Reviews by PvtCaboose91

To the untrained eye, Disney-Pixar's WALL-E probably appears to be just another ordinary animated family film or just another commonplace Pixar escapade. But WALL-E should not be carelessly dismissed with these misleading labels. Director Andrew Stanton (who was behind 2003's Finding Nemo) has created a masterpiece on the same level as recent films like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Pan's Labyrinth and even The Departed. Put very frankly, this is a marvellous film with infinite appeal.

Over the past few years, Pixar's annual line-up usually receives its fair share of acclaim (from critics and audiences alike). In 2007, it was Ratatouille that had the Oscar committee talking. Other memorable titles include 2004's The Incredibles and 2006's Cars. Further animated films (courtesy of DreamWorks) include Madagascar, Shrek and several others. But 2008's WALL-E is an unprecedented event in both animated feature films and contemporary filmmaking in general. Through my eyes, this masterpiece deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Picture at the very least. No, not Best Animated Picture...I'm talking about the daddy Oscar statuette of Best Picture. I'm not the only person discussing this possibility, so that must tell you something.
This is a movie that the critics are raving about, and audiences are warmly receiving. The box office numbers are enough to convince you of that fact. As of late 2008, the film still holds a resounding rank on IMDb's Top 250. As much as it pains me to admit, I thought the hype and acclaim was ridiculous, and I misleadingly labelled the film as childish rubbish. However I'm extremely glad that I took a chance and gave this film a shot.

In the future, humans have abandoned Earth. WALL-E (voiced by Burtt) is the last of his kind: a small robot manufactured by the Buy-N-Large Corporation, created with the objective of cleaning up the rubbish left by humans. WALL-E (an acronym for Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth class) lives a lonely life as he carries out the same routine everyday. He's a robot whose vocabulary never stretches past three words, and his sole friend is a mute cockroach. WALL-E spends his entire day rummaging through the rubbish. He compresses mounds of garbage into cubes (he also collects rubbish he finds fascinating - one man's garbage is another robot's treasure) by day, then spends his evenings watching Hello, Dolly! and longing for romance. Things drastically change for WALL-E when a robot known as EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, voiced by Knight) lands on his planet. It's love at first mechanised heart-beep. WALL-E and EVE are soon entangled in an outlandish space adventure with a host of fascinating robot characters.

So what makes WALL-E the masterpiece that has everyone talking? There are a number of reasons.
For starters, the animated is top drawer. All landscapes and locations are gorgeously rendered, to the extent that an audience will be stunned at the technological capabilities of modern computers.
Secondly, the kids will have an absolute ball. Even the adults will sit in awe. WALL-E will commendably keep both the kiddies and adults entertained for its entire running time. Thirdly, the film has great relevance to a modern society that's becoming increasingly reliant on technology. The film essentially acts as a social commentary. While the kids are greatly entertained, an adult will be able to comfortably absorb the film's underlying themes. It's a "green" theme that imbues the proceedings. Humans are depicted as obese, obsolete couch potatoes who rely on technology for their every whim. They no longer walk, and a transparent screen allows them to communicate with each other (even if they're sitting in arm's length). The human race aren't human anymore...in fact the robot characters are more humane. The implication is that this future isn't far off.

WALL-E is also a total blast: it's creative, clever, charming and comedic. You'll be laughing at the Chaplin-esque slapstick on offer, and you'll be sighing at the beautifully tender nature of the little robot. The film conveys a poignant and moving love story. It's an odd-couple romance tale that will strike a tone with its audience depending on generational reference points. There are traces of Charlie Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill in City Lights, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in Annie Hall, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in Titanic, with traces of Star Wars and E.T. thrown in for good measure (there's also a slight dash of Shrek and Princess Fiona). This may be a love story between mechanical robots, but it's incredibly heart-warming and appealing.

The final factor that ensures this film is an absolute masterpiece is that it will never grow outdated. DreamWorks animated movies are filled with pop culture references, whereas WALL-E is devoid of them. The character of WALL-E enjoys watching the musical Hello, Dolly! and at one stage we see him indulging in a game of Pong on an old monitor. Had this been a DreamWorks picture, WALL-E would be watching High School Musical and playing Halo 3 on an X-Box 360. This denotes the difference between the two animation studios: in fifty years WALL-E will play flawlessly to a new audience who will laugh at the timeless slapstick, whereas a DreamWorks film (after the pop culture references lose their potency) will play to almost complete silence. Yes, I do enjoy DreamWorks films such as Shrek (the first one...and the first one only!) and Over the Hedge, but it's doubtful that they'll hold up in later years.

Like Pixar's previous films, the meaning of WALL-E is deeper and more profound than the merchandising prospects found therein. The film is undoubtedly a love story, but it's also a story about staying true to your own heart in the insipidly malevolent face of authority. The film is a moving tale about saving the small things and treasuring the world you exist in, regardless of how imperfect its surface may seem.
Andrew Stanton won an Oscar in 2004 for his previous animation film Finding Nemo. Now the director has unquestionably earned his place in the pantheon of animation pioneers. With WALL-E, Stanton has taken not only the art of animation, but the art of storytelling to new and unimaginable heights. Previous landmark science fiction masterpieces include Star Wars and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. To me, WALL-E is the next landmark sci-fi masterpiece in the form of a simple animated family feature.
Perhaps the only drawback would be a script that turns formulaic in its final quarter. The concluding few scenes had me riveted in my seat, but in the long run most of it wasn't overly necessary. And the customary happy ending is quite predictable. However 80% of the film cleverly circumvents the clichés.

For an animated movie aimed at an ordinary family audience, WALL-E is unbeatable. The visuals are masterful, the animation is absolutely beautiful, the storytelling is fairly original and there are laughs aplenty. This film has a right to take its place alongside Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille and the countless other additions to the Pixar canon. To this day, WALL-E is definitely the best animated family movie in existence!

9.5/10

In German, the word "Mörder" is translated as "murderer". Fritz Lang's M is a revolutionary classic of worldwide cinema (it made an especially influential impact on German filmmaking), and its eerily straightforward title is derived from the German word "Mörder". M is an expressive, supremely haunting venture into the workings of a serial killer that brilliantly raises questions on the nature of justice and who should deal out punishment. The film marked director Fritz Lang's first non-silent picture. Prior to making this conversion, the director was renowned for such films as Metropolis and Die Nibelungen among several others. For its time, M was a technically innovative movie which utilised the new "talkie" technology to great effect. M is also an influential movie that introduced two filmic genres: the serial killer genre and the police investigation genre. Needless to say, this is an important film and an archetypal blueprint responsible for spawning hundreds of facsimiles.

During the early years of the cinematic sound era, most films were given a static and theatrical look. The most prevalent film cameras were too noisy and were mostly anchored to one spot. Actors were required to lean in closely to speak into omni-directional microphones often hidden in vases or other objects (this was brilliantly parodied in the classic Singin' in the Rain). Fritz Lang's M was filmed in 1930. Most filmmakers were amazed by sound technology, and heavily employed it for their films. But M is nothing like most of its peers. Instead of a boring still camera, Lang's lens moved at will; soaring and craning through studio sets...producing an open, flowing, eloquent look for the movie. Lang, one of the supreme masters of silent cinema, wasn't interested in using the new technology merely to replicate reality. To Lang, sound was no carnival sideshow gimmick. He instead used sound for dramatic effect to create an expressionist sound design to augment the narrative and visuals. M actually contains a lot of silence, with the majority of the film being shot devoid of sound equipment. Without sound equipment, the camera was free to roam around the set. Instead of the drone and rattle of a bustling city, Lang gives us isolated sounds such as footsteps or the distant beeping of a car horn. These innovative decisions combine to bestow the film with a chilling, almost surreal soundtrack...at once hollow, brittle and haunting.

