Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage, and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution."

It has been decades since Lawrence of Arabia first astonished the world when it hit cinemas back in 1962. In the years succeeding the film's release, it has become one of the highest regarded movies in cinematic history. Lawrence of Arabia has been bestowed with endless accolades, awards and tributes. Reviewers worldwide to this day still continually express their perpetual love and admiration for this passionate historical epic. Frankly, this reviewer feels fairly overwhelmed as everything that can be said about the movie has probably already been said. I'm most likely forty years too late to be offering my 2 cents on the movie. However, life as a microscopic sperm back then made it kinda difficult to both watch a movie and review it (I doubt I even existed as a sperm back then anyway). Therefore, as a reviewer in the year 2008, I still feel a sense of duty to express my opinions on this magnificent epic (even if these views have already been voiced billions of times before).

The scope and scale of Lawrence of Arabia is enough to astound its audience even in the 21st century. David Lean was at the helm after all. Beforehand Lean had directed such films as Bridge on the River Kwai and Summertime with many more great titles to follow. David Lean led such an exquisite and remarkable directorial career that even a modern-day director would have difficult matching it. There have been very few filmmakers capable of boasting the meticulous attention to detail, character and story that director Lean brought to the table. At the end of the day, this is exactly the reason why his films will remain cherished for a long time to come - and why great directors such as Steven Spielberg turn to these films for inspiration today.

The enduring appeal of Lawrence of Arabia is a combination of the exhilarating, exotic sense of adventure and an intensely personal, intimate human story. It's a majestic four-hour epic that still dwarfs contemporary epics. As the film was made in such a primitive CGI period, the filmmakers used the 'what you see is what you get' method - therefore hundreds of extras fill the screen, and all the action is done without the aid of digital imagery. As a result, the film will never grow outdated.

"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."

This mythic blockbuster is both a spectacular epic and a sensitive portrait of one of the most enigmatic legends of the 20th century - "poet, scholar, warrior, exhibitionist" T.E. Lawrence (O'Toole). The film opens with Lawrence's tragic death in the 1930s. From there it eschews a detailed account of Lawrence's life in order to instead tell the story of his defining moment in history...his role in the Arabian Desert revolt of 1916-18 - as exaggerated by the real T.E. Lawrence in his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which was adapted for the screen by Robert Bolt and (the uncredited) Michael Wilson.
According to the story, Lawrence helped the divided Arab tribes to unite against the Turkish Empire during the later years of the Great War (a.k.a. World War I). Lawrence's hit-and-run guerrilla warfare tactics won him triumphs in the desert no-one thought possible. Through a series of audacious conquests he earned the trust, respect, and loyalty of the Arab peoples. He became a hero to the world, even though this almost drove him mad.

At a personal level, the leading characters are intriguing and unpredictable, worthy and fearsome. None of these protagonists are one-dimensional caricatures. There are so many interesting and fully-developed characters that are so brilliantly portrayed by a top-notch cast. The themes of myths, tribal antipathy, nationalities, war, alliances, promises, leadership, corruptibility, savagery, affection, arrogance, pride, delusion, audacity and pomp are admirably tackled and handled.

This is a beautiful and mesmerising film, making full use of the expansive vistas in its original 70mm format (one of the last films in history to do so). Production on location was an absolute nightmare for everyone involved. Extensive preparation was followed by fourteen arduous months of location shooting. Filming took longer than it took for the real Lawrence to fulfil his quest, interestingly. The film won an Oscar for Cinematography, and there is little wonder why. There is magnificent cinematography to behold throughout the entire movie. The battles are particularly well done. They may appear tame by today's standards, but they are still visceral.

The raw film was then given to editor Anne Coates who proceeded to construct the masterwork. The iconic scene of Peter O'Toole blowing out the match before the sharp cut straight to the desert sunrise is a moment brought to the film thanks to the marvellous editing. This film is full of such fantastic moments. Maurice Jarre was then brought onboard to compose the music. Maurice put together a truly memorable score. Editing and scoring may seem like little things by themselves, but when amalgamated in the final finished product the result is a masterpiece.

A great script was vital for the success of this film, which runs almost four hours. There are fascinating script lines delivered frequently by a more-than-capable cast. But it has to be said...at times the film seriously lacks momentum. There are sporadic instances when the film is infused with momentum and great energy, but these are followed by scenes that are more low-key and occasionally a tad self-indulgent (like the sometimes tiresome images of the desert...they're beautiful but excessive). This film is four hours long, though, so I don't think anyone expected to be riveted for every second of the film's duration. But, as a consequence, Lawrence of Arabia isn't as perfect as it's made out to be.

"A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies has forgotten where he put it."

Over the years there have been several different versions of the film. The theatrical cut which was completed soon before the premiere was about 220 minutes long. This was a very long film by any standard - and one theatre owners bitterly complained about as it restricted the number of sessions per day. David Lean, Sam Spiegel (the producer) and Anne Coates got together and hacked off 20 minutes for a revised theatrical cut. Television reared its ugly head years later. Aside from creating a Panned & Scanned abomination, a further 15 minutes were cut from the film. Finally in 1989 the restored version of the film was released. This arduous restoration effort went ahead with financial assistance from Steven Spielberg. This version restored much of the missing footage that had been found in an archive. However, whilst they had the film negative in hand, the soundtrack was missing. David Lean and Anne Coates undertook re-recordings of the dialogue, bringing all the cast involved back into the studio one last time. The restored version is how we're supposed to see the movie, and it's a beautiful effort by everyone involved.

"Nothing is written."

Like I stated before, not much can be said about Lawrence of Arabia that hasn't already been said countless times before by critics and viewers. But this film deserves the praise it has received. Lawrence of Arabia is, for lack of a more original word, a masterpiece. This is one of cinema's most highly regarded classics, forever occupying an impressive position on the AFI 100, the IMDb Top 250, and several other lists. Additionally, it won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director. Peter O'Toole was nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Gregory Peck for To Kill A Mockingbird.
Sorry to sound like every other critics worldwide, but if you haven't yet seen Lawrence of Arabia then you're missing out on the most essential screen epic in history.

"The truth is: I'm an ordinary man. You might've told me that, Dryden."

8.6/10

"The boy's alive and we're going to send someone to save him... and we are going to get him the hell out of there."

The directorial career of Steven Spielberg commenced in the early years of the 1970s. Spielberg originally directed Duel before progressing onto further projects such as The Sugarland Express, Jaws, and the excellent Indiana Jones adventures (beginning with Raiders of the Lost Ark). These few years established Spielberg as an accomplished purveyor of light-hearted blockbusters and good fun action movies. It was in 1993 that Spielberg demonstrated his ability to direct powerful and mature films. Schindler's List denoted a crucial addition to Spielberg's extensive résumé: a modern masterpiece that personified good (Schindler) and evil (Amon Goeth), playing out the struggle against the tragic backdrop of the Holocaust.

1997 marked the release of two further additions to the Spielberg canon - Amistad and The Lost World: Jurassic Park. These films are fine examples of Spielberg as a thinker and as an entertainer. For 1998's Saving Private Ryan, these two characteristics are deftly merged. Not only is Saving Private Ryan an extremely powerful and deeply philosophical affair, but it's also very entertaining and utterly riveting for its entire duration.

D-Day: Tuesday, June 6th, 1944. At 6:30am that ill-fated morning, an initial assault wave disembarked at Omaha Beach. This first assault wave comprised of 96 tanks, almost 1500 assault infantry, and a task force of engineers to clear the landing area of obstructions. In the hours preceding the landing, the German shore defences were heavily pulverised by Allied artillery, naval guns, and aerial barrages. However as the first landing craft came within a quarter-mile of shore...it became apparent that the German fortifications hadn't been neutralised. Rough seas and poor visibility had hampered the artillery bombardments, with overcast conditions amplifying the margin of error for the bombing runs. Consequently, a majority of the bombs hit too far inland. Establishing the beachhead would prove to be far more gruelling than originally envisaged. As the landing crafts hit the sand, the infantry immediately found themselves under concentrated small-arms, mortar and artillery fire from enemy fortifications that covered Omaha Beach. Burdened by heavy equipment, weakened by seasickness, exhausted, and disoriented by the mayhem surrounding them, the disembarking infantry had to travel through knee-deep to waist-high water, making them easy targets for the German soldiers. Upon reaching shore, they then had to move up 200 yards of open beach before reaching any form of cover. All this while avoiding enemy fire, which fell thick and fast all around them. This event was a violent massacre.

