmen (Vickers) and it appears to be fairly straightforward. However, the plot thickens when Marlowe discovers that there is more to the case than meets the eye.

What follows is an absorbing tale filled with murders and abundant intrigue; there is certainly nothing dull to surface around here.

Some people fed The Big Sleep a mouthful of criticism because of how convoluted the plot turned out to be. This is true; the film is full of plot twists and is so complex that not even the author knows who committed one murder, but the film is so incredibly entertaining that I was willing to overlook it.

The Big Sleep is a sizzling thriller that features a first class array of actors. Humphrey Bogart is formidable in his quintessential role of a private detective falling for a dame. Bogey seems to never tire of playing the same kind of role on many occasions. Of course, this is no drawback. The man is now experienced in such a role and his stature perfectly suits the character of Philip Marlowe.

Lauren Bacall will always be an exemplary accompaniment for Bogey on screen. The chemistry is sizzling between them when the screen is shared. The supporting cast is a dazzling array of stunning female actresses, including Mary Vickers and Dorothy Malone among many others.

Director Hawks had some serious boots to fill due to Bogey being one of the world's much loved actors working at the time of release. After The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca it would have been a hard act to follow. But Hawks is skilled in the director's chair; always establishing a very classy atmosphere that keeps the audience enthralled as the mysteries keep getting unravelled.

The film also boasts quite a large on screen body count and quite a bit of violence. This only heightens the film's status as one of the most unforgettable films in cinematic history.

The Big Sleep will always be remembered amongst the most memorable films from Bogart's career. From start to finish I was completely captivated by the impressive filmmaking in every aspect. The film is another classic that continues to deepen my fascination in old black and white movies. I can't stress this enough; no-one would be able to match the mystery and captivation if the film was made in colour, or make during present day.

"Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? They said when you got here the whole thing started. Who are you? What are you? Where did you come from! I think you're evil. EVIL!"

As Hitchcock's career progressed, he created some of his finest work. The Birds is a thriller of reference superiority, and is undoubtedly one of Hitchcock's best films.

No-one can match Hitchcock when it comes to sheer suspense and terror, and this film is no exception. What I admire most about Hitchcock is that he's never afraid to attempt a new style of thriller - in this case making a thriller sans music. There is not a single note of music throughout the movie, and because of Hitchcock's inspirational direction you will be too engaged in the terror to actually realise this. Not many directors can accomplish this degree of suspense and horror without the assistance of a composer, but Hitchcock proves skilled in this aspect.

Melanie Daniels (Hedren) is shopping in San Francisco when she meets potential boyfriend Mitch (Taylor) in a petshop. After Mitch leaves, Melanie is intrigued by Mitch and decides to pursue him in the hope of a probable relationship.

Melanie follows him to an insignificant North Californian town. Shortly after this, Melanie is swooping by a seagull and what follows is a bizarre set of circumstances as our allies from the sky begin attacking humankind.

The Birds is a PG rated suspense film, but it can only be viewed by those game enough to sit through some terrifying horror scenes that are even effective despite the age of the movie. Many may look upon the film as dated, but Hitchcock's direction is still as effective as it was when the film was first released.

And of course the cast were all first rate. They are able to instil a sense of sheer terror from their acting whenever a flock of birds appeared on screen. Many will think that the birds look corny and a remake is necessary (Michael Bay is currently gearing up for the dreaded remake), but the film was never about the quality of the special effects (that are fantastic nonetheless). The cinematography and just the image of a flock of birds is what made the film so scary. It will keep audiences on the edge of their seat, without a clue about what will happen next.

Based on a short story, Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds is an outstanding thriller. Probably considered tame by mainstream contemporary audiences, but I found the film to be almost flawless.

What I also admire about Hitchcock's work here is that he was bold enough to tag the film with an uncertain ending. At first I found this unsatisfying. But upon closer inspection I discovered that Hitchcock used this effect to create the impression of "unending terror" (direct quote from the man himself). The story of the main characters finished at the end of the movie, and it was a best place to end it.

Perfect suspense, skilfully constructed, and the film is so unbelievably intense that you will never look at a flock of birds the same way again. Classic Hitchcock!

"It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."

Unforgiven could be the greatest western film in the history of cinema. Clint Eastwood proves an able director for this stunning film, and shows that he has learnt much from starring in spaghetti westerns by Sergio Leone.

Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman play William Munny and Ned Logan; two retired gunslingers who live tranquil lives. After a group of cowboys horribly disfigure a prostitute, a bounty is put on their head. Eastwood and Freeman answer the call, hoping to put an end to their gunslinging after picking up the sizable reward of $1,000.

