Reviews by PvtCaboose91

It seems that in recent years, washed up action stars like Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris and Van Damme obtain their income from starring in low-budget, crappy straight-to-video action flicks. Since they started in that industry, there is little wonder why they continued - they just don't have the acting skills to be hired for anything good.

After Wesley Snipes featured in films like Blade and Demolition Man among others, no-one anticipated that he would lower his standards to the world of low-budget straight-to-video action flicks. It's impossible not to wonder what's compelling this actor to feature in such an appallingly low-rent affair. Regrettably, with Snipes starring in scrupulously inept and poorly produced action fares such as 7 Seconds and The Marksman he's venturing into the same dangerous territory formerly tread by Seagal, Van Damme and Chuck Norris - three actors who sorely need to retire.

Okay, so I admit that occasionally I do enjoy a good violent action flick. Even if they are low-budget, they can supply a healthy dosage of thrills and action. I viewed The Marksman in the faint hope of something like that, and boy was I wrong! The paltry budget is obvious from the first shot! One of the aspects I discovered from the initial 10 minutes is how poorly the film has been made. The opening "action" sequence is impossible to watch because of the poor lighting, the abysmal directing, the choppy editing, the feeble audio mix, embarrassing acting and the shortness of action!

The plot starts off reasonably straightforward and easy to follow. Basically, there's a mysterious mercenary with a formidable reputation only known as Painter (Snipes). After a preposterously terrible opening scene that depicts a training exercise, Painter is presented with his latest mission. The US army send him to a Chechen nuclear power plant with a group of soldiers as his back-up where a group of stereotypical, forgettable evil terrorists are threatening to set off a live reactor. Though his objective is to secure the reactor and save the hostages, Painter's superiors make it clear that his priority is the reactor. However, it doesn't take long before Painter discovers that he and his soldiers are being elaborately set up - leaving Painter with little choice but to take on all the terrorists single-handedly.

After the first 40 minutes the plot transforms into some political mumbo jumbo that's virtually impossible to follow. The dialogue is hard to understand as well, thus the film is hard to follow. Then again the script is filled with dialogue that one won't want to listen to...quite simply, the script is poorly written and executed worse!

The worst insult is that the screenwriters were obviously aiming to create some interesting action flick with a political sub-plot, like Behind Enemy Lines or something. Wesley Snipes is thus tossed into the mix due to the success of his previous movies. The difference is...films in that fundamental style actually flaunt a decent script. The screenwriters here fill the film with ludicrous dialogue and forgettable action.

Wesley Snipes made a terrible career move when he decided to star in this mess. His acting isn't even slightly memorable. One would expect his experience to be the saving grace here...but it's not. Combine a talented actor with a team of hacks and this is the result. The rest of the acting is largely pathetic. You can't help but feel sorry for the waste of talent. It's apparent that the actors tried. Similar to Wesley Snipes, it's the filmmakers that destroyed all the potential for good performances.

Overall, The Marksman is a missed opportunity. The concept is mediocre and could have achieved some entertaining results for sure. However the film looks ugly and feels ugly. Every shot looks grainy, every action scene is lifeless. This film is utter tripe! Wesley Snipes was never the best actor in the world, but surely even he deserves better than this!

2.1/10

Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List is a challenging film to review. The incentive behind this is not because it's a bad movie...but that it's such a powerful experience to exhibit and it's virtually unfeasible to illustrate its power by employing words. In a sense, Spielberg's Schindler's List is something much more than a movie: this is a phenomenon!

When it was announced that director Spielberg was taking the reigns, this declaration encountered nothing but abject incredulity. Beforehand the director had only helmed mainstream blockbusters and films exhibiting bright exuberance like Jaws, Always, The Sugarland Express, Raiders of the Lost Ark and several others. Questions and uncertainties began to surface concerning the director's aptitude and capability to tackle a project of such enormity. There comes an occasion in the career of a director when they step away from the genre in which they take an interest, instead attempting something new. Certain directors have failed, some have prevailed. When Schindler's List was set for release, audiences sharpened their knives due to their qualms regarding the director. But make the film Spielberg did, and the world came to watch.

Spielberg achieved his goal beyond all initial comprehension...this was a step upwards for the director and a significant milestone in contemporary cinema. For the film's three hours duration audiences sat under an overwhelming collective spell - horrified, beleaguered, fascinated, inspired. As movie-goers stumbled, erratically blinking, from the theatres of the world, moist-eyed and moved, it became clear that a new era of filmmaking had commenced. Spielberg traded in his stereotyped career in the year 1993 with an astonishing double-whammy - he envisioned an unparalleled Holocaust template with Schindler's List, as well as resurrecting the dinosaurs with his astounding vision in Jurassic Park. By 1994 Spielberg was presiding over the most lucrative motion pictures of all time, and finally he received his cherished Oscar.

The subject matter is correctly a delicate topic. After all, it was only a number of decades ago that Adolf Hitler instigated a policy that necessitated the annihilation of Jews. Personally, I have studied the Holocaust in detail and am knowledgeable in the intricate, heart-wrenching niceties regarding the events leading up to mass murder. On a daily basis throughout the Holocaust, thousands of Jews were executed in sadistic ways - people were cooked alive, some shot, even some were exposed to poison gas. The disturbing factor is that the Nazis never felt an iota of sympathy due to the attitudes they were so severely lead to believe.