Fritz Lang's M closely parallels the case of serial killer Peter Kurten, the "Vampire of Dusseldorf". For months after Kurten's killing spree ended, the country was still held in a state of terror. The release date for M was subsequent to Kurten's much-publicised trial, and just before his execution. Serial killer trials were all the rage in 1920s Germany. At the time of its release, M addressed a very topical issue of serial killers. Today, M can be viewed as a timeless masterpiece that presents an effective snapshot of a 1920s society. Although the technical merits of M may be looked upon as somewhat dreary and ordinary, the film must be viewed on its own terms: the camera movements were innovative and the evocative sound mix was unprecedented.

As I stated before, the storyline of M was somewhat inspired by the killing spree of Peter Kurten. The original title of the film was The Murder Among Us, but changed to M to impart the film with a more eerie, timeless and creepy overtone. The single letter also has great relevance to a significant shot in the film: Peter Lorre, with great horror, notices the letter "M" on his back and realises that people are onto him. The film's basic story concerns Hans Beckert (Lorre): a serial killer who holds a small German city in a firm state of terror. Hans targets young children for his murder victims. He befriends them in the street, tempts them with gifts, and takes a long walk with them before eventually murdering them. During the opening scenes of the film, Hans claims his latest victim: young Elsie Beckman. The piercing, haunting cry of Elsie's mother echoes into the new millennium.
The police grow desperate in their search to apprehend the murderer. With no clues and little suspects, their desperation begins to affect the state of business in the city. As businesses begin to lose customers, the criminals team up in an attempt to catch the kindermörder (that is, child murderer). Pulling the murderer off the streets would put an end to the massive police presence that has effectively ended most criminal activity. In an act of gross desperation, they begin to use the homeless community. The killer frequently whistles Edvard Grieg's "Peer Gynt Suite", and it proves to be his sole identifying feature.

Peter Lorre turns in a haunting performance as the whistling paedophile. Throughout much of the film we never see his face. His shadow is instead used, accompanied by his voice or whistle. Lorre's panicky, jowly, bug-eyed killer seems ready to crawl out of his own flesh at any time. His character is hunted by police before being captured and taken to trial by the forces of the Berlin underworld. Lorre's final speech, featuring the anguished pleas of a madman, is absolutely unforgettable. While his character of Hans Beckert commits monstrous crimes, the film portrays him not as a monster but as a victim of his own infirmity. Lang doesn't ask us to forgive the kindermörder...he asks us merely to understand that he is just a complex, flawed human like the rest of us. As the city closes around this sad, lonely and helpless figure, it's difficult not to feel some semblance of pity for him.

Fritz Lang's M is a brutally atmospheric thriller with a dark and moody feel to it. There are countless shadowy rooms in which the action transpires. Lang's film is eerily prophetic, which gives the beautifully stark cinematography an aura of terror. This is a picture that should frighten us, yet we're uncertain why. Naturally the apparent villain is the murderer...however as the film proceeds it's the angry mob and its brand of snarling justice that makes the audience cower in fear. With meticulous pacing, the film slowly climbs the ladder...steadily building tension step-by-step...until the final, soul-wrenching scene where the ugliness of the human spirit is on full display.

In spite of all the positive aspects of M, the film occasionally has difficulty engaging a viewer. Its ponderous pace won't be liked by all. Regardless of some terrific shots, one may feel sleepy and occasionally bored. It's unfortunate that a few aspects have dated to the extent that it isn't flattering many decades on. It's also difficult to follow at times. Every so often a few things are gruelling to devour.
Despite a few shortcomings, M is a masterpiece that cannot be overlooked. It's a classic piece of cinema that demonstrates how a disturbing story and poignant themes can grab an audience and leave them with an entirely new perspective on such matters. Even though it has been many decades since the film was released, it still holds an immense impact. When compared to modern thrillers, Fritz Lang's M easily holds its own. Cinema enthusiasts and budding filmmakers of any stripe cannot afford to miss it.

8.5/10

Eastern Promises denotes the second of consecutive films featuring the creative partnership of director David Cronenberg and actor Viggo Mortensen. Cronenberg is no stranger to controversy due to his unique filmography. Crash, The Fly, Videodrome and the recent A History of Violence are just a few entries on Cronenberg's résumé. Each new film further demonstrates the director's willingness to display graphic violence and/or nudity. Following the critical and commercial success of A History of Violence, Cronenberg returns with Eastern Promises: this dark, gripping, powerful crime thriller. This film tackles the subject of the Russian mob and their presence in London. Mainstream films seldom explore this territory. Filmmaker Martin Scorsese has explored the Italian mafia in films such as GoodFellas, and the Irish mob in the acclaimed The Departed. Movies addressing the Russian mob are few and far between. Therefore, this is an amazing entry to Cronenberg's oeuvre.

British screenwriter Steven Knight previously penned the script for Stephen Frears' Dirty Pretty Things; a similar film that deeply delved into the underbelly of modern multicultural London. His screenplay for Cronenberg's Eastern Promises lifts the curtain on different sects and subcultures of society. This film depicts a number of contemporary social issues such as human trafficking, teenage prostitution (and teenage pregnancy, for that matter) and loss of cultural identity. The script conveys a powerfully affecting tale that relentlessly illustrates the depressing nature of its subject matter and the disconsolate atmosphere of its key location.

A 14-year-old Russian girl named Tatiana (Labrosse) stumbles into a pharmacy, heavily pregnant and haemorrhaging blood. She's brought into a hospital where midwife Anna Khitrova (Watts) steps into the equation. She delivers a healthy baby girl, but is unable to save the teenage mother who dies during childbirth. Anna discovers Tatiana's personal diary and believes it could provide answers to Tatiana's past. Anna lifts the diary from Tatiana's handbag and commences her investigation. The diary is in Russian; ergo she is unable to decipher it. The issue of losing cultural identity is evident here: Anna's parents are Russian, yet she was born and raised in the United Kingdom.
Anna takes the diary to a local eatery where she meets Semyon (Mueller-Stahl), a seemingly kind old man. Little does Anna realise that Semyon is the head of a powerful Russian crime family who utilise the eatery as a cover-up for their true intentions. As soon as Semyon hears of the diary, he realises that it incriminates his whole family and organisation as it chronicles the troubled life of a teenage girl who became inadvertently mixed up in the unsavoury world of enforced prostitution, drugs and murder. Anna's investigation leads her to Nikolai Luzhin (Mortensen) who works as a driver for the Russian mob organisation. Nikolai is eventually hired as a henchman for the Russian mob, and puts in motion a harrowing chain of murder, deceit and retribution.