As the two ride across colonial America with the help of a young wannabe cowboy (Woolvett), the sheriff of the town of Big Whiskey, Little Bill (Hackman), is doing everything he can to discourage bounty hunters as an act of social prejudice.

For its whole running time, the film is absolutely remarkable. Eastwood's sublime direction allows us to get to know each central character; as there are no good guys or bad guys here, this was a pivotal part of the movie.

Eastwood also acted tremendously well here, and displays major depth in his role as an old gunslinger. Morgan Freeman was never an actor one would expect to see in a western, but he pulls it off incredibly well. Gene Hackman, as the sadistic sheriff, was also just exceptional.

Of course the movie is primarily dialogue driven so people looking for action will find precious little, unfortunately. But Unforgiven is a character western that focuses on the drama. And when we do get to some action in the last 15 minutes or so, it's gritty and brutal. Not so much the violence displayed, but the brutality of the characters.

The film contains a very simple plot, granted, but it's not what is on the surface that actually matters here. On the surface it would seem like a dull journey into the old west, but underneath there's plenty of hidden layers and meanings told with the well-developed characters and gorgeous scenery.

Overall, Unforgiven marks the only time that Hollywood actually got a western right; in a money-orientated system, this movie shows us that something truly beautiful can come out of it. It's not concerned with the action or the blood, but rather with developing the characters and showing that there's more to a western than just the action. It's not a spaghetti western and it's not the work of Sergio Leone, but it's an utterly sublime movie. Highly recommended.

"You don't hurt Arnie, you just don't."

What's Eating Gilbert Grape is an amazing movie. The performances are absolutely sublime, the script is fantastic, the score is remarkable...and the overall result is near perfect.

Gilbert Grape (Depp) lives in a small town with essentially no future. He works at the unsuccessful local grocery store, and is stuck caring for his mentally challenged brother Arnie (DiCaprio) as well as his morbidly obese mother (Cates). A small family of campers are stranded in the town, and a young teenager named Becky (Lewis) takes an interest in Gilbert.

The whole film is an emotional journey that is told exceptionally. Although the film seems to go no-where at times, each scene is carried by flawless performances from everyone.

Depp is just brilliant. He played his character extremely well, and even at a young age he can still act superbly. DiCaprio's performance (which earned an Oscar nomination) just blew me away. Because he plays a mentally challenged boy, you'd need a damn fine actor to sell this and DiCaprio did it perfectly. When I watched the movie, it honestly seemed like DiCaprio wasn't acting because he played the part so well. Juliette Lewis does a great job here as well.

The film expertly combines some compelling scenes of drama with a few good laughs and some very heart-warming moments. No matter who you are, you will be in tears by the end of it. The score accompanying the already perfect acting was just inspirational.

By putting Leonardo DiCaprio and Johnny Depp together in a movie, you are guaranteed a winner. What's Eating Gilbert Grape is unmissable, unforgettable and heart-warming. In short: if you haven't seen this movie, you MUST. Highly recommended!

"Ahhhh!" (This is said many times when someone is eatem. This is one of the limited quotes I can remember. Proves how lazy the screenwriter was)

I am completely aware that Arachnid was only made to be a fluffy entertainment piece showcasing a giant spider eating people. Despite this, I found the movie to be the furthest thing from a decent slice of entertainment.

Instead I was fed this stupid, cheesy, barely memorable poppycock that could be beaten by a student film! I can't honestly believe that this film was marketed as being an addition to the horror genre because I didn't find anything remotely scary about this horrible mess other than the terrifying thought that people actually gave money to filmmakers to get this thing made.

The story of the film is basically about a group of people who are terrorised by some giant mutated spider. Well...how impressive is that? This is a plot that has been reused for a countless number of monster movies, most of which score as much better quality than this rubbish.

One of principal things that stuck out for me here was the terrible screenplay and the bad actors involved. It's truly painful how conventional and by-the-book all the characters are. There must be a book for screenwriters to turn to for ideas on what characters to include. Spider expert who is an easy target? Check. Big-breasted girl for show? Check. Dumb characters to get knocked off first? Check. Smart character that swoops in and saves the day? Check. A few tough-looking soldiers to die in triumphant, heroic ways? Check. From the first few scenes we can comfortably predict which characters are going to die, and in which order.

The script is filled with cheesy, dull dialogue. And none of the actors appear to make an effort. The special effects were cheesy and laughable. The animation honestly looks like a group of students made a dodgy clay model. They aren't even slightly impressive. If you want the special effects to look just marginally striking then you'll need to get drunk - fast! All this film has to show for is a bit of gore and a spider killing people in predictable ways.