The focus of Schindler's List is not to portray the horrors that unfolded in extermination camps at all. Spielberg keeps the focus purely on the more minor events, and above all the viewpoint from a select few characters. The heavy nature in its depiction of executions challenges out notion of tolerance. We are challenged not only by the staggering acts of cruelty we see, but by the equally confounding acts of kindness. As we observe these ghastly proceedings unfold, we are strained to identify those virtues within ourselves that are equally light and dark. Schindler's List is not a film that we can impassively scrutinize. We are propelled into the dismay and the panic...the indignity, the brutality. As the title would suggest, this film is mainly the story of one man: Oskar Schindler (Neeson). Schindler is a Czech of German ethnicity who travels to Poland with the intention of becoming a war profiteer. He employs assistance from Jewish investors in order to buy his own pots-and-pans factory. At the outset, Schindler uses forced Jewish labour because it was inexpensive compared to hiring Polish workers. However, Schindler witnesses as World War II and the Holocaust develops with devastating results. These events are too overwhelming to fathom, and Schindler begins experiencing a slow, subtle moral awakening. His poignant story of bravery and generosity launches when Schindler cons the Nazis as he places more than a thousand Jews under his protection. By the conclusion of World War II, Schindler had exhausted his whole war-generated wealth to guarantee that his Jews would never again be touched by the Nazis.

On a more subtle, thematic level the screenwriter portrays a battle for Schindler's soul between camp commandant Amon Goeth (Fiennes) and Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern (Kingsley). Schindler's story is a staggering one. In a cacophony of death clouding his existence, one man managed to save roughly 1,100 Jewish lives using charisma, bluster, and trickery. The Holocaust has been previously described as a mechanical insanity because of the enormity of people who followed the philosophies: they are like cogs in a machine. It took a single person...a single machine cog with alternative ideas and an ethically problematic lifestyle (Schindler treasured alcohol and womanising) to mislead the Nazis (who regarded him as their frivolous comrade).

At the centre of the film we have a simply sublime group of actors. Liam Neeson nails the character of Oskar Schindler in a satisfyingly brilliant performance. Neeson perfectly displays Schindler's quiet method of expressing his morals. His outward show suggests he is a close buddy of the Nazis, but on the inside he's resentful and anguished towards the brutal, arbitrary termination of Jewish lives. Neeson was nominated for an Oscar. Ralph Fiennes was also nominated for an Oscar. His performance is utterly terrifying: he's intimidating and unnerving whenever he steps into the frame. His sheer established cruelty and viciousness will be enough to leave you in complete shock. This actor is focused as he portrays a character that appears to be soft-spoken when in fact his intentions are cruel and inhuman.

The meticulous screenplay was penned by Steven Zallian, and was based on the source material by Australian writer Thomas Keneally. Interestingly, Keneally was an accomplished author when he strolled into a luggage shop and immediately struck up a conversation with the shop owner. Said shop owner was one Leopald Page, formerly Poldek Pfefferberg: a Schindlerjuden. During their friendly conversation, Pfefferberg conveyed to Keneally the story of Oskar Schindler: the German industrialist who had saved him and 1,100 others from certain death in occupied Poland during the 1940s. Schindler was a Nazi who had not stood back. Keneally was so inspired and moved that he transformed this story into the Booker Prize winning novel Schindler's Ark. The rights were soon purchased by Universal boss Sid Sheinberg, and the transformation from book to movie was soon initiated. When Spielberg was involved in the project he originally offered the film to director Roman Polanski, but his own experiences in Polish ghettos were too tender for him to accept the director's chair. Thus Spielberg, who was at the time ensconced in post-production work for Jurassic Park, decided to tackle the directing duties himself. The director flew to Poland and began his masterwork for which he accepted no salary, saying that it would be akin to taking "blood money."

Spielberg worked intimately with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, and the project was lensed using stylish grainy black and white photography techniques. The film was undertaken without any storyboarding: Spielberg planned each shot instinctively as the cameras were about to roll, where all of his God-given skills as an accomplished director were distilled into something intuitional and turbulently expressive. The cinematography techniques created a realistic atmosphere of almost documentary footage: he utilised jarring hand-held filmmaking to portray the intense confusion for the Jews during times of complete chaos. Spielberg evokes these creative techniques to create the illusion of complete immersion: for the 190 minutes that make up this film's duration, you will feel transported to an entirely different world...you will feel engrossed in the occurrences. The music by none other than John Williams (Spielberg's trademark composer), is a poignant composition that adds to the atmosphere. But it's not the music that ultimately helps the audience get involved: it's the visuals. One scene was played to very little music; however it always makes me cry. The scene in question is when we watch as corpses are transported past Oskar Schindler to be dumped into the ground without an iota of sentimentality towards any of the victims. No matter how manly you consider yourself, your eyes will be moist.

Spielberg does not want his audience to endure a fun romp that you'll want to immediately watch again...he instead tells his story straight and with the utmost sincerity. World War II films cannot come more personal than the masterpiece that is Schindler's List. The reviews were exultant and the Oscar committee rewarded the film with twelve nominations. Although Spielberg did receive some criticism in relation to several aspects of the film, such judgements are hard to swallow after watching this film. While some slam the director for not including the prejudice towards the handicapped and the homosexuals that were also prosecuted, or that the focus was shifted away from the concentration camps...quite simply it does not matter at all. This is the story that Poldek Pfefferberg wanted told: a story that intimately examines one man and his struggle to come to terms with his morals during an internationally horrific event. This was never meant to be the definitive Holocaust film and hence doesn't need to concentrate on all aspects...this is a personal movie based on a personal experience.

After trying with such dedication since the commencement of his career, Steven Spielberg has finally achieved a mature production with Schindler's List. An extraordinary work by any standard: this intense historical and biographical drama, about an amazing Nazi industrialist, evinces an artistic intransigence and unsentimental intellect disparate from anything the world's most successful filmmaker had previously demonstrated. Infused with a brilliant screenplay, outstandingly sinuous cinematic techniques, three astonishing lead performances and an approach toward the traumatic subject matter that is both passionately felt and impressively restrained, this is the film to win over the Spielberg skeptics.