Eastern Promises is permeated with competent filmmaking in several aspects. Cronenberg is right at home handling material that includes graphic throat-slitting, a haunting sex scene and even one of the greatest fight scenes in recent memory. This fight scene depicts a completely nude Viggo Mortensen (yes...we see all of it!) being attacked by two assailants in a steam room. The action is fast and it is very violent, featuring plenty of blood and gore. The sequence is visceral, violent and realistic, but above all engaging and serves a purpose. If someone such as Eli Roth was responsible for the scene it would've been far less poetic as it'd be a useless slice of gore porn. With Cronenberg at the helm, he meticulously frames his shots and ensures the scene is an imperative part of the story. The scene is significant as it shows Nikolai in a vulnerable position, forced to employ his skills as a ruthless assassin. Despite Nikolai being developed as a strong and almost indestructible character, this scene demonstrates that he's a regular human who can bleed and succumb to injury.

The script commendably handles the story. Dialogue is ponderous but fascinating, and violence is fairly frequent but concise. However, occasionally the script is somewhat formulaic and plays it safe. There's also an unfortunate failure to tell multiple storylines effectively. In a compact running time of 100 minutes, the script jumps from one story to the other. There's too much going on. Yet despite this, there are enough shocking plot twists and revelations to transcend its weaker trappings. The only other script flaw that can't be forgiven is the ending: it's too sudden and the intricately-developed characters are abruptly plonked into an unsatisfying, rushed conclusion that contrasts the carefully-paced events preceding it. This terrible ending encompasses countless loose ends and hasty jumps that don't make a lick of sense.

Viggo Mortensen was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Nikolai Luzhin. This nomination was thoroughly deserved. Viggo underwent extensive preparation for the role: studied the culture, learned his lines in different languages, etc. This work pays off wonderfully. He will allow you to genuinely believe he's Russian due to the convincing accent. He immerses himself into the role with marvellous consequences. However the film's greatest asset (as in Viggo) is also its greatest curse: whenever Viggo isn't present in the frame, the film seems to lack momentum. The rest of the cast is good, but vastly overshadowed by Viggo's faultless performance.
Naomi Watts is undoubtedly among the finest actresses working today. Watts further verifies her amazing ability to bring something substantial to the table. Whether it's a comedy (I Heart Huckabees), a blockbuster (King Kong), or a gritty film like or 21 Grams or the film in question (Eastern Promises), Watts rarely strikes a false note. Her character here is an interesting one: she feels compelled to find the newborn baby's true home as she recently suffered a miscarriage and a failed relationship. The internal pain and anguish is perfectly conveyed by Watts.
It's worth noting that the film's three Russian protagonists aren't played by Russian actors. The impeccable Armin Mueller-Stahl is German, the menacing Vincent Cassel is French, and the absolutely incredible Viggo Mortensen is of Danish descent. While watching the film I had no idea of this fact. While I knew Mortensen wasn't Russian due to my familiarity with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I had no idea of the respective nationalities of Mueller-Stahl and Cassel.

David Cronenberg's previous film, A History of Violence, was one of my favourite films of 2005. With that single film the director demonstrated that, despite having aged, he was still capable of producing terrific results. A History of Violence was a deep character study and an exhilarating thriller.
Eastern Promises has its problems in the script department, yet it's definitely among the greatest films of 2007. Those searching for a coherent or satisfying conclusion will be soundly disappointed, but that's merely a minor drawback that doesn't severely affect the terrific filmmaking before it. On the whole the film is competently directed by Cronenberg, with admirable photography and an amazing bunch of actors, that's topped off wonderfully with Howard Shore's remarkable music. Artistic, masterful, provocative and audacious, Eastern Promises is a captivating and fascinating examination of a sinister and dark world.

8.3/10

Unbreakable is an eerie, thoroughly thought-provoking comic book suspense thriller capable of leaving an audience completely stunned. The film comes from writer/director M. Night Shyamalan; a director brought into the spotlight after delivering the critically acclaimed 1999 thriller The Sixth Sense. The young filmmaker scored a surprise masterpiece with The Sixth Sense. The critics adored it, audiences loved it, the Oscar committee recognised the film with several nominations, and (as of late 2008) it convincingly ranks at #32 on the all-time worldwide box office. Subsequent to Shyamalan's success, it's probably safe to assume that he was a tad nervous about making another film. Expectations were probably unfairly high when Unbreakable rolled into cinemas. Although a decent movie, by no means does it threaten The Sixth Sense in terms of quality or box office earnings.

Shyamalan's Unbreakable could most likely be referred to as a contemporary interpretation of the classic comic book superhero formula. To an extent the film is a modern-day Superman story transplanted into a plausible world with realistic characters. Although the film may seem insipid on the surface, Shyamalan's script creates a fascinating character study that very much derives from the Superman good vs. evil mentality.

Unbreakable is a film of self-discovery and origins. Where typical superhero films spend barely half their duration developing the heroes and villains, Shyamalan decided it'd be more interesting to create an entire film covering the origins of his protagonist and antagonist. Originally the film was to be the initiation of a superhero trilogy, but a poor box office reception left the idea dead in the water. The concept of a trilogy still languishes with both Shyamalan and Samuel L. Jackson; however the outlook isn't flattering. As a standalone movie, Unbreakable is decent but ultimately a tad unsatisfactory due to the abrupt conclusion. As the first instalment in a trilogy, the film would have been an absolutely excellent origins tale that cleverly addresses the fragility and delicateness of mind under duress.

The "superhero" (so to speak) of the picture is an Average Joe named David Dunn (Willis). He's an aging man suffering a mid-life crisis: his marriage is ending, he's at a dead-end job, and he never achieved his dream of playing professional football. David's life is given new meaning when he's involved in a train derailment outside Philadelphia. Over a hundred passengers are killed in the burning wreckage...but David emerges as the sole survivor of the disaster without a single scratch on his body, nor a broken bone. Unnerved, confused and disorientated about his miraculous survival, David is soon approached by the enigmatic Elijah Price (Jackson). Elijah is a man suffering from a rare genetic disorder: his bones break extremely easily. Elijah, who runs a gallery specifically devoted to comic book art, theorises that comic books are an ancient method of passing down history. He believes comic book heroes are in fact real-life people who have been made more exaggerated and fascinating for the target audience. Elijah additionally developed a theory that, with his severe bone fragility, there is a man completely the opposite of him on the other end of the spectrum who's completely invulnerable to injury...and that David Dunn is this "indestructible" man.

Told with admirable precision and imaginative camera shots revealing intricate details frequently overlooked by mainstream Hollywood films, Unbreakable bears a remarkable resemblance to a comic book. Shyamalan's unusual angles are framed to give the impression that the film is a motion comic book strip. He even employs ponderously lengthy shots that track characters for a few minutes at a time. For instance, near the beginning when David converses with a woman on the train: the multiple-minute shot looks between the seats like a voyeuristic child peering behind themselves to see what people are doing.
There are also clever metaphors, allusions and allegories; particularly in relation the nickname given to Elijah Price - Mr. Glass. In fact, glass is frequently used as a metaphor for Elijah's disastrous life. We see reflections of the character on TV screens, framed artworks, etc. Elijah even carries around a glass cane to help him walk, marking a brilliant allusion to the frailty of bones. This is especially noticeable in a scene that depicts Elijah tumbling down a set of stairs. His glass cane shatters as his interior bones suffer similarly.