The story conveyed in Saving Private Ryan is prefaced with the D-Day landing at Omaha Beach. This beginning is commonly regarded as the best battle sequence ever committed to celluloid. It's also frequently regarded as the best war scene in cinematic history. This sequence depicts the Omaha Beach landing from the perspective of the soldiers who fought it. This is a brilliant scene, not only in terms of technique but in its unparalleled ability to have a viewer completely immersed as the anarchic mayhem transpires. This is certainly the most violent, gory, visceral cinematic depiction of war I have ever witnessed. Spielberg spares the viewer nothing of the horrors of war as he uses every tactic at his disposal to convey the utter turmoil and futile waste that lies at the core of any engagement. The audience is presented with unforgettable, haunting images of bodies being cut to pieces by bullets, limbs being blown off, entrails spilling out, as well as a range of additional assorted examples of carnage. When the tide comes in at the battle's conclusion, with the waves breaking on the body-strewn beach, the water is crimson. It's jaw-droppingly compelling material, and all the more sobering when you realise that this isn't fiction - this actually occurred to the mostly young, inexperienced soldiers. Spielberg and his cast & crew have produced an astonishingly faithful recreation of the war experience. Shell-shocked D-Day veterans reportedly staggered out of theatres mumbling "someone finally showed what it was really like". Steven Spielberg won a Best Director Oscar for his efforts of course.

"This Ryan had better be worth it - he better go home and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting light bulb."

The story following this phenomenal opening sequence is a simple one. A group of eight soldiers, led by D-Day survivor and hero Captain Miller (Hanks), are dispatched to find a soldier who is currently believed to be stuck behind enemy lines. This soldier they're searching for is Private James Ryan (Damon) whose three other brothers were killed in action. To avoid the devastation of Ryan's mother suffering the loss of her last son, General George C. Marshall (Presnell) orders these aforementioned eight soldiers to find Private Ryan and bring him back home. Screenwriter Robert Rodat adapted the story from a real-life situation.
This is an incisive, philosophical story. The underlying theme that runs the length of the movie is in regards to the value of a single human soul. As the eight-man platoon suffers casualties, is it really worth it just to save one man? Are there lives in this world more important than others? As the soldiers strive to complete their objective, their loyalties begin to blur and they begin to question the necessity of the mission. Spielberg vividly contrasts the faceless carnage of the Omaha Beach landing with the extremely personal and shocking deaths of some of the soldiers during their mission. Thousands died on Omaha beach, including many close friends of the surviving men. Yet the nature of this mission - which a majority of the men see as "Fubar" - causes them to question the value they place on their own lives as well as the lives of their friends. As events unfold, these soldiers commit acts of vengeance and rage that they themselves would most likely never have thought themselves capable of mere days beforehand.

"To me sir, this mission is a serious misallocation of valuable military resources."

The three-act structure of Saving Private Ryan is moderately straightforward. The movie is book-ended by two major battle sequences. In between these two major battles there are smaller skirmishes and relatively subdued character-building moments. Consequently the entire film is absorbing, engrossing, mesmerising and totally enthralling. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is an emotionally intense journey through the battlegrounds of occupied France during World War II. Director Spielberg delivers one of the greatest war movies of all time, if not the greatest war movie in history. But, despite being set against the background of WWII, this isn't just a war movie; this is a human drama first and a war adventure second. It commemorates the preservation of hope, courage, and sacrifice in the cauldron of fear and devastation that was WWII, or any war for that matter. These virtues shine brightest throughout humanity's gloomiest hours. Spielberg understands that in art one must show the horrors of a certain situation in order to suitably illustrate the full potential of the human spirit. All of the verisimilitude merely exists to transport us into the hearts and minds of those who tolerated such taxing circumstances so that we may perhaps identify with them, and maybe become acquainted with ourselves a bit better along the way.

As escapist entertainment (something that Spielberg also relishes) Saving Private Ryan is a masterpiece that offers a rollercoaster ride yet to be equalled or surpassed.

"We're not here to do the decent thing - we're here to follow fucking orders."

The authenticity of its period depiction is truly astounding. Spielberg opted for the film to be shot in bleached colour, with lenses similar to those available during the 1940s to give the impression of actual documentary footage. The director employs other methods to encapsulate the essence of combat - gritty hand-held cameras, a slight speeding up of the images, muted colours, and an assortment of different kinds of film stock. Altogether this adds up to a dizzying, exhausting assault on the senses. Needless to say, the film confidently won the Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing.
The searing and uncompromising images of violence and gore almost earned an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. However the gore is by no means exploitative or exaggerated. Instead of dwelling on geysers of blood being spilled, the film continues to rapidly move along at lightning pace.

If you're avoiding the movie due to the three-hour running time, then you're avoiding it for all the wrong reasons. 160 minutes has never flown by so fast. You'll be so captivated by the brilliant filmmaking that you won't ever be reduced to boredom. The film is also remarkably visceral. Spielberg very sparingly employs CGI. Things are generally kept practical, and the rare instances of CGI are so subtle that you won't notice. Even about 20 amputee stuntmen were employed and fitted with prosthetic limbs.
Words cannot accurately describe how remarkable the sound design truly is. Loud accurate gun noises, deafening explosions and explicit stabbings are among the moments perfectly topped off by the terrific sound mix. Needless to say, the film earned an Academy Award for both Best Sound and Best Sound Effects Editing.

There's an absolutely astonishing cast at the centre of the film. Tom Hanks once again delivers an impeccable performance. He was nominated for an Oscar, naturally. The excellent ensemble cast also includes Tom Sizemore, Matt Damon, Edward Burns, Jeremy Davies, Vin Diesel, Adam Goldberg, Barry Pepper, Ted Danson, Paul Giamatti and Giovanni Ribisi. They all look the part and convey the emotional necessities of their respective characters.
In the film there is no specific human villain. Even the harsh ideology and inhumane beliefs of Nazi Germany aren't presented as the evil to be overcome. Instead war and the blistering impact it has on soldiers is the real enemy.

"The more men I kill, the further away from home I feel."

John Williams was nominated for an Oscar for his terrific music. In my opinion this must be considered as one of Williams' finest scores. The music is touching and poignant, heroic and emotive. Music is never employed during the action sequences simply because (as Spielberg once explained) it reminds the audience that they're watching a movie. Instead of music, the ambient sound effects permeate the battles. This works perfectly. Other Oscar nominations included Best Writing and Best Make-Up. It deserved both of these awards in my books.

After the masterpiece of Schindler's List, nobody could imagine Spielberg crafting another masterpiece of such brilliance. But Saving Private Ryan is proof the director is capable of making another film of such a high standard. In my opinion, Saving Private Ryan earns the honour of being the greatest war film in history. It's gripping, engrossing, and uncompromising. Spielberg strikes the perfect balance of confronting horror and poignant human drama. The director's dexterous touch is readily apparent throughout this film, particularly in his inspired use of camera framing and movement as well as the soundtrack that plays a crucial role.

Saving Private Ryan is the most powerful and accurate cinematic rendering of World War II. Nothing you've ever read in history books can prepare you for the uncompromising way Spielberg brings the war to life…he does so with great attention to detail and a genuine passion for honesty toward his subject matter. Some bitterly complain about this film being potent American propaganda. The same can be said about any war film. This particular war film is based on a real mission that was carried out by American soldiers. If you think this is propaganda then you're unbelievably narrow-minded.

"Where's the sense of risking eight lives for one guy?"

In one of the biggest Oscar blunders in history, the Academy overlooked this masterpiece and awarded Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love. How this happened is simply beyond me...