Even now, all these years after its cinematic release, Schindler's List remains an expressive, heartbreaking and remarkable slice of filmmaking that transcends all obstacles of theatrical disbelief. The film successfully draws us personally into the dark hearts of a dark age, and then liberates us with the few beams of light produced by the actions of the righteous few. The harrowing detail and poignancy of this production will enthral audiences for generations of movie-goers to follow. After you finish watching this movie you will have the words of Schindlerjuden profoundly present in your heart - "That it may never happen again." Winner of 7 Oscars including Best Picture 1993, Best Director (for Steven Spielberg), Best Cinematography (for Janusz Kaminski), Best Music (for John Williams), Best Film Editing (for Michael Kahn), Best Writing based on other material (for Steven Zallian) and Best Art Direction/Set Direction (for Allan Starski and Ewa Braun).

10.0/10

From the viewpoint of Hollywood studios, films in the vein of Just Like Heaven are a blessing: they don't cost much to make, they don't take long to make, and they are modestly profitable at the box office. Quality is never the issue as a studio grabs an idea, hires a screenwriter to transform the idea into a full-length script, then the three major stages of filmmaking commence, and voila - 6 months later, a cheap sappy chick flick is produced. As much as it pains me to admit, Just Like Heaven isn't as bad as I was anticipating - but that's still a fairly faint praise. One of the most interesting aspects of this film is its subject matter explored by Hollywood on multiple occasions: what happens to us after we die? Films from Ghost to Beetlejuice have ventured a perspective on the matter, and despite the premise being delved into several times the afterlife is still a much-reprised foundation for a film in the age of contemporary chick flicks.

Just Like Heaven is not about to become the Citizen Kane of the genre, but it's a fair attempt at an average concept. Certainly, the film exceeded expectations set by its deplorable trailer. Successful Hollywood screenwriters Peter Tolan and Leslie Dixon have a few interesting credits on their résumé including crowd-pleasing flicks such as Analyze This, America's Sweethearts, Mrs. Doubtfire and The Next Best Thing. Their take on the concept is a fascinating one; however their script for Just Like Heaven fits comfortably in the 'average chick flick' category. This is a pleasant-enough romantic offering, but it's also a film that takes no risks and has nothing innovative to bestow. While watching the film we are always three steps ahead of it and its twists. However thanks to the likeable leads, a couple of touching scenes, funny moments and pacey direction we're content to be swept along with the proceedings.

David Abbott (Ruffalo) moves into a seemingly quiet San Francisco apartment. His life has been a total mess since the unfortunate demise of his wife two years earlier. Now his friends are encouraging him to get started on his life again. While still settling into his new apartment, he runs into the ghost/spirit of a young controlling woman named Elizabeth (Witherspoon). Three months earlier, Elizabeth had been in a car accident and is unaware that she is just a spirit. Elizabeth doesn't remember anything about who she once was, and wants David to move out of her apartment. After the two have a number of arguments and attempts are made to remove the "ghost", David becomes convinced that she isn't actually dead. Despite her controlling nature and annoying paranoia towards cleanliness, David slowly begins to fall for her. He now wants to find out more regarding the person she once was, and sets out to investigate with the spirit of Elizabeth by his side.

Just Like Heaven may be superior to your average chick flick...but this one is far from perfect. To get things started: it's far too clichéd, feel-good and conventional from square one. Almost every scene and every twist can be predicted after it's established. It's far too formulaic as a whole, and the final 10 minutes almost made me want to puke my guts out. Honestly, the ending is the worst part and almost an insult to the movie. Why? It's terribly feel-good and not at all clever. The final moments of the film can be predicted just by reading the plot synopsis or watching the first few minutes. The whole premise is completely preposterous! I mean, it's hard to overlook the obviously logistical flaws. Okay, so it's possible to turn off your brain for an over-the-top action movie but this is just way too far. As a whole the film is indescribably predictable, clichéd, formulaic, corny and sappy!

The only upside is the modest entertainment value. There is a strong group of actors involved, despite minuscule chemistry emerging between the leads. Seriously, Mark Ruffalo and Reese Witherspoon are good actors...they just don't make a convincing screen pair. Overall, Just Like Heaven is nothing more than your average Hollywood chick flick. It's entertaining enough with some good laughs and sweet moments, but it's clichéd and predictable beyond all belief!

5.8/10

The phenomenal success of Airplane! (re-titled Flying High! in Australia) was the outcome of the sheer comedic brilliance of the talented "ZAZ" trio (David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker). A spoof of the old 1950s disaster movies, the ZAZ trio reinvented spoof films and became the new luminaries of the genre: taking the crown that was previously secured by Mel Brooks. Needless to say, the success that the original enjoyed was going to be exploited in the form of a sequel. Initially, the ZAZ trio were anticipated to return for the sequel, but balked at the idea at a later date. Despite their endless protesting, the studio went ahead without their permission and green-lit Airplane II: The Sequel (the Australian title became Flying High II: The Sequel).

The ZAZ trio resisted much financial temptation in their refusal to work on a sequel to their 1980 brainchild. After all, they squeezed basically every airport/airplane related joke they could into the first film and by the end had gags so abundant that they could have sufficiently filled three movies! Unfortunately, with the ZAZ trio stepping away, the task of writing and directing for Airplane II: The Sequel fell into the hands of Ken Finkleman. This guy had never done anything remotely noteworthy apart from writing a few episodes of the Dick Van Dyke show in the 70s and (*ahem*) Grease 2. This sequel is not so much a sequel - it's a mediocre rehash of the original movie that largely recycles a lot of the same gags, with the superior laughs disappearing pretty quickly. Finkleman is no ZAZ member; hence the gags he supplies cannot even come close to the quality or quantity of those from the first film. The original trio not being involved becomes pretty evident extremely quickly.