Shyamalan is skilled at setting a masterful atmosphere. His action is well-choreographed while his lens perfectly captures it. The film is ponderously paced and some may find it boring. Shyamalan is a director who never likes to rush the proceedings. His actors usually appear zoned-out and with not much emotion to display. Also, by the end of the film you'll realise that it didn't have much to say. Be that as it may, I like the way he says it. The film's conclusion can be classified as a twist ending, but it's nothing as mind-blowing as The Sixth Sense. Nevertheless, it's a pretty shocking and unexpected revelation.

Shyamalan competently and appropriately blends his formulaic superhero origins tale into the real world. It's easy to believe that David Dunn is just an ordinary guy before his genetic abilities are uncovered. Unbreakable is about deep characterisation as opposed to unbelievable action and CGI effects. Absurd plots and cardboard characters are the opposite of a Shyamalan flick...the director takes good, thoughtful time to ensnare audiences in his dark web.
James Newton Howard's gorgeous music highlights the frequently changing atmosphere to great effect.

Bruce Willis presents a grim, emotionless performance as David Dunn. The veteran actor has a distinct look about him that makes him absolutely ideal for the role. Willis also previously starred in Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense. The last time Samuel L. Jackson shared the frame with Bruce Willis was in 1995's Die Hard - With a Vengeance. If fans of said Die Hard entry are expecting similarly outstanding results, they'll be disappointed. The two are ideal for their respective roles, although the script isn't as witty as that of the Die Hard film. Fans should instead expect something with a slower pace that asks more questions than it answers. In fact it was pleasant to witness these two actors expanding their acting faculties by tackling such roles.

Filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan ascended to stardom with the surprise hit The Sixth Sense. Since then his output has progressively decreased. The Village, for example, contained a promising premise but quickly disintegrated into silliness. Lady in the Water was next in the canon. Instead of creating an atmospheric horror tale, he attempted to create a vanity project for his children...and failed at just about every level. 2008's The Happening was a slight disappointment but an improvement over his last two films. Other than that, I found Signs to be a terrific alien flick that unfortunately became somewhat inadequate towards its conclusion. And I found the film in question - Unbreakable - to be an interesting depiction of a pragmatic superhero universe. It won't appeal to everybody, but I personally found the film quite rewarding. Perhaps it took too long to say so little for a straightforward origins tale; nevertheless I admire the creative touches added by the talented writer/director. Haunting yet droll and provocative without being pretentious, this is an involving expedition into the human psyche and the enormous price of being different. However the ending is quite abrupt and, frustratingly, the ending also seems as if it should have been the beginning. If only Unbreakable did mark the commencement of a superhero trilogy, because if it did the film's shortcomings could be further overlooked.

7.3/10

Mike Myers has never been one to baulk at penis jokes, juvenile potty humour, boyish smut, fart gags or scatological comedy. The actor produced a lucrative career by featuring in Saturday Night Live skits as well as the Austin Powers trilogy, and he lent his voice to the animated Shrek film series. The Love Guru is his latest comedy (I use the term "comedy" very loosely) and it was supposed to be a return to form for the successful actor who had spent the last 5 years hitting the big screen with Shrek sequels (there were many TV specials and direct-to-DVD spin-offs that he was involved in as well). His last live-action outing was 2003's Cat in the Hat...I doubt a comment is necessary.

For months preceding the release of The Love Guru, Hindu groups were protesting and urging for a boycott. The Hindus saw the film as being in bad taste and it offended them. After watching the film I can see their point. Perhaps it didn't offend me in the way it offends Hindus, but it certainly offends anyone with good taste in comedy. I'd urge a global boycott to be enforced as The Love Guru is a criminal waste of time and talent. Life is too short for filmmakers to spend months working on rubbish like this. Life is also too short for audience to spend 90 minutes watching this awful movie. With so many delayed projects (with great potential) waiting for cameras to roll, it's a mystery why celluloid is wasted on films like this. It's also a mystery how this film ever got funding. A straightforward donation to charity would have made everyone a lot happier. Only true 100% dedicated Mike Myers fans will find the film hilarious. Everyone else with good taste in comedy will watch the film stoney-faced and annoyed at the film's general dullness as well as the lack of any creativity. This is quite simply a shockingly appalling, self-indulgent, shallow, repetitive, juvenile piece of rubbish.

It feels like Mike Myers and co-writer Graham Gordy used leftovers from the Austin Powers trilogy in an attempt to generate most of the flimsy plot for The Love Guru. The film is a single-note succession of extended skits that never spawn a moment of hilarity. Never is it even a guilty pleasure! A clever situation involving an apple, a midget, an adult man and a bottle of water behind a white screen from Goldmember is funny...two elephants having sex on ice in the middle of a hockey game is not! Once two elephants commence an orgy, we realise how low the script has truly sunk and how desperate Myers was for a laugh.
All the gags revolve around conventional funny names (that stopped being funny years ago), burps, farts, diarrhoea sounds, peeing, defecating, testicles, and penises. One of the film's key scenes includes a mop fight with mops soaked in urine. The film starts with little-boy potty humour, and it stays that way throughout its duration.

The Love Guru denotes the lowest point in Myers' career. I used to like him...believe me I still laugh incessantly during the Austin Powers movies. But, with very little exceptions, I never want to see Mike Myers work in the film industry ever again!

The story tracks a "neo-Eastern, self-help spiritualist" known as Guru Pitka (Myers). As a child he was abandoned outside an ashram and subsequently raised by gurus. Now he's a celebrity guru, endlessly writing books and developing acronyms. He's hired to sort out romantic troubles between hockey player Darren (Malco) and his wife Prudence (Good). If Pitka can get the two back together, Darren's hockey team could finally win the Stanley Cup.
The problem with the film's story is its central character. Guru Pitka is a clichéd creation, but never is he bestowed with the fun clichés. There are numerous clichés one could employ to actually make this character funny - Pitka could be a successful fraud (who knows he's a fraud) who decides to drop the act to truly help someone, or perhaps Pitka could be an utter failure who still manages to offer knowledge and wisdom to people in need. Either of these would be really clichéd, but at least it'd be fun. It could also add some tension or possibility into this cold and lifeless film. As it is, watching Pitka deliver horribly written dialogue (and laughing at himself every time) while he frets about how he can go from the number two guru spot to number one (through the blessings of Oprah) makes him a total bore.

One must wonder how so many actors were attracted to this mess. Many cameos permeate a majority of the proceedings. Val Kilmer, Jessica Simpson, etc. In the more major supporting roles there's Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake, Ben Kingsley (this guy still wants to be respected and still wants his title of "sir" after starring in Uwe Boll's BloodRayne and this cinematic abomination?!) and Verne Troyer among others.
I have no idea how he did it, but Myers makes Alba look quite unattractive. In fact the whole cast look bored and listless. After the first 5 minutes, each actor looks as if they've regretted the decision to appear in the film. The material is notoriously unfunny, and this is reflected in the awfully weak performances.
Mike Myers must get a bit of credit for giving Pitka some energy. After the first few minutes, though, the accent is just plain annoying. There are a few moments during which the film shows promise and potential for what it could have been. The Bollywood-style musical numbers of The Joker and 9 To 5 are among them. But these are punctuated with Myers' self-indulgent eagerness to wallow in his obsessions - poor accents, innuendo, sexual talk and farting. Myers is so self-deluded that he actually believes he's creating comedy gold. In reality he's creating pure unadulterated shit!