What I also picked up is that when the spider is shot the bullets comfortably fly off the thing's body with no effect at all. For the final showdown the hero picks up a gun and suddenly the thing is vulnerable!

In the style of Anaconda the film is nothing more than a trip into clichéd territory. I found the film so clichéd it was almost to the point of offence. It will lower your IQ because of how incredibly appalling the film is! Arachnid is a foolish, juvenile, laughable B-Grade horror movie. Despite some action, the film is also incredibly boring. I was watching it with some friends who had fallen asleep half-way through the movie. I wish I could have done the same thing. The film is not at all scary, thrilling or even entertaining. I've seen better quality movies produced on a budget of $5.

"How swift thy sword."

This reviewer has never been a fan of Asian cinema, and Hero is a film that further solidifies my neutral attitude towards film exports from Asian countries.

The film is seemingly inspired by Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon. Like Akira's film, I found Hero to suffer from the same flaws. First of all, the filmmakers poorly distinguish what is occurring on the screen. The script is filled with convoluted lines of dialogue that don't appear to advance the plot very much at all. The movie appeared to be a random selection of action scenes that don't make a lick of sense. Even when I paid 100% attention I was frustrated at the film's difficult nature. Some say it's just the nature of the Asian filmmakers. If this is the case then I'd take a Hollywood film over an Asian production any day.

The script underwent extensive rewrites over the course of several months during pre-production. Makes me wonder why the script was nothing more than cryptic dialogue that didn't make any sense at all in the long run. Maybe it will improve with repeated screenings.

Hero is also an incredibly boring film. I generally appreciate slow paced films; I just prefer them when I can understand what is going on. Perhaps it's my maturity or taste in films, but even mindless action films are easier to understand and hence better quality. All in all, with such a convoluted script this was a wasted opportunity. If the script was dropped into Hollywood's lap there would have been some discernable dialogue.

Set in ancient China, Hero tells the story of a nameless warrior (Li) who has been tracking three assassins who have threatened the life of the king on several occasions. When news reaches the palace that the warrior has defeated all the assassins he is summoned before the king to tell his tale. This plot comes from reading the back cover because I didn't pick up any plot at all.

If a character is telling his story why can't there be more narration to remind the audience what is happening? I was none the wiser until I read the back cover of the DVD I rented. You know there's a problem when absolutely no lines of dialogue make sense, even during action scenes.

Fortunately the film's limited list of redeeming features includes the action scenes. Now these were dazzling and a real visual feast. But they weren't without issues: slow motion does not look cool in my eyes. At all! It looks contrived and distracting. With the film stocking a good supply of slow motion shots I was not happy. Still, the moves are very impressive at times. Another thing about the action scenes: some of the moves are just far too over-the-top. Fighting while hovering over water? Maybe enthusiasts of Asian cinema will find something that makes sense during those scenes. Some of the action is obvious wire-work and it's infinitely distracting!

The cinematography, locations, production design, props and costumes all look gorgeous. For the most part I was impressed with the visuals as the film is overflowing with colourful imagery.

Hero is a typical piece of fluffy cinema courtesy of Asian filmmakers. If you like the works of Akira Kurosawa or films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon then I'm sure you'll be enthralled. Hero is strictly for those who are fans of the genre. The film is convoluted, confusing, poorly written but executed impressively. I can't stress that enough.

"Sometimes it's easier livin' the lie."

Catch Me If You Can is one of Spielberg's best films of late. The whole film is told with a very bright, charming atmosphere accompanied by great filmmaking in every aspect.

Based on the real life story, Leonardo DiCaprio plays teenager Frank Abagnale Jr. who runs away from home at a tender age of 16. After the bitter divorce of his parents, Frank can't deal with the emotion and flees his home in an attempt to escape what is happening. But Frank soon discovers that he has very little funds to keep him going, and realises that he can pose as someone employed in a high class occupation to get him a nice fat paycheck.

Before Frank reaches his 21st birthday, he proceeded to impersonate a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer and became a dab hand at forging cheques and making millions in the process. Tom Hanks is FBI agent Carl Hanratty who is assigned to the case. Over the course of many years, Carl chases Frank in an attempt to bring him to justice for his brilliant crimes.

The film's running time hinges on the lengthy chase that ensues when Carl is chasing Frank who appears to be one step ahead all the time. Many may complain about the running time, but I was engaged in the film from start to finish.

Spielberg's direction makes for a fascinating visual feast for the eyes, and John Williams' jazzy score creates an audio feast for the ears. The style of the film has yet to be matched in a film of this genre. Because everything is done to perfection there are little flaws, and hence an astronomically high entertainment value.