Despite the ZAZ trio giving up their participation with this film, most of the original cast returned to reprise their roles. The only notable exclusion is dear old Leslie Nielson. This guy basically carried the first film and it's disappointing that he didn't return (although the ZAZ trio were grateful for his respect and loyalty, and rewarded him when casting commenced for their succeeding movies, most notably The Naked Gun).

Because the original creative team weren't involved, this sequel shouldn't be judged as a follow-up to the brilliant first movie but rather an alternate reading: containing the same situations, same gags and fundamentally the same major plot points. The plot here is essentially identical to the first film, except the setting has been changed to a space ship. Years have passed since Ted Striker (Hays) heroically saved the lives of many airplane passengers in the events of the first movie, and now his life has been turned upside down again. He is sent to a mental ward after he was blamed for an accident that occurred when he was piloting a Lunar Shuttle that was in fact the consequence of the badly-constructed navigational computer. Now another shuttle is being launched into space and Ted must overcome his inadequacies and former girlfriend to save those aboard the shuttle before it crashes into the sun.

Okay, so the jokes are seemingly more of the same and hence more predictable...but at least they're hilarious at times. The first 20 minutes contain all the best quality gags: some shots even containing 3 or 4 running simultaneously. The final hour unfortunately isn't as strong, with the gags growing monotonous and predictable. There are only a few laughs during this segment that are worth noting. The gags also aren't as memorable. After you finish the movie you will be unable to recall many instances that made you laugh.

Overall, Airplane II: The Sequel is not nearly as brilliant as its forerunner...in fact it's not even close! The original charm has been lost, and ultimately relies too frequently on recycling gags that were used previously in the first movie. Still, despite these flaws...it will certainly make for entertaining viewing on a boring afternoon. What can I say? Some of the laughs are still good quality (both sight gags as well as witty dialogue), and I laughed 'til I cried. It even contains one of the best sight gags in history! (I'm referring to William Shatner's introductory scene)

6.8/10

Airplane! (known as Flying High! in Australia) is cinema's seminal spoof movie. It was decades ago that the capable, imaginative duo of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker (ZAZ) wrote and directed what became, through my eyes, the funniest movie of all time. Up until 1980 when Airplane! was released, Mel Brooks was acknowledged as the guru of movie spoofs - with films like Blazing Saddles to Young Frankenstein under his belt. Apparently Mel Brooks viewed Airplane! and realised there were new kids on the block playing his game, and they were playing his game even better than he once did!

The three creators of Airplane! introduced audiences to an entirely new kind of comedy altogether. It combines sight gags, memorable dialogue and just plain random humour...creating unbeatable results! The film generated its own unique genre of comedy satire. Subsequently this style was to be copied and expanded upon in many different guises, both by its creators and countless others, but alas never again possessing the same freshness and appeal. The distinguishing feature is the sheer number of laughs incorporated into this film...it's almost sufficient to fill three movies! Breaking down just a minute of the film, you can literally find about 8 gags. They say you cannot analyse humour, but au contraire my friends...lo and behold a laugh count of about 500 an hour! Seriously, if you're not laughing uncontrollably by the film's ending you should check into a mental clinic, or get inspected for possible lockjaw.

Airplane! is ostensibly a spoof of the old, cheesy, terribly made 1950s disaster movies. Basically the almost non-existent plot concerns a perilous situation on-board a passenger plane. When a severe case of food poisoning breaks out, the crew are left incapacitated with several passengers becoming violently ill. Former war pilot Ted Striker (Hays) is the only hope for those aboard the plane. He must overcome the troubles with his former wife (Hagerty) and conquer his lack of enthusiasm to save the day. Along the way you'll find spoofs of everything from Jaws to Saturday Night Live. The plot is wafer thin, with no depth or attempt to make it more than just a comedy. The problem with most comedies these days is that they incorporate a bit of drama into the mix, fishing for a movie that amalgamates laughs and drama. The thing about Airplane! is that the creators want to make a comedy and nothing more...no drama, no seriousness. Just laughs and a never-ending flow of them as well. This is comedy done right, and even without much of a plot this is truly a masterpiece.

It's the gag density and the lack of gaps between the laughs that keeps this film fast-paced and thoroughly enjoyable. You will be wanting more when the credit begin to roll...I was certainly thirsty for more and set out to watch more films by the ZAZ threesome. It's not only the thickness of gags, but the actors that elevate this movie. Leslie Nielsen's impeccable dialogue delivery exalts the quality of this film astronomically. Before this film he actually did some serious movies. After this film, his career as a serious performer was destroyed. His deadpan nature can make you laugh just by looking at him. Heck, his introduction with a stethoscope around his neck will add to the already heightened urge to laugh. He steals the show. Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty have great chemistry whenever they feature in a scene together. And their dialogue is faultlessly written.

Airplane! deserves the appraisal and accolades it subsequently received. There are so many laughs included here that you will need to watch the film continually just to notice them all. I've watched the film repeatedly, and I'm still noticing new laughs. This is before sexual innuendo and puerile remarks became the foundation for humour. Maybe that is what's missing from modern comedies. Quite simply, you will never find a comedy that's more original than this! Check it out...immediately!

8.75/10

Remember when Steven Spielberg's blockbuster adventure hit Raiders of the Lost Ark was released? Since that film got its theatrical release, filmmakers have incessantly endeavoured to achieve an adventure movie in the same vein as Indiana Jones' classic adventures.