Overall, The Love Guru is genuine hit-and-miss comedy. The jokes are repetitive and the entire film feels as if it could have been written by adolescent boys on the wall of a public toilet. Throughout the flick you'll feel embarrassed that you endured the labour to get your hands on this film - be it from a video store, at a cinema or catching a screening on TV. The only laughs to find are pity laughs at how dreadfully weak the gags are, or an amusing outtake at the end while credits are rolling. You'll certainly get the sense that you've seen it all before. If Myers wants to satisfy his obsessions of all things childish with a camera tracking him, that's his problem. If an audience is paying to watch the appalling result, suddenly it becomes ours.

1.4/10

If you're accustomed to actor Will Ferrell's previous movies, or if you've viewed the trailer/s for Step Brothers, you should unquestionably be aware of what you're walking into if you make the decision to watch this film.

Audiences may remember Will Ferrell hitting the big screen in 2004 with the memorably hilarious Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. It wasn't long before teenagers started spouting quotes for hours at a time, and Anchorman became a cult phenomenon. The charm of the film was in the impeccable team of actors with terrific chemistry and the endless string of memorable quotes. In 2006, Will Ferrell teamed up with Anchorman director Adam McKay (who was a former Saturday Night Live writer) for the disappointing Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. That film supplied some laughs, but in the long run it lacked the charm of the Ferrell comedy vehicle preceding it. Not everything that Ferrell touches turns to gold. Semi-Pro, released earlier in 2008, was an example of this. The mediocre screenwriter for Semi-Pro ultimately gave Ferrell very little to work with, relied on his talents in the art of overacting, and left him to flounder on-screen. Step Brothers marks another collaboration of Will Ferrell and the forever-dependable Adam McKay. Actor John C. Reilly, who united with Ferrell in the aforementioned Talladega Nights, also joined the team. Reilly, Ferrell and McKay were all active contributors in conceiving the story and penning the screenplay. Although a few notches below Ron Burgundy and his memorable chums, Step Brothers is a return to form and a more relieving leap in the right direction.

Brennan (Ferrell) is a single, spoiled, repeatedly unemployed 39-year-old man still living at home with divorced mother Nancy (Steenburgen). Dale (Reilly) is 40 years old, single, usually unemployed and he's still mooching off his widowed affluent father Robert. At a business lecture, Robert meets Nancy and it's love at first sight. The two decide to get married and move in together. This decision unites Brennan and Dale who become step brothers. It's passionate loathing at first site. The antics of Dale and Brennan give new meaning to the words "sibling rivalry". Needless to say, what ensues is a hugely entertaining exercise in the art of randomness: improvised non-sequiturs, hysterical one-liners ("Your voice is a combination of Fergie and Jesus! I can't even look at you right now!") and an extremely repugnant situation during which Ferrell's (prosthetic) testicles rub against a drum set.

Step Brothers places itself in the very rare realm of R-rated comedies (as in an R rating from the MPAA). In recent years, PG-13 comedies have taken flight as it gives more money to the studio executives who endlessly keep a paranoid eye on the box office profits. Semi-Pro was another R-rated Ferrell comedy vehicle and it suffered due to misusing the rating. The profanity was kept to an absolute minimum when it could have permeated the dialogue far more for best effect. Step Brothers misuses the rating as it takes it as an opportunity to be vulgar to extremes. F-words are too frequent, and after a while it just isn't funny. This is to be expected, however, as Judd Apatow (does this guy ever sleep?!) was an executive producer. His previous efforts included Superbad, Knocked Up, Walk Hard, etc. This man single-handedly brought back the R-rated comedy craze. However, Apatow's movies are largely average. They outstay their welcome, and the excessive swearing spoils it. Step Brothers suffers a similar fate. Instead of gags regarding erections and sex that seem oddly innocent, we see Will Ferrell dragging his balls on a set of drums and licking a pile of white dog shit. No longer are McKay and Ferrell clever...now they're just employing vulgarities for a snigger.

The central problem of Step Brothers is dwelling on the laughs. The film is hysterical, and believe me I thoroughly enjoyed it, but there are virtually no other positives to be stated. During the middle section of the movie there are no attempts to advance an already thin plot. This section lives and dies by the amount of laughs. The trouble is that McKay and Ferrell also try to include serious moments. It dilutes the hilarity. Anchorman wanted to be nothing more than a succession of non-serious jokes. It was, and it succeeded because it's tremendously enjoyable. Step Brothers suffers the same fate as Talladega Nights: gags are funny but grow old, the film tries too many things, and there are too many serious scenarios. It's this that brings the film into the world of poor storytelling and pathetic clichés. We all know how the film will end no matter what transpires.

It must be said that Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly are a perfect screen couple. The overwhelming chemistry allows the actors to carry a majority of the film. Their close camaraderie in real life is obvious from the outset. They fumble around, they poke fun at each other and one-up on each other's outbursts. Some may complain that Ferrell plays the same character in each movie. That's a given, though. At least Ferrell is good at his trademark overacting. With Step Brothers he's given more crude language to deliver. "You're a big, fat, curly-headed fuck!", "I tea-bagged your drum set!", "Holy Fucking Santa Claus Shit!", and many more. Ferrell is a delight to watch. Not as charming as the characters of Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby, but still funny.
John C. Reilly is similar. Whenever he's on the screen with Ferrell, they're usually doing hilarious stuff. Step Brothers would not have worked without this duo.
As the parents, Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins light up the screen. It's a tad difficult to believe that with all the shit Dale and Brennan respectively pull, they actually tolerate it (before the eventual marriage, that is). Steenburgen makes some of the vulgar lines sound like poetry. "What the fucking fuck?!" is an example of this.
Seth Rogen makes a brief but memorable cameo. You may remember him as Judd Apatow's go-to guy.

Overall, Step Brothers is everything I expected. I paid the price of cinema admission to be entertained and have a good laugh. The film succeeds in those objectives. I laughed until my stomach hurt. I was also entertained and had a great time. As a film, it ain't a masterpiece - nor was it ever meant to be. This could have worked better if it was a straightforward laugh riot like Anchorman; however the excess of seriousness slows things down. Also, with so much crude language there is little variety. All in all the film is a few levels above Talladega Nights, but far below the standard of Anchorman. If Adam McKay and Will Ferrell team up again, they should try something more subversive instead of playing it safe. If the rumoured Anchorman sequel goes ahead they may be able to more confidently remind us why we loved the partnership in the first place.

6.3/10

Simply put, Monster's Ball is one hell of an outstanding movie. Marc Forster's direction is first-rate, the script is meticulous, and there's superb acting right down the line. The story conveyed by this hauntingly compelling masterpiece cannot be easily swallowed. This is a powerful and poignant movie not merely about racism and redemption (as one might initially presume), but about one of the most urgent and unanimous of human desires - that of finding solace for anguish and solitude. Brutal, riveting and brilliant - Monster's Ball daringly strides into territory seldom explored by usual contemporary motion pictures. The film is emotive and provocative, and relentlessly delivers a message about life in the American South.

The title of Monster's Ball is a term that was used in 19th century Europe to describe a night of feasting traditionally had for a condemned prisoner the night before he or she was to be executed. The title may seem confusing, but if one understands what the term means in the context of the film's plot, it makes sense.