10/10

"I'm Edgar Frog, surfboard shaper and vampire hunter."

In the popular Hollywood guide to making a quick buck, the word "sequel" is one that ranks quite highly in the lexicon. Methinks it was Disney that shamelessly introduced the breed of direct-to-DVD sequels with ludicrous follow-ups to The Lion King and Aladdin that continued to assault the shelves of DVD retailers. Before long the DTD breed expanded to the live-action arena. Victims of this trend included: Bring It On (the first film was already a tragedy, though), American Pie, Starship Troopers, and even The Scorpion King (funny thing is...the DTD sequel surpassed the original). The much-awaited, much-delayed and much-rumoured sequel to Joel Schumacher's 1987 hit The Lost Boys was next to join the ranks of the aforementioned direct-to-DVD realm. The sequel was in development hell for 21 years. (The much-anticipated and delayed fourth Indiana Jones adventure was only in development hell for 19 years!)

Schumacher's The Lost Boys has risen to cult status over the years with many dedicated fans still enjoying the nostalgia of the romp. This original film (despite being dated and featuring frightening haircuts) was fun and entertaining. Rumours of a sequel circulated for decades. Apparently one of these proposed productions was tentatively entitled The Lost Girls. While that concept had a stake driven through its heart before getting the chance to crawl out of its coffin, the dream at long last became a reality with 2008's Lost Boys: The Tribe. Unfortunately, sometimes it really isn't a good idea to reawaken sleeping monsters from their slumber.

Even after 21 long years of development, Lost Boys: The Tribe is a pale and lifeless imitation of its former self. The loyal fans of Schumacher's The Lost Boys wanted to experience a fun and enjoyable continuation of the saga, yet this sequel ended up being a fundamental remake that reinvented the legacy for a more modern audience. Lost Boys: The Tribe strived to pay homage to the original film with repeated lines, repeated scenes and a small amount of returning characters. But the film fails on almost every level. Instead of a fun vampire romp with a few amusing one-liners and a slight touch of comedy, (I must admit the original Lost Boys wasn't as funny as people made it out to be, but it was worth a chortle or two) this sequel is darker in tone and without any charms. The young teen actors are replaced with actors over 20 trying to pass off as teens (a 17-year-old character is played by an actress who's 28). One of my criticisms of the first film was the lack of a darker tone, as well as the presence of annoying young teens. Therefore the sequel fixing these criticisms could have been a good move...but this sequel is just too damn ludicrous, too vulgar and too bloody sleazy! This is merely The Lost Boys given an iffy and questionable 21st century makeover.

The story finds two teenagers (Hilgenbrinck and Reeser) moving to the seaside village of Luna Bay, California after their parental units died in a car crash. In a financial crisis they move in with their aunt (who ends up charging them rent for their stay). Before long, the two are thrust into the collective grasp of several suave vampires who spend most of their free time playing video games and surfing in the moonlight. If you've seen The Lost Boys, chances are you know exactly where this train is headed: one sibling is simply taken by the charms of the head vampire (Kiefer Sutherland's younger half-brother Angus plays this role), while the other sibling teams with vampire hunter Edgar Frog (Feldman).

Interestingly, while this is just a modern re-imagining of The Lost Boys, this is also an hour of nostalgia. According to a comic series and a few theories, the two main characters are the offspring of Michael and Star from the first film. After all, these new main characters have the same last name. It seems a little too coincidental to me that the same family would endure the same adventure twice. Also, Feldman's Edgar Frog is up to his usual tricks. At least 5 times he mentions his brother (we presume his brother has become a vampire...but it's really vague), and there are a few lines from the first film that he recites again here. The film is driven to the point of becoming a self-parody when the DVD of The Goonies is displayed by one of the characters.

But the failure of this film is hardly surprising. I mean, the talent we're looking at is the furthest thing from impressive. Dodgy director P.J. Pesce previously worked on Sniper 3 and From Dusk Till Dawn 3. With Lost Boys: The Tribe, another title has been added to the list of cinematic mistakes he has partaken in.
Screenwriter Hans Rodionoff is no stranger to garbage. Those who've had the regrettable pleasure of suffering through National Lampoon's Bag Boy should already be familiar with this guy's talent of selling vomit to bulimics. Rodionoff's script for Lost Boys: The Tribe is a hodgepodge of tricks and gimmicks gleaned from various other movies. As a result, there ain't a scrap of originality, nor is there an inspired idea anywhere throughout the entire flick. This is basically a mere carbon copy of the first film. I experienced severe déjà vu as the story unfolded. It genuinely feels like Rodionoff just changed the character names of the first film before stripping away most of the pizzazz and replacing it with excessive bloodshed, profanity, nudity, and sexual situations. Normally I have no problem with any of the above. But all this content is present for the sake of being present. The first dialogue scene alone contains about 20 uses of the word "fuck" and its derivatives before moving onto a brutal beheading that seems entirely unnecessary. The evidence of a plot soon dissipates as the script moves through too many laboured contrivances. Meanwhile the characters are paper-thin and repugnant. Needless to say, the entire bloated affair is as original as a pimple on prom night. In a nutshell: this is Hack Writing 101.

The actors do little to help alleviate the pain associated with the horrible script. Hilgenbrinck and Reeser possess the spark and allure of Disney Channel has-beens. Their emotionless faces and contrived line deliveries are the type we'd usually witness on a commercial advertising the newest product for impotent men. This leaves their vampiric co-stars to chew scenery amid failed attempts at macho posturing.
On the other hand Corey Feldman appears rather eager to reprise his role of Edgar Frog. He is, without a doubt, the best part of the whole flick. Unfortunately, that's really not saying too much. Anyway, Feldman plays with his trademark toys and disperses a few worthy one-liners. His unnaturally deep voice is a bit of a problem; nevertheless he seems committed to giving his character something worthwhile. It's a shame he was so underused. If only this film just focused on the escapades of Edgar Frog, as that would have at least been fun.
Oh, and just for the record, there's a good reason why Angus Sutherland isn't as famous as his older half-brother (who was the head vampire in the original). Angus is a greasy blank slate, preferring to convey his woozy seductive qualities as though he was blitzed on wine coolers. It may be cute casting to put Kiefer Sutherland's half-brother in virtually the same role, but young Angus isn't an effective menace and he's also a barely alert actor.
Then there's Corey Haim...kinda. There's a scene during the end credits that brings back Haim's character. He wasn't given a bigger role in the film due to a number of difficulties. The two Coreys (as in Haim and Feldman) were great friends for a long time...but they apparently bitterly hate each other now.

For what it's worth, Lost Boys: The Tribe does provide a bit of good entertainment and it'll pass the time on a rainy evening. But that's the furthest thing from an enthusiastic praise. A fundamental remake of a cult classic was not a wise move. With an intolerable cast (Feldman is the sole exception to this wide-ranging criticism), rotten visuals (suffering the usual MTV syndrome that likewise plagued the original film), and a soundtrack that will make you hate the very concept of music - Lost Boys: The Tribe is an awful movie. There's simply no imagination being displayed here at all! I was not an avid fan of the original Lost Boys, but every second of this sequel's bumbling uselessness made me want to embrace Joel Schumacher's film even tighter.

If talent like this is producing rubbish sequels to hit films, I should sign up and make my mark. Maybe I'll pen a script for Fight Club 2: More Soap and Fighting. Hold on...I'll have to find out whether Edward Norton has a half-brother who wants to try his hand at acting (it's the thought that counts...skill is not a requirement).

2.8/10

They're looking for hot times. And they came to the right place...

The critical brain boggles when faced with the peculiar challenge of reviewing a clichéd 80s teenage sex comedy. One can only imagine how tough it would've been for a film critic back in the mid-1980s. Sure we get plenty of shitty trends for modern comedies these days (like the much-hated genre spoofs such as Epic Movie and Date Movie), but the never-ending flow of teen sex romps must've caused at least one or two critics to quit their job and become a Chartered Accountant. The movie in question, 1985's Private Resort, is one such member of this dreaded teen sex romp species.