The Goonies is also from the mind of Steven Spielberg (who produced) and it is essentially an Indiana Jones-style outing for the younger generation. Many kids will have fond memories of this one. Looking at reviews and the opinions of others, it's clear that The Goonies has always been held in high regard. It's destined to be a favourite when you're 5-10 years old and are seeking adventure with the protagonists instead being a bunch of kids. This film has everything that a kid could want - adventure, danger, treasure, cool gizmos, and bumbling bad guys. Revisiting this as an older individual you'll still find your nostalgic memories but unfortunately it also opens your eyes to the countless flaws that emerge frequently. Even with these flaws included, you'll pick up numerous gags and laughs that will keep you entertained.

The film follows a set of interesting child protagonists who call themselves 'The Goonies': Mikey (Astin), Brandon (Brolin), Mouth (Feldman), Chunk (Cohen), and Data (Ke Quan). The home that they have known and loved for years is set to be demolished to make room for a golf course. The only way the contractors will back off is if the suitable money is produced, which seems highly unlikely. Understandably, the five are pretty bummed and start wallowing in a state of depression. On a whim they decide to go rummaging through the (out-of-bounds) attic and subsequently stumble upon an ancient treasure map that apparently pin-points the location of a stash of buried treasure that formerly was the possession of pirate One-Eyed-Willie. Needless to say, the five members of The Goonies see this as a great adventure and a possible opportunity to raise the necessary funds to save their home. Driven by the thought of paying off the foreclosing banks, they embark on a quest to uncover the ancient treasure of One-Eyed-Willie. They soon get entangled with the Fratellis: a bunch of criminals currently being hunted by the police.

Throw in a perilous pursuit, booby traps, high adventure, an octopus (almost!), dazzling treasure, a one-eyed pirate skeleton, falling boulders, an amazing waterslide, a few skeletons, and a buccaneer fight aboard an ancient pirate ship...and voila - you have The Goonies!

The film is suitably and collectively entertaining for all age groups. However, the film plods tremendously and far too often! The script doesn't help - being a film for the kids you can certainly expect a bunch of clichés to surface...every adventure film cliché in the book as a matter of fact! Because all the troubles are set up in the first 20 minutes, we can predict how it will end. Yes, go by your impulses and suddenly the film is an unnecessarily long (110-minute) adventure. Indiana Jones remains on top in terms of high adventure as this is basically more for the kids, hence more room for clichés and less room for intense moments of peril. Still, despite this dash of predictability the film is loads of fun.

The cast are absolutely wonderful. It would take forever mentioning all of them, so I'll just say that as a whole they correctly fulfill their jobs. In a historical sense, it's terrific to see young versions of now successful actors. Yes, we have the likes of Sean Astin and Josh Brolin!

Overall, The Goonies is the best an adventure film can get for the kids. The production design is expansive and holds up well in modern days. I admire the old-school sets and effects that are generally missing from modern adventure movies. The film also mixes some strong directing and an exciting score that is suitably majestic. The film continually plods and is suitably clichéd, but at least it will entertain of an evening. Indiana Jones still cannot be topped...but this comes convincingly close.

6.5/10

It is far too inadequate and clichéd to award The Wizard of Oz the title of "classic". This is a film that essentially everyone holds in high regard. This is more than just a classic children's fantasy movie: this is a brilliant, groundbreaking family movie that encloses various poignant, relevant subconscious messages. Even today, this is a captivating fairy-tale that continues to educate younger audiences about life and the importance of learning lessons. We've all seen The Wizard of Oz during our early youthful years, and there is little wonder: this is a family fantasy film about growing up. Personally, I have extremely vague memories of watching this movie...I'm not even sure if I ever saw it in its entirety. Quite simply, this is a movie we have all seen at some point even if we don't remember it very well. Do you remember small bits and pieces, but overall can't remember an overwhelming amount? Do exactly what I did - head to the local video and hire it...you won't regret it as nostalgic and sentimental memories come flooding back.

It feels superfluous and fruitless to provide a plot synopsis...I mean it's The Wizard of Oz! Even if some people haven't seen it, everyone would have heard so many reviews and film discussions that it feels like they've seen it and know everything about it! Still, no matter how redundant and unessential...a brief plot synopsis is customary and probably appropriate.

Dorothy Gale (Garland) lost her parents many years earlier and is living with other relatives. Dorothy is devastated when her dog Toto (Terry...yes, I'm billing the dog that played the dog. Big deal) bites her neighbour and is going to be put to sleep. She tries to run away, but quickly returns as a gigantic cyclone begins ripping through her home town of Kansas. This cyclone sweeps away the family farm; transporting Dorothy and Toto to the magical Land of Oz. This colourful, exquisite land is far away from home, a home to which Dorothy so badly desires to return. The quest commences as she embarks on a journey along the yellow brick road to visit the Wizard of Oz (Morgan) who could help her get home. Along the way she meets a cavalcade of wonderful characters that becomes her 3 companions who also desire something from the wizard: Scarecrow (Bolger) who wishes for a brain, Tin Man (Haley) who wants a heart, and The Lion (Lahr) who yearns for courage. Meanwhile, the Wicked Witch of the West (Hamilton) is displeased because Dorothy's entry caused the demise of her sister, and aims to do everything she can to prevent Dorothy from reaching her destination.

Sometimes we look back on a classic film that stands the test of time, but was not successful upon initial release. The Wizard of Oz is a prime example of this: when first released in 1939, the critics fed it mixed reviews. Some critics even called it "dull" and "uncreative"...some saying that there is "nothing for the adults". It enjoyed a bit of money at the box office over a few re-releases, but it wasn't until a few decades later that audiences realised what a gem this movie truly is - and it finally gained its current status as a cultural icon. In 1939, those involved with the film would have scoffed at the thought of the film being such a phenomenon in the decades to follow...but lo and behold, now it's one of the most highly regarded films of all time!