Hank Grotowski (Thornton) is a soft-spoken, embittered Georgian prison guard in charge of the Monster's Ball: he organises a condemned prisoner's last rites and final evening. Hank lives with his openly racist redneck father Buck (Boyle). His offspring Sonny (Ledger) also works at the local prison and has been caught in his family's passionate racism, which he tries to stand against. Sonny's job at the prison is purely due to the expectancy to carry on family tradition. Hank's final execution is that of prisoner Lawrence Musgrove (Combs). Following this, a family tragedy occurs and Hank feels mentally unfit to continue working at the prison. By chance he meets young African-America woman Leticia (Berry) and they form and unpredictably intimate bond. Leticia was the wife of the last man Hank executed, but both of them are initially none the wiser.

Monster's Ball is artful and solemn, magnanimous and atmospheric. It's inlaid with wordless scenes accumulated to produce a mosaic of meaningfulness about life in the American South and the possibility of redemption through love. Its message is conveyed effectively and relentlessly. There is never any reluctance to display gratuitous racism or sex. The controversial sex scene in particular between Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry is graphic and explicit...almost pornographic material. It's these scenes, along with several others, that create an engaging hook to compellingly reel in a viewer for the (approximately) 110-minute duration.

The film is supported by a stellar screenplay. The film's sole negatives are in the script, though. Most of the character behaviour seems forced and ludicrous. The sex scene, although tastefully done, never seems to have much of a purpose. An emotionally vulnerable black woman would not seek comfort in a man she barely knows. Probably a feature to reveal her character, but it seems very sudden and difficult to buy. Despite this, the film is an incredible experience. There are admirably unconventional and unsentimental moments included in the script. Leticia and Hank never profess undying love for each other. In fact, there never seems to be any love included: it's all lust. "Make me feel good!" Leticia pleads Hank before forcing him into the nitty gritty. The characters never feel good per se, but they do feel better. The film does not end with any clichés. The love interests don't ride off into the sunset together or live happily ever after. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest the two will be together very long. As an alternative the film concludes on a beautiful note of ambiguity...and perhaps a glimmer of hope.

With each film, Billy Bob Thornton continues to convince me that he's one of the finest actors working today. He's a true filmic chameleon who brings life and adequate realism into every single role he portrays. It's impossible to overlook his amazing performances. Be it A Simple Plan, Bad Santa, Sling Blade or Bandits - Thornton's acting skills are sensational. His character of Hank Grotowski is a quintessential Thorntonian. Never does he put a foot wrong.
Halle Berry's acceptance speech at the Oscars forever sits badly in my stomach. She pretty much embarrassed herself in front of the millions of viewers. Despite this opinion, Halle deserved her Oscar for portraying a character with such emotional depth. It's a shame her character was cheapened by the unnecessary sex scene, but nevertheless her acting is incredible. No matter what situation she's been placed into, Halle can do wonders with her character.
Heath Ledger (R.I.P.) is used for an unfortunately short duration. In spite of this, Ledger gives his character depth and motivation. He abhors the racism ripening in those he usually looks up to. His character feels horrible about being forced to dish out capital punishment, and this is palpable in Ledger's emotions. His character is also reduced to "relieving" himself with a prostitute to escape his awful life. It's a shame the actor died so young. A promising career would have been ahead of him.
Peter Boyle takes a shocking career turn as the racist grandfather. For years I've seen Boyle as the hysterically witty grandpa in Everybody Loves Raymond. Surprisingly, Boyle pulls off this serious role admirably.

Overall, Monster's Ball is a challenging, stimulating and confronting drama that shows the ugly side of humanity with stark realism. Suicide, capital punishment, graphic sex and racist slurs are among the contents of this unforgettable production. Said contents are not sugar-coated in any way. The gripping screenplay and Marc Forster's transcendent direction "tells it like it is". As a result the film is an intense, emotionally-wrenching and powerfully affecting experience that requires dedication and attention. Superb performances permeate the proceedings, adding density, depth and feeling to the hard-nosed drama. It may seem dour on the surface and some features of the script are ridiculous...however the film conveys an unsentimental, expressive, achingly eloquent and affirming story of transformation and hope.

8.2/10

It took eight years, a bundle of writers, endless rewrites and a few Beverly Hills Cop movies before the classic 48 Hrs. screen duo of Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte re-teamed for the highly anticipated sequel. Unfortunately, Another 48 Hrs. materialised into an enormous disappointment. Considering all the effort that went into the script, the film is even more disappointing. Eddie Murphy was also among the screenwriting committee (under a fake name), making this rubbish sequel a further disappointment. In addition to this, all the other elements were right: Nolte and Murphy back in action, as well as director Walter Hill taking the helm once again. Another 48 Hrs. crawled out with steadfast potential, but tragically died on arrival. The problem was not with director Hill, or the impeccable duo...the problem stems from the material they were given to work with.

The script suffers from a bout of committee writing - that is, several screenwriters begging to have their ideas incorporated. This is worn on the film's sleeves: there is action aplenty, violence and foul-mouthed characters...with zero laughs, zero charm, zero wit, zero laughs (yes, I know I mentioned 'laughs' twice, but it's such a criminal exclusion that it deserves to be mentioned twice) and a bunch of unenergetic actors desperately searching for their next pay-check. Nolte and Hill hadn't seen a hit since the original film, whereas Murphy obtained fame in abundance. Perhaps convincing Murphy to star in Another 48 Hrs. was a cheap attempt by Hill and Nolte to score another hit without having to work too hard. This is palpable as well. It seems like a substandard rehash of 48 Hrs. with the negatives of said predecessor inflated and the positives deflated.

Set several years after the events of the first film, the story follows officer Jack Cates (Nolte) who's working to catch a drug lord only known as the Iceman. For years Jack has investigated, only for extraordinary coincidences to continually occur that leave his investigation dead in the water. Jack soon discovers that his old buddy Reggie Hammond (Murphy) is on the Iceman's hit list. At the end of the first film, Reggie had 6 months left of his prison sentence. Apparently another 5 years were added and now he's about to be released. The addition of these extra 5 years are touched upon, but not greatly explored. It's an irritating red herring, included merely as an excuse to place Reggie in prison again for him to sing his trademark rendition of 'Roxanne'. Worse yet, the strong camaraderie established between Reggie and Jack is gone because they haven't seen each other for so long. Once again, this is an unrealistic inclusion purely to introduce a heated rivalry again. It makes little sense.

So anyway, Reggie and Jack work to track down the Iceman. Oh, and Jack's career is in trouble and he's been suspended. This marks yet another pathetic cliché. There are already tonnes of clichés, so another one is like another duck in a heavily populated pond. One would think someone held a cliché convention and the screenwriting team acquired a 3-day pass!

As one has probably also noticed, Another 48 Hrs. is a mindless "everything must go" sale of clichés. Also, it's probably obvious that the script is a mess. It was rewritten many times, and there were so many writers brought in, but it's a clunky piece of trash. The palpability of a group of writers penning the script is further cemented by a few other elements. One such instance is the police composite drawing kit, used early in the film. It's used to create an image of a suspect they're searching for. Later we find out that Reggie knew what the Iceman looked like all along. When Jack learns this information he drags Reggie across the city, asking him to point out the Iceman. Why couldn't he just use the drawing kit again?! On paper the film would have sounded worse than the eventual product. At least the visuals have the stylish touch of Walter Hill, marking one of the only positive things about the movie. The action is exciting, even if it doesn't make much sense.