The teenage sex comedy genre was launched by titles like Porky's, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and countless others. Unfortunately, this sub-genre yielded dozens of dodgy, witless, worthless movies, none of which dispensed any genuine laughs - but most of which were crammed with wall-to-wall nudity (both genders). Unbeknownst to audiences of the time, every once in a while one of these romps would feature a performance courtesy of an actor destined for big-time stardom. This explains why one might notice a very youthful Johnny Depp being displayed on the cover/poster of a little film entitled Private Resort. I beseech you all to disregard that natural impulse that says "Hey! Johnny Depp! This should be cool so I'll give it a go" because in the grand pantheon of mid-'80s teenage sex romps, Private Resort is certainly one of the very worst - and if it ain't the most excruciatingly unfunny example the sub-genre had to offer, it's certainly a favourable candidate.

Here's a very brief plot summary: Ben (Morrow) and Jack (Depp) are two horny teenage pals always on the lookout for the possibility of getting laid. Their mission for sex is given further momentum when the two travel to Florida and are guests at a luxurious resort for the weekend. As they wander around this resort they occasionally stop to ogle a pair of bare breasts, and they get entangled with a jewel thief as they go from one awkward (and mostly painfully unfunny) situation to the next. Oh, and the boys find romance as well.

That's pretty much it, plotwise. The entire film uses the stereotypical and unoriginal formula of a few horny teens in a certain location that are keen to get laid. In between the characters arriving at the resort and departing (with their newfound loves), the script offers nothing but awkward situations. It's evident that those behind and in front of the camera had an absolute ball and gave it everything they had...but were let down by the awful script. The film's failure is thus the direct fault of the screenwriter Gordon Mitchell. He obviously believes comedy is just embarrassing situations and characters struggling to deal with things going from bad to worse. Private Resort is crammed with sufficient hair-raising scenarios to fill four or five American Pie sequels.

The film's stupidity could be forgiven if only it was funny. As it is, Private Resort isn't funny...it's imbecilic to extremes. The gags and pratfalls can be predicted years before they happen. And at times the film is so desperate for laughs that a Bogan enters the equation, using terms like "dude" and "radical" - we all know the type. At the end of the day, this just isn't funny...this is shit.

Prior to his breakout performance in Oliver Stone's Platoon, Johnny Depp paid his dues in a horror flick and a sex comedy. The good news is that the horror flick was Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street, so there isn't anything to be embarrassed about on this front. On the other hand, the sex comedy was this brainless shit-fest. At least Johnny looks like he's actually trying to give the film something worthwhile at times. Johnny presents a fairly likeable persona with the character of Jack (no, this character has nothing to do with Jack Sparrow). He offers a few good moments of solid acting. Nothing worthy of an Oscar, but this is a strange bridge to the lucrative career he now has.

In closing: Private Resort is aggressively obnoxious, foolish, daft, painfully unoriginal and inconceivably imbecilic. This is a film only noted for the early performances of Johnny Depp and Rob Morrow. There's little doubt in my mind that both Depp and Morrow cringe if they spot a copy of the film floating around at their local DVD shop. With Johnny Depp's current career in mind, he most likely wants to bury this movie forever. He even reportedly admitted that he did it only for money. Even the top-billed Rob Morrow (whose career has vanished) would probably want to have Private Resort scrubbed from his résumé. Is it a total disaster, though? Not at all, but dangerously close. While the laughs are few and far between, there are a few situations worthy of a giggle (these moments provide simple chuckles as opposed to genuine laugh-out-loud material). It also passes the time adequately. On top of this, I have four words and a piece of punctuation to add: Johnny Depp's bare butt!

3.4/10

"The final measure of bravery is to stand up to death."

The Cannes Film Festival of 1997 was a devastating period for Johnny Depp. The actor had directed, co-written and starred in The Brave, but his efforts were hardly rewarded when he presented the film to audiences at Cannes. Depp's film was subsequently panned severely by critics. This criticism profoundly disheartened Depp, who was so upset he refused to have The Brave released in the US. To this day the film has been buried and forgotten. Some people even exclude the film from the résumés of Depp and Marlon Brando. Not many people are even aware of the film's existence, except for die-hard film buffs and epicentres of Depp devotion. One will unquestionably find it taxing to unearth a copy of this film. It was released on DVD, but limited copies were distributed. Now you'll only find the DVD floating around on eBay or other online stores if you're lucky. If you ask me, this is a true pity. (Why couldn't this instead happen to a more deserving title, such as that dreadful teen sex romp Private Resort? That's a Johnny Depp film that deserves to be removed from existence and get buried for eternity.)

By no means is The Brave a masterpiece, but it's a poetic and expressionistic film that marks a very important entry to the résumé of Johnny Depp. It's admirably unconventional and gripping, with a brutal sense of reality permeating every scene. The film's depiction of the American Indian community is unflinching. Instead of creating a feel-good film, Depp directed a deeply depressing, emotive and powerful drama that deserves much more acclaim and attention.

The story is derived from Gregory McDonald's novel of the same name. This is a sincere and touching story that poignantly explores themes of bravery, veracity, and strength of character, but above all delves into the lengths a father will travel to in order to protect his family.
Depp plays an unemployed, alcoholic American Indian named Rapheal. He was recently released from gaol, and had returned to his family who reside in a shanty-town near a garbage heap. His family is devastatingly stricken by poverty, to the extent that they're struggling to put food on the table. Down on his luck and with little choice, Rapheal investigates a job prospect. At a grotty old warehouse he encounters an enigmatic and creepy cripple known as McCarthy (Brando, in a very brief cameo appearance). Rapheal is offered the chance to star in a snuff film. He will be tortured and killed on film a week hence, and in return his family will receive a hefty $50,000. Thinking solely about his family, Rapheal agrees. From there the film chronicles Rapheal's final 7 days. He reforms relationships with his two children and falls in love with his wife all over again. As Rapheal was given a bit of money upfront, he begins to give his family gifts to ensure he has a magnificent final week.

This intriguing premise of sacrifice is worked into a plot about prejudice, social injustice, human corruption and poverty. To an extent his efforts pay off. However, with such a long running time and so little actually going on during these two long hours, the messages are weakened. Johnny's directing and acting are fine by all accounts, but it's the writing that denotes the film's lethal fault. The middle of the film is overlong and narratively inept, with a deficiency of key plot points and general happenings. Unfortunately a few of the stronger scenes are drawn out to abject monotony. It's also worth noting that the film never blatantly tells the viewer that Rapheal will be featured in a snuff film. The best guess of a viewer will have to suffice.

The central criticism endured by The Brave was in regards to how unbelievable the story is. If a father allowed himself to be sacrificed in order for his family to live a better life, wouldn't they be mentally scarred for life? However, this is a character flaw as opposed to script flaw. The character of Rapheal is meant to be so daft that he never considers the long-term except for the financial benefits. It also shows Rapheal was willing to give up anything, even his own life, just to ensure his wife and kids could escape poverty. The gripping conclusion depicts an unforgettable, symbolic and ambiguous final image. If you expected Rapheal to break out a gun and dispatch his enemies in slow motion before walking off into the sunset with his girl and his money, then you'll be disappointed. The Brave never strives to be a clichéd Hollywood fare. Instead it stays true to its convictions from the first shot 'til the last. The anticlimactic finale will leave you stunned.

Johnny Depp's direction is first-rate. It's obvious he's drawn inspiration from his previous collaborators, such as Jim Jarmusch (Dead Man) and Emir Kusturica (Arizona Dream). Depp keeps the pacing careful and ponderous, albeit slightly sluggish during the middle section. For the most part I was riveted at the drama being offered. Authentic locations and sets are among the film's strengths. The final 5 minutes are particularly artistic. It's clear Depp worked passionately both behind and in front of the camera.
The music by Iggy Pop elevates the film to incredible heights. Particularly powerful are the last few minutes as a doomed man heads towards his inevitable fate. The poignant music is emotive and powerful. I will be perfectly frank: when the credits started to roll, tears wet my eyes and I sat completely astonished. This is a film that defies Hollywood clichés and challenges an audiences' notion of a happy ending. Overblown Hollywood bullshit this is not...The Brave is a drama firmly set in reality.