From the cleverly animated opening credits that set the atmosphere right up until the brilliant conclusion, I was hooked.

Leo DiCaprio was a great choice for the title role. Although I'm not an overall fan of the young fellow, I felt that only Leo could pull this one off. Tom Hanks is exceptional as an FBI agent.

Catch Me If You Can is a high energy romp that is truly one of Spielberg's best films in recent years. It will surely provide great entertainment for a rainy afternoon or a boring evening.

"The only true currency in this bankrupt world... is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."

Writer/director Cameron Crowe won an Oscar for his extraordinary script for this outstanding semi-autobiographical tale. Crowe accomplished an astronomical achievement with his previous film, Jerry Maguire, so people had set their expectations pretty high because of his potential and talent as a writer/director.

The film is essentially the tale of what happened during Crowe's teenage years with altered character names. In Almost Famous, teenager William Miller (Fugit) becomes besotted with rock music despite the strong negative response from his overprotective mother (McDormand). When William is 15 years old, he becomes a journalist for a magazine. Then when William's talents are realised by the editors of Rolling Stone magazine he is hired to tour with an up-and-coming rock band to get the opportunity to write a story about his experiences. Director Cameron Crowe tells his story extremely well, with an Oscar winning script that is quite incredible. Every line delivered by a member of the cast had me fascinating and intrigued. The opening scenes in particular are highly memorable not to mention very interesting. I studied this film as part of a screenwriting course and now with each new viewing I appreciate the screenplay even higher.

Newcomer Patrick Fugit is really impressive in the lead role that symbolises Cameron Crowe in his youth. Like most child actors I found that Fugit was still in need of a number of acting lessons. Having said that, he was far better than many child actors I've seen over the years. I thought he perfected the style of a teenager very believably with charm and appeal.

Billy Crudup was also someone who achieved excellent results. He actually felt like a member of a rock band; drugs, facial hair, etc. Frances McDormand realistically portrayed an overprotective parent.

And the sugar on top was the enormously talented direction from Cameron Crowe. My only complaint would be over-length, but although saying that I still found a bulk of the movie to be very entertaining.

Believe me I was not interested in seeing this film, but Almost Famous is a remarkable effort and a drama you will want to see again. For those of you love music and have a song that reminds you of a time or place, you will understand the driving force behind this movie. The film is able to trigger nostalgic memories for those who appreciate the value of treasured songs. If you love 70's music in particular you won't regret watching this one.

"Conquer your fear, and I promise you, you will conquer death."

If you're enthusiastic to waste 3 valuable hours on Oliver Stone's tedious, meaningless, lackluster epic then I won't stop you. But the fact remains that Alexander is a substantially appalling film that should never plague your DVD player.

Before continuing with this review, I must clear up a few things: Oliver Stone is a talented filmmaker. Stone's films for the most part have been masterpieces of the utmost quality, and epics like this are ordinarily excellent...but there is nothing here that engages you and consequently the result is 3 hours of an uninspiring script accompanied with barely any action.

It appears that every single actor is miscast: Colin Farrell breathes no life into the character of Alexander (who's turned into a sexually frustrated arrogant king who spends half the film naked), while Jolie adds absolutely nothing but useless dialogue scenes of philosophizing. And every other addition to the cast does nothing more but talk or get killed; no distinguishing features, and a non-sentimental approach to the whole thing.

And even the battle scenes, the only thing you would think would be redeeming, look dull and lifeless and were shot in a manner that results in the audience having no clue as to what is going on. The shaky cam was fruitless, distracting and all it did was cause the audience to sit there thinking "What...the hell...is going on?!" And if that's not enough, why in the name of god did the post-production crew decide to tint part of a battle in red?! You can't make out ANYTHING! I was struggling just to distinguish who is stabbing who.

There was no point to the movie. All it does is try to outline the life of Alexander the Great (played appallingly by Farrell) but instead the dismal script is hard to comprehend and makes it into something from Shakespeare. After watching the movie I had no idea what point it was meant to make, not to mention what actually happened during the movie, and why it's nothing more than violent manslaughter with horrible acting and a script that could be beaten by one penned by a 5-year-old.

Alexander's life was filled with battles of epic proportion and that is what I was at least expecting. Stone never got close to this. When I first saw the trailers and read the information about the movie I expected good results. All the film returned was a bunch of negative reviews and a poor box office return.

Alexander is the first Oliver Stone film one can honestly describe as boring. Please do yourself a favour and leave this one on the shelf! Don't waste your precious time.