Poor villains are another drawback. Instead of being memorable and menacing, the dumb baddies don't do anything but kill people for the hell of it. Their motivation doesn't exist, especially with the convoluted plot being so excessively dragged out.
The relationship between Reggie and Jack is appalling. No witty lines, no interesting twists, and worst of all no friendship under pressure. They yell at each other and punch each other in every second scene! To make matters worse, there are many scenarios used here that were also used in the original film. It's probably some feeble attempt at nostalgia. The acting is just absurd. Eddie Murphy has aged and his changed Reggie character is just boring. I expected to be laughing occasionally...but I wasn't. I wondered whether the screenwriters ever even saw the first film. Nolte is grouchy, cranky and looks bored. The horribly written villains are the furthest thing from realistic. The rest of the cast appear to say their lines rather than meaning them. Director Hill let too many faulty moments get included, it seems.

Another 48 Hrs. should be in the running for "Most Disappointing Movie Sequel of All Time". As a standalone motion picture, the film is still a pile of shit. It may be watchable during the action sequences, but everything else is frequently boring. As a sequel to the classic original action/comedy, Another 48 Hrs. is dire beyond words. It's a crime for a supposed action/comedy to spend its duration without a single funny gag or witty line. If someone pulled in a few decent screenwriters as opposed to useless hacks, something interesting could have transpired. As it is, this is just another damned sequel that never should have happened. This is a purposeless waste of the talents of everyone involved. If you're an enormous fan of the first movie, this sequel just isn't worth it.

3.9/10

In the Line of Fire still remains the indomitable king in the realm of political action-thrillers. It may seem that a majority of the basic plot elements appear somewhat proverbial to a mainstream audience (i.e. an aging law enforcement officer who's passed his prime, a bureau reluctant to trust the aging officer, a psycho killer who establishes communication with the hero, the psycho killer endeavouring to get into the head of the aging protagonist, etc), but with the impeccable Clint Eastwood in front of the camera and acclaimed director Wolfgang Peterson at the helm...In the Line of Fire is far from ordinary.

The movie is a supremely crackling political thriller featuring intricate and artistic direction, an intriguing screenplay, and it moves at a feverish pace from one fascinating plot point to the one succeeding it. Clint Eastwood may have been in his early 60s when the cameras rolled for this film, but it's the greatest modern Eastwood actioner since the original Dirty Harry. In fact, In the Line of Fire confidently positions itself in the league of Unforgiven as well as other classic Eastwood westerns. The film benefits mostly from the meticulous script by Jeff Maguire that contains intelligent scenarios and witty dialogue. Every shot in itself is a work of art, created by a director who excels at his craft.

Veteran Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) has passed his golden years. Back in the 1960s, he was personally picked by John F. Kennedy and was his favourite Secret Service agent. But on November 22 1963, Frank failed to react to the bullets that blew Kennedy's head apart. His failure to protect the president has haunted him for decades. 30 years later Frank is doing undercover work to bust counterfeiters for the Treasury Department. Frank and his new young partner Al (McDermott) are assigned to investigate what appears to be a routine, commonplace threat to the current president's life. But the man behind the threat begins calling Frank at his home. He shares his thoughts with Frank and boasts of his intentions to kill the President of the United States. The alleged assassin calls himself "Booth" (Malkovich) in honour of John Wilkes Booth (who killed President Lincoln...just in case you didn't know). As communication between the two intensifies, Booth begins to torment Frank in relation to his failure to take a bullet for the president back in the 1960s. Driven by his determination not to let another president die, Frank quickly finds himself having to confront his inner demons to catch Booth and prevent the proposed assassination from coming to fruition.

The theatrical release date for In the Line of Fire was between The Firm and The Fugitive, not to mention that the film was also sandwiched between the two significant Eastwood tentpoles of Unforgiven and A Perfect World. Out of these aforementioned films, In the Line of Fire and Unforgiven are the best of show: each film respectively marking a return to form for Eastwood, with a western (like his breakthrough performance in the western A Fistful of Dollars) and an intense action-thriller (similar to the original Dirty Harry).

Jeff Maguire's remarkable screenplay earned an Oscar nomination, and rightfully so. The intelligent script tracks an extraordinary game of cat-and-mouse of superlative quality. This thriller is certainly a cut above the pack, due mainly to Maguire's outstanding script. There's a high amount of realism and detail in the storytelling. The depiction of the Secret Service is thoroughly accurate. The methods shown are apparently quite precise. Most impressive are the surprising plot twists of which there are plenty. The characters are realistic as well. What could have been a two-dimensional slate of characters are instead given astounding depth. The psycho villain in particular is bequeathed with comprehendible motives and a fascinating personality. Probably the only drawback would be a number of clichés. It's mostly forgivable though, because a majority of these clichés were invented by this film.

German director Wolfgang Peterson is probably most recognised for the critically acclaimed Das Boot. Following In the Line of Fire, Peterson went on to direct such films as Air Force One, The Perfect Storm, Outbreak, and several others. He crafts his movies with wonderful filmic merits present in each shot. The final showdown is probably the strongest 15 minutes in the flick. It's suitably intense, nail-biting and clever. You will be kept on the edge of your seat until we're allowed to breathe again.
Probably the main highlight of the film is its terrific score courtesy of composer Ennio Morricone. Morricone's music constantly sets the tone to great effect. With a great editor handling great material shot by a great cinematographer, the only touch making it better is the tingling sound of Morricone's music.

The remarkable characters are performed by an above average cast. Clint Eastwood hasn't lost his touch. Some compare this film to the original Dirty Harry, and with good reason. If the name of Frank Horrigan was changed to Harry Callahan, it could have worked as a fitting farewell to the trademark action hero. The only thing missing would be the wisecracks and badass attitude. Despite that, there are a lot of Eastwoodisms to be found. One of the most interesting Eastwood moments is when he's making love to Secret Service agent Lilly Raines (Russo). They attempt to remove each other's clothes and the irritatingly excessive hi-tech equipment...and then Lilly is called away. "Damn!" Eastwood finally says, looking disappointed and annoyed. "I've got to put all that shit back on, damn it!"
John Malkovich was nominated for an Oscar for his electrifying, career-best performance as the villain. He does a sneeringly terrific job, pulling off multiple appearances as his character creates new disguises for himself. Malkovich has the look of a cool, calm killer as he relentlessly murders people without hesitation and only rarely losing his temper. When on the phone to Eastwood's character, he's menacing and chilling. Apparently to add further credibility to the frequent phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, they were filmed for real.

The rest of the cast are given the unfortunate task of working in the shadow of two tremendously talented actors. Rene Russo is likeable as always in her performance as the committed female Secret Service agent. The only real drawback of the film is in Russo's character. Not that her performance was faulty, but the way she was written is slightly disappointing. Being a love interest for Eastwood doesn't fit. In addition to the baffling age gap, it appears to weaken and cheapen the supposedly solid character. All other cast members do their job effectively.