Performances are consistently excellent. Johnny Depp is surprisingly convincing as an Indian. This is a versatile performer who continues to tackle new and exciting things. From eccentric performances (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) to a gunslinger (Once Upon a Time in Mexico) to an Irish playwright (Finding Neverland), Depp is undoubtedly one of today's finest actors. Depp appears to immerse himself into the role of Rapheal. He delivers his lines with such conviction and passion. His striking good looks are just a bonus.
The Brave was one of Marlon Brando's final films. The actor is most recognised for films such as The Godfather, Apocalypse Now and A Streetcar Named Desire. In the 90s he was past his prime, but still spending his twilight years acting (no matter how small a role). I liked Brando's performance immensely. At one stage he delivers a seven minute monologue of the exquisite challenge of death. The dialogue itself is somewhat nonsensical (almost an unintended parody of his soliloquies from Last Tango in Paris), but if you just watch Brando's expressions and listen to the intonation, the actor is truly breathtaking.

It's a genuine pity that The Brave was so pasted and criticised. This won't ever be hailed as a masterpiece, nor should it be, but you can most certainly do worse. How can Uwe Boll's awful movies be released globally on DVD while this underrated gem continues to rot? Every year there are dreadful blockbusters that still see the light of day while The Brave is unfairly ignored. Needless to say, if you're a fan of Johnny Depp then you can't go past this one. As a first-time director Depp succeeds. That said, however, the film does have its faults. Occasionally the film is dramatically empty. An unfortunate lack of exciting events is disappointing as well.
Be that as it may, The Brave is a film I truly love for its poetic imagery and the courage to avoid a clichéd happy ending. I recommend it if you can find a copy.

8.3/10

"Next time you shoot somebody, don't go near 'em till you're... sure they're dead!"

The fruitful partnership of John "The Duke" Wayne and Howard Hawks (that spanned over a number of decades) produced several utterly fabulous additions to the Western genre. Red River marked their first collaboration, with the masterpiece of Rio Bravo soon following. El Dorado isn't as good as the films preceding it. It doesn't have the scope, scale or ambition of the previous Hawks/Wayne productions. This is a film that lives and dies by its entertainment value. Where Rio Bravo was bestowed with characters as warm as toast in addition to a lot of interesting dialogue and beneficial character development...El Dorado merely features plenty of action and traditional shootouts. I'll be quite frank: if there's a Western featuring shootouts and horse-riding...I'm there!

El Dorado is more or less a straightforward rehash of Hawks' own Rio Bravo (Hawks even dotingly confessed "I steal from myself all the time"). El Dorado borrows a number of characters, plot points and scenes. In addition, a lot of the same sets from Rio Bravo are recycled here. I personally felt a sense of cinematic déjà vu while watching this film. A few years later Hawks and Wayne teamed up again (for the final time) to make Rio Lobo. This was yet another variation on Hawks' Rio Bravo. It has been reported that when Hawks was talking to John Wayne about Rio Lobo during pre-production of the film, Hawks offered The Duke a copy of the script. "Why bother? I've already been in the movie twice" was John Wayne's response.

Let's get one thing very clear: for the entire duration of El Dorado, John Wayne is John Wayne. Say anything about The Duke’s questionable acting skills, but that man filled up a movie screen. The weight of his personality alone is a driving force that a number of action films can only wish they had access to. The Duke is the personification of honour and determination. To his credit, John Wayne knew what his skills were and he played to them.

In El Dorado, Wayne plays a gunslinger named Cole Thornton. He's your typical cowboy who knows his way around a gunfight. His friend J.P. Harrah (Mitchum) is the sheriff of the Texan town of El Dorado. Due to trouble with a woman, J.P. turned to the bottle to settle his problems. Now he's an uncoordinated drunk and the laughing stock of his town (Dean Martin played a similar character in Rio Bravo).
Wealthy landowner Bart Jason (Asner) gets himself embroiled in a struggle with the MacDonald family who own a large amount of land just outside the town lines. Jason offers Cole Thornton a job, but J.P. warns Cole that getting involved with Jason could lead to him getting arrested. Further circumstances entwine Cole with the MacDonald family, and he sets out to destroy Jason.

El Dorado is a fun film, and a classic example of The Duke in his element during his heyday. There are energetic shootouts that are entertaining to behold, a great script featuring a number of amusing witticisms (when figuring out the best way to get J.P. sober, his deputy delivers his input: "A bunch of howlin' Indians out for hair'll do it quicker'n anything I know"), as well as the eye-catching scenery and wonderful landscapes of the old West. The picture looks great. Costumes, props and sets all look fantastic. Occasionally the interior sets feel like interior sets...but this is just fun Saturday afternoon material, and it's not meant to be scrutinised too intimately.
One aspect I must mention is the music. There's a good dosage of triumphant music at times of course. But there's one particular part of the movie when the music is groovy beyond words. This scene depicts the protagonists stalking a bunch of antagonists. They quietly wander through the dark streets as the cool music brings the scene to a whole new level.

The film is quite flawed, though. With so many ideas stolen from Rio Bravo, there's not much of a point. It makes things only more predictable, with the script seeming far more formulaic. Like most classic Westerns, the film's over-length is a tad irritating as well. A trim would have been advantageous.

As always, John Wayne lights up the screen whenever his authoritative persona wanders into a shot. When he's carrying a weapon of any sort, he looks fantastic. The shootout scenes encompass his greatest moments. The Duke should be lauded for frequently playing the same character without ever growing tiresome.
Robert Mitchum is another terrific actor, perhaps known best for Night of the Hunter and Cape Fear. Mitchum is of course uniformly excellent. He's charismatic and occasionally dashing.
A very young James Caan makes an appearance, playing a character unable to handle a pistol. It's a sacred Western law for the protagonists to be skilled in handling a firearm, thus it's refreshing to witness a main character that requires a few lessons in using a gun.

Overall, El Dorado is a fun Western of a good standard. It makes for highly entertaining viewing despite its slow-ish pace. Director Howard Hawks and star John Wayne know how to keep an audience rapt (for the most part). However, it's a shame so many things are borrowed from Rio Bravo. With a more exhilarating sense of originality, this could have been a better film. If I was to pick a favourite out of Rio Bravo and El Dorado, I'd naturally opt for the former. Be that as it may, El Dorado is still a decent flick. In a modern age of cinema that showcases blood and guts, it's refreshing to see men snuff it in a cloud of smoke with a little dab of tomato sauce on their clothes.

If you are a fan of Westerns or of John Wayne movies in general, then by all means take a look. If you're yet to become a John Wayne fan, this film ain't one to make you a believer. Nevertheless this is good for an evening's worth of entertainment in a classic Hollywood mode.

7.6/10

"She's fair game, Joe. It's always open season on princesses."

For enthusiastic fans of romantic comedies, William Wyler's enchanting classic Roman Holiday is an absolute must. With its endearing blend of delightful dialogue, subtle laughs and utterly charming characters, there is little mystery why Roman Holiday has become such a tremendous favourite over the decades. While the film was directed by William Wyler (known in Hollywood at the time for being an absolute perfectionist, occasionally filming up to 30 takes for one scene) and featured the charismatic Gregory Peck, this is a production best known for bringing actress Audrey Hepburn into the spotlight. In the early 1950s, Hepburn had only performed on Broadway and in minor roles in various films. Yet the studio took a chance on the unproved performer, and as a result Hepburn was bestowed with an Academy Award for Best Actress.

Witty, warm, beautifully filmed (on location in Rome), charming and admirably unconventional, Roman Holiday remains an unabashed romantic pleasure and a terrifically enduring classic.