What is the charm that so potently prevails? The sets are elegant, the special effects are groundbreaking, the concepts are mature, the characters are fascinating and the songs are energetic. This is a musical after all, so everything had to be eye-catching...especially during the songs! Okay, so I admit that for years I have detested everything about "Over the Rainbow". That is an awful melody and it pains my ears whenever they're exposed to it. The studio wanted to cut the song and I wish that they did. It went on to win an Oscar, but doesn't change my view of the song. The reasoning behind the studio desiring to cut it is spot on: it slows the action. Although many hold the song in really high regard, my opinion of this film (which is wonderful nonetheless) would have been elevated if this song was removed. I simply cover my ears or do something else whenever I reach the scene. Aside from this song, the rest of the singing is beautiful and a treat for the ears.

There are some amazing accomplishments in filmmaking to find in this movie. First of all, the clever colour schemes. When Dorothy is in Kansas the film is tinted in a sepia tone. When she moves into the Land of Oz (in a mind-blowing panning shot) everything in the frame is bright and colourful. You cannot flaw the expansive sets that look impressive even by today's standards. You will feel like you've been transported to another world when the camera first dives into the Land of Oz. It's a world of soundstages, matte paintings, backdrops, and even the celebrated tornado that is merely a wind sock hooked to an overhead scaffold...but does it matter? Certainly not as this is the magic of the movies!

Above all the visuals, The Wizard of Oz is a remarkable story that is extremely well told! Appealing to all ages, I think the reason it remains a seminal piece is that its themes are so universal. Some also believe that the original story of Oz has a slightly more hidden message from author L. Frank Baum; that of how powerful leaders (in this case, The Wizard) were controlling, manipulative and misleading. Contexts aside, this is a great story that is magically brought to life in a terrific movie!

Judy Garland was a tender age of 16 when she was cast in the role of Dorothy Gale. Sadly, in this day and age Judy only exists in the memories she preserved on film. In this film she is absolutely stunning: beautiful, angelic and wonderful. I think all men can admit that at some stage in their life they had a schoolboy crush on the actress. I don't blame them. Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley are great as Dorothy's bizarre companions. Margaret Hamilton was feared by children ever since the release of this film. She's suitably eccentric and quirky as the Wicked Witch.

The Wizard of Oz is a prolific, legendary production. It wasn't an easy task to get this film in the can but it's all worth it. In the years to follow there have been imitators, spoofs, follow-ups, constant references (The Matrix, anyone?) and TV stations that never-endingly broadcast the film...but does it taint the original film? Nope. Not one iota! The rumours of the inexhaustible magic are all true. Everything you've heard, it's all true. This is an archetypal text that has been the subject of intertexuality for decades.

All this praise almost seems unnecessary, and I feel it appropriate to quote the film's opening dedication that sums everything up perfectly:

Many people will possess fond memories of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory being an essential component of their childhood due to the film's status as one of the greatest family films of all time. I will admit that as a child I did view this film a few times and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Of course, that was the time when pretty pictures were all that mattered. This is one of the first times that I've at long last revisited a film from my youth...and hated it! People will call me a "heretic" or say that I have "bad taste" but I frankly don't care - through my eyes, this is a putrid and dull creation that completely destroys the outstanding source material they had to work with.

Author of the original book, Roald Dahl, passionately hated this film. Those rumours are entirely true: in fact he was so dissatisfied that he bluntly refused to ever watch the film in its entirety. Although Dahl actually wrote the screenplay himself, his displeasure with the film is stemmed from the massive script rewrite by David Seltzer. It's a shame that Dahl's legendary source material generated such an appalling film. I'm glad that the author never watched the entire film because it probably would have shortened his life due to severe shock. Reportedly, Dahl was once staying in a hotel when he accidentally tuned into a television airing of the movie...but changed the channel immediately when he realised he was watching his great source material being raped by filmmakers.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory contains a truly legendary story that I'm sure everyone knows. For the record, I will briefly outline the plot...if it's necessary for anyone. Willy Wonka (Wilder) is a mysterious chocolate maker whose products are the most celebrated on the market. Much to Wonka's discontent, unfaithful workers began stealing his unique recipes. Hence, Wonka's recipes that were once uniquely his were no longer one-and-only. In response, he fired all of his workers and closed the factory. After living in complete isolation for several years (during which the factory gates were closed and no-one ever caught a glimpse of Wonka), the chimneys begin producing smoke and new Wonka chocolates start hitting the market. For reasons unknown, Willy Wonka decides to hold a contest. Inside 5 chocolate bars he places a special Golden Ticket that will gain a winner entry to his chocolate factory for one day. On a specified day, the 5 lucky winners will participate in a special tour of the factory and one lucky child will receive a lifetime supply of chocolate. The race to find the Golden Tickets commences. Meanwhile, Charlie Bucket (Ostrum) is a poor boy living with his poor poverty-suffering family. He yearns for a Golden Ticket as he is obsessed with the chocolate factory. Let the predictability and clichés initiate...

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory is a generally appalling version of Roald Dahl's classic novel. I cannot bring myself to entirely hate this movie due to a limited number of redeeming features, but on the whole it's unfortunately a dreadful film.

Gene Wilder is an average Willy Wonka. At times he's flamboyant and funny; however the darker moments are an unfortunate pratfall that places a burden on the entertainment value. His performance is mainly very enthusiastic with a bit of warmth and a dash of eccentricity. Some moments are more solid than others. Peter Ostrum is a terrible, wimpish embodiment of Charlie Bucket. I never felt anything overwhelming from the actor. Thank God this was his only film! Jack Albertson appears to be exuberant. He was one of the best things to find in the cast. Overall, charm is lacking in many cast members.