Overall, In the Line of Fire is a fantastic political action-thriller that moves at an invigorating pace and provides solid entertainment for its 125-minute duration. The film benefits from top-notch moviemaking in every aspect. From directing to cinematography, editing to scoring, sound effects to visual effects...the faults are too scarce to notice. It's been a number of years since the film's initial release, yet it has hardly dated. Perhaps the digital insertion of Eastwood into old JFK footage is a little obvious, however little else is flawed. The film may not encompass the outlandish action of Con Air or Peterson's later Air Force One, but nevertheless the film stands confidently on its own merits.

9.2/10

Darren Aronofsky is a director primarily recognised for being at the helm of such films as Pi and Requiem for a Dream. The Fountain is an ambitious personal project of Aronofsky's that the director had been striving to accomplish for several years. Nuisances behind the scenes caused various complications that resulted in many delays. One would assume that a production of such exertion would generate impressive results. However, The Fountain is a vapid and confusing mess that isn't even remotely close to the masterpiece that we've been lead to believe it is. While the director passionately worked to achieve a serious and profoundly deep visionary film, Aronofsky instead delivered an ultimately pretentious and self-indulgent slice of cinema that lacks any emotional resonance.

The film may have gathered a congregation of ardent fans that defend the film incessantly, but there are many who generally loathe the film (myself included). The debate has been stated that those who don't like the film just don't "get it" and aren't "mature enough" to understand the underlying themes and alleged brilliance of The Fountain. That statement, however, can also be debated. It all boils down to a matter of opinion. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many respected critics (even the Rotten Tomatoes meter is shockingly low), The Fountain is an awfully conceited and hollow movie that recurrently formulates futile attempts to belie this fact.

In essence, The Fountain is a story concerning the search for the Fountain of Youth (here represented by the Tree of Life). The narrative is broken into three separate chunks, each taking place in a different timeframe.
The crux of the story unfolds in present day. Tommy (Jackman) is a scientist working day and night to cure the cancer afflicting his wife Izzi (Weisz). His behaviour during experiments and surgery lead his colleagues to believe he's becoming reckless and obsessive.
In a parallel storyline, Tomás (also Jackman) is a 16th century conquistador sent by Queen Isabel (Weisz again) to venture into the jungles of South America to find the Tree of Life mentioned in the Bible. Mayan mythology plays a crucial role in these proceedings. Many interpretations exist regarding this portion of the storyline. One popular interpretation is that these characters are featured in the novel written by present-day Izzi. Another version states that the present-day characters could be remembering past lives. Like everything in this movie, there is little explication. Aronofsky wants his audience to think and draw their own conclusions.
The final piece of the story involves a futuristic version of Tom (still Jackman) and the ghost of Izzi (Weisz...as usual) floating through deep space in a bubble encompassing the tree.

The film is a deep philosophical journey, and a spiritual mediation on mankind's mortality. So what is writer/director Aronofsky aiming to say with The Fountain? "Death is a disease," Tom says at one stage. "It's like any other. And there is a cure." This prospect reverberates through contemporary society; a society that desires to cheat age, sickness, and death. As a counteraction to Tom's view, Izzi begs the question, "What if death were an act of creation?" Aronofsky appears to be suggesting that death should be accepted and embraced, and everybody can achieve immortality through the circle of life - we die, we are buried, we become part of the Earth, and perhaps we then become a component of something else...a tree, a flower, a butterfly, etc.

My views on The Fountain are somewhat mixed. I might as well get the positives out of the way first. Hugh Jackman beautifully handles the material, as does Rachel Weisz. They share wonderful chemistry and light up the frame whenever they're together. In addition, the beautiful melancholy soundtrack provokes some emotion and thought. Aronofsky also presents us with arresting visuals achieved through incredible methods. The director felt using CGI would date the film in later years, and he desired to bestow The Fountain with timelessness. He used micro-photography to capture chemical reactions in petri dishes. The effect works extraordinarily well. It also gives the film a more "organic" feel. The atmosphere always strikes the right notes.

But the negatives overpower the film's strengths. The Fountain is a film that never lets you in, so to speak. The characters, despite being executed by able actors, lack depth. They never act like flesh-and-blood humans. They are mere symbols...and we therefore feel nothing for them. We just don't care about the characters! The love story between Tom and Izzi could have moved one to tears. But even with the great performances, the love story seems contrived and unrealistic.

The most lethal flaw, though, is that it seldom makes sense. Aronofsky is too focused on creating art in his visual presentation that there is little lying underneath. A majority of the film is without adequate explication. Too many things are so damn confusing! The popular thoughts floating around in my head during the film were: "What just happened?", "Why did that just happen?" and "I don't get it." If one examines ambiguous masterpieces such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko or 2001: A Space Odyssey, the interpretations surrounding the proceedings are thoroughly fascinating. All is forgiven because the aforementioned films are thoroughly provoking. The Fountain isn't provocative. It's pretentious and asks too much of its audience. Due to this, all the interpretations seem dreary instead of interesting.

The definitive insult is the unsatisfying ending. The film will leave you cold. It may seem clever to a screenwriter who knows what point he's making, but it's unfair to an audience. It's almost as if Aronofsky genuinely believed he was making another landmark film akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey. But Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece isn't even mildly threatened by the loathsome The Fountain. A comparison between 2001 and The Fountain isn't flattering to the latter. 2001 may seem like a succession of pretty pictures; however Kubrick had the good sense to do more - his shots are incredibly arresting, and are infused with some of the world's finest music. The perplexing nature of 2001 works so well that words fail me. This effect cannot be replicated by anyone. Not even Kubrick himself could equal or better his film.

The loyal fans who praise The Fountain have now used negative reviews of 2001: A Space Odyssey as evidence that The Fountain is a "misunderstood masterpiece" that will be bequeathed with the recognition it deserves in many years. The claim may seem relevant, but it's wholly misguided. One can find negative reviews of any canonised film. It doesn't make sense that a film that receives poor reviews will eventually be highly acclaimed. I mean, I certainly don't expect Uwe Boll films like BloodRayne or Alone in the Dark to replace Citizen Kane on the AFI Top 100 in a few years.

The production troubles that plagued The Fountain are widely known. Originally the budget was quite high, and production commenced in Australia in 2002. But original lead actor Brad Pitt (his co-star at that time was Cate Blanchett) left the project due to creative differences. Those funding the film pulled the plug, and the project was scrapped. Aronofsky worked to get the film off the ground again. Eventually the budget was cut in half and production was initiated with Jackman and Weisz portraying the central characters. The film's short length probably didn't give the director the opportunity to execute everything he wanted to do. Consequently, the film is a clunky mess. This was reflected in the poor box office takings.

Overall, The Fountain is a film that yielded very disappointing results. Believe me: I wanted to like the film. I had heard many things about it from the dedicated fans. Some claimed that the film bettered 2001: A Space Odyssey. (This is also a film courtesy of director Darren Aronofsky. I very much liked Requiem for a Dream.) I was therefore intrigued to see what the ruckus was about. Unfortunately, this is a tragic case of style over substance. Aronofsky is so committed to the images and nothing else. In fact, the film has "visual masterpiece" written all over it - which is exactly why it isn't one! Aronofsky was obviously so confident that this film would be praised endlessly, and his pomposity is reflected in the final product. The Fountain is confusing and baffling, with too many uninteresting diverse interpretations. This is the kind of stuff that works better as a novel.

5.2/10