These days it's typical for young girls to fantasise about being a princess. Perhaps there's the possibility that princesses fantasise about being just another regular girl - a fairytale in reverse, to speak. Whatever the case, this is the premise for the story told in Roman Holiday. The film tells the story of a princess spending a day in anonymity, away from her privileged lifestyle and excessive riches. This is a tale that has been retold various times in many different forms, even in the years of contemporary cinema. For instance, Notting Hill: the story of an ordinary Brit dating the world's most famous actress. Or there's Chasing Liberty that tells the story of the First Daughter venturing out on her own. Furthermore, while the story of Roman Holiday may seem farfetched, it has gained credibility over the years. The events in the lives of Princess Margaret and even Princess Diana have proved just how accurate this classic gem truly is.

Princess Ann (Hepburn), heir to the throne of an influential country in Europe, is on a goodwill tour of the European capitals. After travelling to Paris, London and Amsterdam among others, the princess finds herself in Rome. But the strain of her lifestyle is beginning to have an effect on her mental state. When Ann's secretary confronts her with her awfully busy schedule for the next day, Ann has a fit of hysterics and suffers a meltdown - she's completely fed up with having every moment of her life intricately planned. Subsequently she's given a sedative to calm her down. In her drugged state, Ann slips out of the palace, runs away from her royal duties and ventures out into the city where she poses as a drunk, homeless girl. American newsman Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck) discovers the comatose Princess Ann. Feeling guilty about abandoning someone in no condition to be on their own, Joe brings Ann back to his apartment so she can "sleep it off". The following morning Joe realises the identity of his mysterious guest and begins plotting a method to obtain an exclusive story out of the situation. He enlists the aid of his friend (Albert) to take the pictures. Over the course of the day spent with Ann, Joe's desire to write the story wanes as his fondness for his companion escalates.

Audrey Hepburn was in her early 20s when she starred in the film. Co-star Gregory Peck was so taken with the ability of Hepburn that he persuaded the studio to place her name in equal billing with his, as Peck was convinced that Hepburn's performance would earn her the Academy Award for Best Actress. The rest is history: Peck was right, and Hepburn won the Oscar.
Roman Holiday began a decade of memorable performances for Audrey Hepburn with a roster that would include Sabrina Fairchild, Holly Golightly, and Eliza Doolittle. The actress also pulled off what few co-stars could manage: make Gregory Peck fade into the background. Of course Peck is fine and charismatic in the role of Joe Bradley, but he is faintly belittled whenever he shares the screen with Hepburn.

The film was shot on location in Rome (this fact is noted emphatically in a caption during the opening credits, ensuring audiences wouldn't think they're witnessing sound stage shots combined with stock footage). These locations allow director Wyler ample opportunities to flaunt the best face of the Italian city. With the gorgeous black-and-white cinematography extracting the movie from reality and placing it into the fairytale land where it belongs, Rome comes across as the most romantic location on Earth. No blemish is ever shown. As idyllic and wonderful as the place may be, however, one shouldn't anticipate this kind of perfect vacation if you ever visit.

Ann's holiday involves all sorts of normal activities which transform her 24 hours of freedom into an ephemeral love affair with a handsome gentleman in a romantic location. Although Hepburn's Princess Ann and Peck's Joe Bradley steal several kisses, their relationship never goes beyond that. Roman Holiday is about the possibilities of love more than the tangible realities. It brings to light something most romantics recognise: the ideal love affair is almost always one that's never consummated. The film admirably stays away from the concept of a happy ending. Although abrupt and unsatisfying to some, it reminds the audience that this is no fairytale - a bulk of the movie seemed like something out of a fairytale, but it is in fact reality, and this is how the cookie crumbles.

By no means is Roman Holiday faultless, though. The major shortcoming of the film is its excessive length. Running at just under two hours, the film is too long by about 20 minutes. The audience doesn't need to be repeatedly told that Ann and Joe are rapidly falling in love with one another (it's fairly noticeable given the way the actors look at each other). In addition, the film's conclusion can almost be speculated before it transpires. Ergo the denouement should have been fast-tracked.

More than 50 years following its original release, Roman Holiday remains a staple of the romantic comedy fan's movie library. It delivers everything it promises, from the contemporary inversion of the Cinderella fable to a fabric of low-key humour. (The film's humour offers more chuckles than overt laughs) The ending, while not completely downbeat, is the sort of thing Hollywood might erroneously alter today, but it's note-perfect for the production. This ending may surprise first-time viewers because of its rather sombre tone; however I admire the filmmakers for possessing the guts to stay true to their convictions. Sometimes all's well regardless of not ending so well. There's still adequate charm, allure and wit on display, though, and that's what counts the most.

If you're in the mood for something vivacious and uplifting, Roman Holiday is the trip to take.

8.2/10

"Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!"

Is there another American actor more iconic and legendary than John Wayne?

True Grit is one of the most quintessential Westerns in filmic history. It features memorable quotes, beautiful open vistas, classic shootouts and of course one of the greatest stars of all time. Whenever The Duke's commanding figure wandered into the frame, he simply oozed authority and a strong star presence. Perhaps his range may have been a tad restricted but when the encyclopaedia of Westerns is composed, John Wayne will forever rank high in the lexicon. He's a performer who secured colossal popularity: throughout his career, masses of adoring fans flocked to their local cinema to watch their favourite hero don his hat, carry a pistol and ride a horse. Be that as it may, it's widely known that John Wayne wasn't a great actor. Very rarely did The Duke step out of his comfort zone and attempt something new.

True Grit is a Western that brings together a congregation of genre clichés. It's a fun film that kids would generally watch of a Saturday afternoon. Not only is True Grit a lot of fun, but it also changed my opinion of John Wayne. This was the film that earned the actor the honour of an Oscar statuette. The Duke certainly deserved that honour, even if it was probably more out of sympathy as opposed to a scintillating performance. Mind you, I would probably argue that True Grit encompasses John Wayne's finest moments captured on the medium of film. His performance as Rooster Cogburn showed the toughness and fortitude of the legendary actor as he rode horseback and endured physical pains with a body ravaged by cancer at the age of 62. By no means is this his greatest film (that honour goes to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance or Rio Bravo), but this production is cut above the usual standard of Westerns.

Like many other entries in the profitable Western genre, the plot of True Grit is thin and simple. The plot is also quite trite, and it mixes most of the obligatory genre clichés. Yet if one throws interesting names into the cast (including Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper in early performances) in addition to captivating locations and slick shootouts...suddenly things are far more interesting. Certainly, the film is loads of fun. Under intimate filmic analysis the results aren't flattering, though. There's some occasional meandering and a few overly excessive scenes, but at least it's very watchable with the authoritative John Wayne commanding the frame.

True Grit finds John Wayne as U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn. He's a drunken and surly has-been who's passed his golden years. Enter Mattie Ross (Darby) who's on a mission of justice following the tragic death of her father (Pickard). Mattie's father was killed by one of his own ranch hands named Tom Chaney (Corey). Despite Mattie hearing unsavoury stories about Marshall Rooster Cogburn, she's also heard that Cogburn possesses the rare quality of "true grit". There's reluctance on Cogburn's part of venturing into Indian territory, but he eventually agrees to Mattie's proposal. It turns out that Tom Chaney isn't only being pursued by Mattie - a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (Campbell) is also tracking the man.
The reward dollars for capturing Chaney appear to be going higher. Rooster is therefore all the more determined to find Chaney. This determination is made far sweeter when it's discovered Chaney is apparently running with a gang led by a nemesis of Rooster's: Lucky Ned Pepper (Duvall). Rewards from all corners partnered with an opportunity to finally nail Ned Pepper and his men? This is simply too much attraction for Rooster to ignore.

Naturally, the film climaxes with the customary fantastic shootout as Wayne's Rooster Cogburn exchanges bullets with Duvall's Ned Pepper. This exhilarating action scene ranks among the best of John Wayne's career. Unfortunately, the film feels a bit long in the teeth during the lead-up to this final showdown. It must be said that on occasion the film gets lost in the magnificent scenery. Also the dialogue in the first 40 minutes sorely needed a major trim. We all know Rooster will end up journeying with Mattie, so his frequent reluctance is conventional and, at times, just a waste of space. It's only during the final half hour that the film picks up pace, and provides a truly invigorating piece of cinematic entertainment.