So why is this version so dreadful? Its lavish production design is occasionally eye-popping, but feels really dull and no longer looks impressive. The atmosphere is never natural. I felt like the factory was...the inside of a factory. I thought Wonka's factory was supposed to be mind-blowing and otherworldly...unfortunately the special effects just don't hold up in this day and age. Never thought I'd say this, but give me modern visual effects in lieu of old-school effects any day when it comes to this particular story.

The Oompa Loompas look atrocious as well. Their make-up and costumes are exceedingly yucky! And of course the film is a musical that contains an immense quantity of bland musical numbers. These are long, unexciting and grow tedious extremely quickly. There are far too many songs. They may be well known, but the energy is sorely lacking. Even though I was watching the screen, nothing even really caught my attention and I grew bored very quickly. The hollow audio mix doesn't help matters. Frankly, the sound effects sound terribly artificial. So all in all, the film looks mediocre and sounds synthetic. Very little of Dahl's story can be found here, instead there are contemptible sets, cheap songs and some dreadful acting. I have no idea how some people can consider this being good quality as a musical! The musical side of this film is incredibly weak. The original story is completely butchered and hence understandable why Dahl disowned this version. There are also moments of sadism and darkness...in a children's movie?!

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory should never have been made. This is a total mess that has dated severely. Although Tim Burton's 2005 remake ended up being mildly disappointing, it is the version of choice and can safely let us forget this version ever existed.

3.6/10

The film industry has witnessed its fair share of low-budget independent movies that yielded embarrassingly bad results. Once is a blueprint example of an extraordinarily rare event when an independent filmmaker has created a product far superior to incalculable quantities of Hollywood blockbuster rubbish dominating the market that have too long been getting the green light. Writer/director John Carney proves that a straightforward concept can generate groundbreaking results if a clever script is at its core. He also proves that the requirements for a good movie do not include a big budget, a renowned group of actors and some lavish special effects - at the end of the day, it's the script that carries everything and a quality script fundamentally ensures a product to cherish.

Contemporary movie musicals are an interesting subject to explore. Audiences have observed the thriving individualism in musical cinema, from adaptations of successful Broadway musicals (The Producers, Sweeney Todd), cheesy teenage flicks (High School Musical) or even the unique biography of Dreamgirls: there is no single musical style that has dominated the box office. Once is from an entirely different spectrum; a unique Irish "modern musical" that has proved to be among the best date films of all time. This film is wonderful, touching, charming, sincere and very romantic. This is not your typical musical at all: the characters do not sing as a form of dialogue...the characters are musicians who write deeply poetic lyrics. In essence, the lyrics mirror the emotions of the characters: as the characters are developed and the story progresses, the fascinating lyrics increase in their poignancy and relevance.

Once is a mature musical aimed at a target audience of mostly adults who are mature and can fully comprehend the themes and potency. While adolescents predominantly prefer the blockbusters, it's comforting to know that the film industry also produces these magnificent magnum opuses. These great films are limited for sure, but wholly worth it no matter how rare they appear. Essentially, this masterpiece feels like a captured moment of life - a slice of kismet where you just happen to be in the right place at the right time to observe a spectacle of nature, a feat of compassion, or a stream of light bequeathing its benediction on a landscape you pass every day but otherwise fail to notice.

Once uncovers a soft, romantic side of Dublin. Most of the characters have not been named, and this is pivotal as the characters merely symbolise just another person off the street. Each character represents a facet of the culture, and the film explores the inner emotional journey that the respective characters undertake. Above all, it's also an examination of the human spirit and the determination to reach a desired ambition.

The film is a simple story about a struggling Irish musician only known as 'the Guy' (Hansard). He makes his money by helping his dad run a repair shop for vacuum cleaners, and in his free time he's on the streets participating in the strum trade by playing songs he wrote himself about the girlfriend that broke his heart. The Guy yearns for recognition and wishes for a lucrative contract in the music business. He lacks the drive to take his career to the next level as he has never dared to give it a shot. It seems like a simple day when the Guy is approached by the Girl (Irglova): a poverty-stricken Czechoslovakian immigrant with a small child. She is emotionally struck by the moving lyricism of the Guy's songs. The two are lost souls, and begin intimately bonding. This bond only becomes stronger when the Guy discovers that the Girl is also a musician specialising in playing classical piano, and he is equally as moved when he hears her music. Thus begins a clever and wholly unconventional love story.

Once was made on a meagre budget and shot over the course of 17 days. When one compares it to the blockbusters like Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers you can tell which is going to come out on top at the Box Office. However the revenue does not reflect the quality, as Once only took in a modest amount of money but is superior to both aforementioned films. This is true art and an example of an incredible movie...and I would watch this film any day in lieu of clichéd big-budget action flicks.

The atmosphere truly captures realism in its depiction of the locations. Writer/director John Carney opted to shoot the film in a realistic fashion: almost to the point that it feels more like documentary footage than a staged movie! This obviously reflects the transcendent direction that is continually stunning. The script is solid. Some people have complained about the constant swearing. Yes, they swear a lot. This happens in real life! I've studied the background of Irish history, and after the way they were treated it's hardly surprising that they use such foul language. Don't let the watered-down, inaccurate Hollywood clichés taint your image of everyday Irish dialogue.

I doubt anyone had set any expectations for this movie as I hadn't - all I knew was that it's a musical love story. However after the first five minutes I was already under a powerful, transfixing spell. The exuberant performers also deserve loads of credit. As this is an independent film made on a small budget, the cast was filled by mainly non-actors. Glen Hansard is frequently stunning: while drama is filling the screen he's marvellous, and when he opens his mouth to project his riveting lyrics there are no faults in his determination. Hansard's character is your typical, lonely everyday Irishman trying to make a living. Marketa Irglova delivers a performance that really hits home. She is constantly extremely beautiful and is blessed with a charming screen presence. She was only 17 when this movie entered production. That is a reflection of her talent while she was a mere teenager.