True Grit wouldn't have worked without The Duke in the cast. John Wayne's performance as the crabby old fat drunk is remarkable. Prior to watching this movie, The Duke's speech mannerisms and unmistakable walk that are frequently lampooned were hard to overlook. He was continually doing more of the same. However, he shows his true acting range in True Grit. After learning of the physical condition he was in during production, and watching this ailing old man still commanding the screen, I realised the powerful personal of Wayne was due to his talent and determination. Even after losing a lung and several ribs (and, for that matter, was only capable of walking a few steps before being hopelessly out of breath), Wayne donned the spurs and hat with confidence. The subtle humour of his performance is also enjoyable. There are some very witty lines. His environment also adds something to the character: he lives in the back room of a Chinaman's store, in the company of the Chinaman and a lovely tabby cat known as General Sterling Price.

Some feel that Wayne's A-List performance is somewhat blemished by the cast surrounding him. I feel that the actors surrounding Wayne just aren't up to his standard. Kim Darby is too whiney, too straight-up, doesn't look the character's alleged age (she looks like she's in her 20s when she's in fact playing a 14-year-old) and is unable to carry the emotional needs of the role. John Wayne reportedly wasn't fond of Kim during filming because she was too unprofessional.
Glen Campbell's performance is mediocre. He looks a bit too handsome, with not enough depth or ruggedness for a Texas Ranger. Elvis Presley was in the running for the role apparently. It would've been fairly interesting to see what he'd have done with the character.
Robert Duvall is a tad underused, but his performance is solid enough. Same goes for the other additions to the supporting cast.

Overall, True Grit is a classic Western featuring a classic iconic star. John Wayne's determination as a performer thoroughly shows during every scene of the movie. The Duke's performance alone makes the film worth viewing. There's also breathtaking scenery and some exciting shootouts added to the mix. It's a very flawed movie; however it's a classic Western that today's audiences simply must view. John Wayne may have been aging at the time and looking it...when he pulls out his gun, though, it doesn't matter how fat or old he is: he's still The Duke. He makes True Grit the unforgettable western that it is. It's just the flick to watch on a lazy Saturday afternoon. Followed by a sequel: Rooster Cogburn.

7.9/10

There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, "Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it." Someone's so-and-so met someone else's so-and-so and so on. And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

Magnolia is writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's answer to Robert Altman's Short Cuts. The film is an epic mosaic of modern American life and a tightly woven tapestry of several interrelated lives in the San Fernando Valley over the course of 24 hours. The stories of these characters are told through a series of poignant vignettes - all characters are lost souls searching for redemption from the collective misery that is their tortured contemporary lives. What binds the diverse characters' stories into a complete and coherent whole are the various stimulating themes running the full length of the movie. In one thematic thread, Anderson proposes that life is not a succession of logical linear happenings that have a reasonable outcome. He suggests life is instead dominated by pure coincidence and chance. Secondly (and perhaps more centrally) the director explores the manner in which humans treat each other; specifically the relationships between parents and their children.

Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia is a film that deserves your attention. It won't be for all tastes, in fact many tag the film as overlong and self-indulgent (even the actors warned Anderson upfront of the film's over-length), but I found the film absolutely riveting and brilliantly engaging for its three-hour running time. From start to finish I was immersed in the filmmaking spell being offered - mesmerised, shocked, rapt and thoroughly engrossed. This is a remarkable, unique and magnificent production rich in underlying themes of coincidence and chance. Although it may not seem obvious, every piece of this 180-minute film is solidly there to serve a purpose. There are also various subtle inclusions that require additional viewings in order for one to absorb.

This is Paul Thomas Anderson's third feature film. He's a director who shows improvement with each new outing. Hard Eight and Boogie Nights were merely stepping stones to assist the director in reaching his zenith. Further exemplification of this point is in Anderson's 2007 film There Will Be Blood. Whether you're a lover or a hater of Anderson, it's difficult to deny his deft and dexterous touch behind the camera.

The opening sequence (narrated by Ricky Jay) explains a number of remarkable coincidences. For example: in the 50s a young man committed suicide by jumping off the roof of a building. Mid-fall he's hit with a shotgun blast before continuing to fall into a safety net that had been installed days earlier. The shotgun was fired by the young man's mother who accidentally fired the gun during an argument with the young man's father. As it turns out, the young man had loaded the shotgun a few weeks earlier in the hope his parents would get into a brawl and accidentally kill each other. All of this is allegedly true. This theme of outlandish coincidences is layered thick throughout the duration of Magnolia. The ten vibrantly-drawn protagonists lead seemingly unconnected lives, yet over the 24-hour period their lives converge either through chance meetings or lifestyle similarities. Presented as a collage of tangential sub-plots, Magnolia tracks each of these characters as they undertake an emotional journey. Each is pushed to the edge of despair by circumstances out of their past, and ostensibly beyond their control.

Excellent scripting and directing, as well as a terrific ensemble cast make Magnolia a poignant and powerful cinematic experience. There is no central narrative, no single protagonist, and no top billing. Each of the film's sub-plots (presented concurrently) offers a profoundly moving and incisive character study - each a well-crafted drama. The directing and editing are so effective that as Anderson cuts back and forth between various stories he builds a compelling dramatic tension that leaves one awe-struck. Each of the sub-plots feeds the dramatic tension at just the correct rate, simultaneously culminating in an apocalyptic, shocking climax of Biblical proportions. It's a bit of a shame, though, that Anderson annoyingly cuts away from a story just as it's getting interesting.

Three hours is a long time to keep an audience involved, but Anderson almost pulls it off. One of the reasons why the movie's energy level remains high is due to the way Anderson and his cinematographer Robert Elswit (the two also collaborated on Hard Eight and Boogie Nights) vary the film's visual style. Aside from the customary variety of quick cuts and intense close-ups, there's a curiously large number of long-lasting, unbroken takes. Music plays an imperative role in Anderson's approach as well. Not only are Aimee Mann's songs meticulously woven into the movie's fabric, but the score (courtesy of Jon Brion) is virtually omnipresent. During the first two hours of Magnolia, just about every scene is bestowed with background music. Only throughout the third hour are there a larger number of sequences that have been traditionally scored.

Magnolia is lengthy and occasionally tedious, nevertheless it's utterly enthralling for its duration. Anderson provides ample time for the characters to develop - just letting the camera track his actors and allowing them to flourish. Some may feel that Magnolia is the worse for it, as Anderson seeming drags out each chunk of exposition into excruciating monotony. For others (myself included), writer/director Anderson has created marvellous characterisations brought to life by capable performers. Granted, there is a bit of a lag during the initial parts of the third hour, but an astonishing occurrence towards the film's end (that I described as being of Biblical proportions) re-invigorates the proceedings. The climax will unquestionably be the most hotly debated feature of the film. For some it may be too unbelievable, and may ruin an otherwise deeply penetrating examination of human behaviour and interaction. On the contrary, those who share my opinion will collectively agree it simply elevates the movie to a new level. Nothing prepared me for the film's stunning conclusion.

At the film's heart, the smart writing and dexterous direction are only half the battle...the actors are the ones that have to carry the show. There's a terrific ensemble cast to behold. The standard for each actor is uniformly excellent.
This is a new revelation for Tom Cruise. Cruise was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance as the egotistical, misogynistic sex guru who offers advice to horny and frustrated male bachelors. Cruise is given a number of absolutely wonderful lines of dialogue to work with. Like when his character's secret past is revealed by a TV reporter...Cruise sits silently and informs the reporter "I'm quietly judging you".
John C. Reilly takes an unexpected turn with his endearing portrayal as a moderately incompetent policeman. He's a good guy with good intentions. He's basically among the few characters in the film who actually acts like an adult and looks beyond pitying himself in order to extend a hand to others. He's rather awkward when on a date with a girl, and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but who really knows how to do everything perfectly 24 hours a day? His compassion offers hope in an otherwise thoroughly depressing film.
Melora Walters is utterly stunning as a struggling drug addict. She unreservedly lavishes her rage and anguish until she realises it'll completely consume her. Walters is compelling, powerful and unflinching.
William H. Macy, as always, is among the strongest actors in the cast. Macy is definitely one of the greatest actors of this current filmmaking generation.
The rest of the cast never tread a foot incorrectly. From Philip Seymour Hoffman's thoroughly passionate (and fascinating) performance as a nurse, to Julianne Moore's performance as a suicide-prone almost-widow, to Philip Baker Ball, Alfred Molina, Jeremy Blackman, Jason Robards, Melinda Dillon and even Ricky Jay - there isn't a faulty performance in sight.

Despite its three-hour length, Magnolia is undeniably a masterpiece. Each story is well-written, the directing is so proficient, and the acting is so moving that we can almost forgive Anderson for being a tad self-indulgent. Some of the film's highlights include a number of beautiful montages that are topped off with poignant narration. Magnolia demands a lot from its audience. A single viewing is barely adequate to absorb all the intricate details. Yet it supplies a satisfying and exhilarating cinematic experience - one that lingers long after the credits roll.

8.9/10

"I want you to find him, I want you to KILL him, and I want you to put him in the ground so he can never come back again."

Uwe Boll's movies are bad. They are the god-awful creations of a hack director with a disgusting ego whose answer to criticism is to challenge his critics to a boxing match. Boll's movies have made me sick because they are an immoral waste of money, celluloid and time.

The first few minutes of Uwe Boll's Seed made me sick to my stomach. But it wasn't because of the bad filmmaking being offered...it's because in these opening few minutes Boll has inserted REAL FOOTAGE of ACTUAL ANIMAL TORTURE! He forces his audience to endure REAL FOOTAGE of animals being smacked on the ground until bones are broken, being skinned alive, or being trodden on by malevolent humans. Boll defends his decision with a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, claiming that he's making a statement about humanity. Somehow Boll's disillusioned brain thinks this is justification to use this repulsive footage. But this is a MOVIE Mr. Boll! This is MOVIE for ENTERTAINMENT! How is animal torture entertainment?! If we're speaking in terms of Schindler's List or war movies, the graphic violence is fake and therefore justified. In Sylvester Stallone's Rambo, a few minutes of real news footage depicting the atrocities in Burma was included at the beginning. But this doesn't show anything being killed! It shows the aftermath of battles very briefly. It also HAS RELEVANCE to the rest of the movie. Animal torture being shown to "make a statement about humanity" in a stupid, mindless horror gore-fest is totally unnecessary.

I never thought it'd be possible, but Uwe Boll has hit an all-time low. Not only does he make woeful movies, but now he prefaces them with real footage of animals being savagely tortured. And this is only the first 4 minutes...

Here's an interesting fact that adds insult to injury: Uwe Boll has pledged to donate 2.5% of the film's profits to charity to help animal rights groups. 2.5%!?!? That's all he could possibly spare?! Considering the director's reputation, I doubt the film will be very lucrative. I believe charity could be looking at about $10. If Uwe Boll deeply cared about animals like we've been led to believe he does, why not donate all the profits to charity? But no - the director's bank account is more precious than his morals.

The first few minutes of Seed are bad to the extreme. But what follows is so incredibly terrible that words fail me.

The plot (if one can possibly call it that) concerns a serial killer known as Seed (Sanderson). Over the course of six years, he's killed 666 people. (How's that for subtlety?) The police capture him (in one of the most bumbling, perplexing, clumsy and incompetent raids in cinematic history) and he's sentenced to execution. The electric chair, though, isn't up to the task. After two jolts of electricity, Seed is still alive. The prison staff are too scared to give him a third shock, fearing the evocation of state law that would set Seed free. So they bury him alive in a flimsy coffin, with his hands tied feebly (the way his hands are tied wouldn't even be able to restrain a dead man). They also bury him in a shallow grave. Oh, and they don't bother to make sure he dies. They just hope he won't escape. Guess what? Seed escapes his grave and wants to go kill some people. Oh joy!

Seed is 100% unbelievable. Every scene, scenario and character is so preposterous that it's impossible to believe a word of it. Boll wrote the script himself. The concept which had potential is wasted as the film disintegrates into utter silliness. For example, Seed claws himself out of his shallow grave, is able to swim off the island that imprisoned him (this island is like Alcatraz, i.e. impossible to escape via swimming), mysteriously gets the addresses of the cops that wronged him, and is strangely able to travel from A to B without people noticing him. This killer is bulky, well-built and always dons grubby clothing. How can one possibly miss him?! It's also interesting that the killer's victims never seem too fazed about being killed. They lay back and accept their death. And, typical for an Uwe Boll movie, the lack of research shows. While the cops raid a house supposedly inhabited by Seed they don't use their radios, they don't appear to yell for any help, they don't hold their pistols correctly, they don't move correctly, and they are never careful like cops are trained to be.

I have no idea why, but Uwe Boll decided to revive the dying genre of torture porn. Personally, I detest the torture porn flicks such as the awful Hostel movies. I'm also not a fan of the Saw series, which is gradually declining in quality. Seed is Boll's answer to the most legendary horror movies. Elements of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are even incorporated. Heck, one scene is even inspired by Kill Bill! Here's the worst part: it never makes a lick of sense. The pacing is sluggish, the editing is choppy, and the structure is messy. Locations aren't even properly distinguished. As a result, I was confused and disorientated.
Another Uwe Boll tradition: cinematography is woeful. It's obvious the director tried to imbue the film with shaky cam resembling The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something. But typically, Boll never has a sense of visual elegance. His shots are always disorganised and shaky.

Boll even damages the film's credibility very early into the film. The cops are hunting Seed. The unimportant cops of course get killed very easily. Seed uses stealth and clever tactics to kill them. Then it comes time to kill the hero. Naturally, the hero takes him down no sweat at all. Seed doesn't use any tactics when fighting the hero and is taken down within a single minute. Righto...

Uwe Boll filmed Seed back-to-back with Postal and boy is it obvious!! The acting is appalling. None of the actors are suitable for their respective roles. They're all wooden. For 90% of the movie it's as if they're sleep-walking and/or on autopilot. And of course, Boll focuses on his gore effects more than anything else. Boll once criticised Eli Roth and called him a retard for making the same shitty movies over and over again (Pfft. Like Boll can talk). Yet Boll is so disillusioned that he thinks Seed is somehow better than Hostel. It's worse!!! Seed is a mindless gore-fest featuring oodles of unrelenting, unnecessary gore. When Seed kills his victims, it doesn't even seem like there's a reason for him to be doing so. The timeline is so disorganised! However...I can't believe I'm going to say this...but the gore is actually done impressively. There are a few scenes that encompass some really realistic blood and gore. However, this compliment is easily undone as there is never a point for the gore to occur.

Too many things are going on in the film's 90-minute duration. We're supposed to care about the hero and his family situation, and somehow we're also supposed to case about Seed as well. But Seed has no depth, and the hero is a cardboard cut-out. The characters fall flat.
There's also a distinct lack of suspense and tension during the gory scenes. The cinematography isn't exciting, the actors look bored and the music isn't at all effective. Altogether, the film is just plain boring and ineffective. The only thing it effectively does is disturb. We watch footage of Seed letting a crying baby, a family dog and a young woman decay into bones. That's disturbing stuff. What's also disturbing is people invested time, money and effort into making this movie. After those cinematic travesties known as House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne (and its sequel), In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale and many more, Uwe Boll is just digging a bigger grave for himself. When I watch a horror movie I want suspense and gore that works in an actual context. What I don't want is completely unnecessary real footage of animals getting skinned and their skulls crushes.

Seed is too unbelievable to make a statement about humanity (Boll's objective) and too disturbing to be entertaining. We're therefore left with this pile of shit. In a nutshell: Seed is absolutely fucking woeful!

0.6/10