The music throughout the movie is gorgeously written and brought to life faultlessly by the two talented protagonists. You will not forget the spellbinding songs that the filmmakers have produced. Quite simply, you will be absolutely mesmerised whenever a song is being performed.

Overall, Once is a little film that went a long way. No-one ever expected this film to score so wonderfully. In a nutshell this is a charming film that manages to avoid the conventions that too long have plagued the screenplays of Hollywood movies. This film is potent and poignant: a moving, realistic, unexaggerated portrait of characters. Upon theatrical release, this lovely independent movie captured the hearts of many. The enjoyment of this movie is not only dependent on the soulful music, but also the realistic portrayals of an array of un-stereotyped characters.

Once is a warm, tender and revealing journey that's 60% music and 40% slice-of-life. The small cast are wonderful despite no prior acting experience, and the director is intelligent enough to realise he's created a strong story that can practically tell itself. Alas, he stands back and allows the string of events to unfold. The product is a contemporary fairy tale that confronts our perception of happy endings.

9.2/10

In Hollywood, adapting graphic novels for the big screen will always yield some fascinating results. In recent years, filmmakers have achieved impressive success with films like Sin City and 300: graphic novels transferred into visually astounding films. The best part with most films using a graphic novel as its foundation is that even if you aren't familiar with the source material, there is room to help you find your footing. Not only that, they are great additions to the respective genre.

30 Days of Night is a visually astounding vampire horror flick. But only visually...in terms of script this is golden crap! This film cannot get close to matching the good preceding films based on graphic novels. Now, look, if you're expecting sheer brilliance like Nosferatu or the original Bela Lugosi Dracula then you've come to the wrong place. 30 Days of Night is not a groundbreaking portion of the horror genre by any stretch of the imagination: this is purely and simply a Hollywood blockbuster hack-job!

The film is set in an isolated Alaskan town that is plunged into darkness for an entire month each year. Most of the town's population vacate the area to escape the darkness: only the boldest remain to suffer through 30 days of night. We are soon introduced to the central character: Sheriff Eben Oleson (Hartnett). When the sun sinks below the horizon to signify the commencement of the 30 days of night, it seems like business as usual. However, a stranger (Foster) wanders into the town speaking crazy talk and begins frightening the locals. Before you know it, the small town is now under siege by a horde of blood-thirsty vampires who establish their new hunting ground. In a short period of time, most of the town's population has fallen prey to the vampires. In a manner quite similar to most zombie/vampire/creature flicks, a small group of survivors band together in the hope of escaping the malicious creatures.

The material that the filmmakers had to work with is simply killer - almost to the point that one must wonder why a film like this has never been tackled before. The originality of the graphic novel now preserved on film is something simply incredible.

Also, because the film is based on a graphic novel we must expect brilliance in the visuals. The filmmakers deliver in that department. The visual effects are nothing short of amazing! This is the sort of stuff we can expect when a movie is filmed in New Zealand, and then the post-production period is spent with Peter Jackson's crew! I also adored the blood effects. Loads of people are killed in explicit, creative ways with geysers of blood staining the surrounding area. Whenever a character wanders into a dark room and discovers puddles of blood, it looks outstanding. These blood and prosthetic effects cannot be faulted...and the visual style is a marvel to behold! On top of this, the design for the vampires is outstanding!

Okay, now that I've spent some time outlining the strengths...time to move onto the weaknesses. Take a seat folks, as this will take a while. With such killer material, I must wonder why the script is so appalling! All the characters are cardboard and one-dimensional. Each character is as conventional as the next! The characters as a whole are clichéd to death! There's the hero, the one that gives them away, the dumb characters who disagree with the group and get themselves killed, the diversions...it's giving me a headache just comprehending it all! I was embarrassed to see so many stereotypes emerging. Also, with a group of characters being bundled together for a month you'd expect it to bring out the best and worst in them and to flesh out back stories. If done right, this could equal some awesome results. Instead there is no character development and nothing to care about...no interesting dialogue apart from stating the blooming obvious, but the worst has yet to come: we don't even see the characters mentally coping with the situation. Instead we see the events of one day, then cut to about two weeks later and see more events...and quite frankly, from the stupidity exhibited by these characters I wonder how they even survived those days that the filmmakers didn't show. How did they manage to evade the vampires?!

30 Days of Night naturally succumbs to Hollywood's worst recent obsession: shaky cam. The choppy editing doesn't help this either. Instead of creating suspense and tension, there's gore and some poorly framed shots that seem like a monkey was actually holding the camera. The first "scare" of the movie is a blurred figure moving around in the distance while the audio flares. Then there's just a body count rise and frankly, there isn't any point! The vampires spew nonsensical gibberish with subtitles that confirm the vampire speech is approximately as dumb and contrived as the dialogue delivered in English.

30 Days of Night is thousands of examples of how not to make a movie all rolled into one. The only redeeming features are the visual style and the satisfying amount of blood and gore. This is the sole reason why someone would want to approach this movie: to see some blood being splattered around...and it looks spectacular! I truly wish that a better bunch of screen-writers were brought aboard to tackle the subject matter. As I said before, the source material and concept are utterly killer. There was lots of potential for this to be the best vampire flick since Nosferatu. Unfortunately, this is just another Hollywood hack-job that I would expect to see from Uwe Boll. If you're bored and need to get high on gore, go rent this. It's vastly disappointing but will keep the "gore instead of suspense" horror buffs happy for sure. A bona fide wasted opportunity!

4.0/10