Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Teeth is a contemporary low-budget horror movie featuring an unusual twist. Where Hostel, Saw and several other modern horror movies flaunt murders attributed to twisted serial killers, director Mitchell Lichtenstein manages to avoid the genre stereotypes, offering something different and innovative. On the surface it appears to be a horror film based on an ancient legend of the 'Vagina Dentata', but it's also a coming-of-age story and an insightful social commentary on contemporary perspectives of sex. Teeth has been much discussed since its premiere at the Sundance, gaining much notoriety. Since its initial premiere, the film has gathered a few loyal fans as well as the inevitable number of haters. By no means is this a terrible film...however in no way is this a horror masterpiece. Despite the elevated originality, it's hard to overlook the thin plot and the film's frequent descent into stupidity and silliness.

Dawn (Weixler) is an attractive high school virgin and a devoted component of her local chastity club. Similar to most modern teenage girls, Dawn strictly adheres to a vow of abstinence - i.e. she will remain a virgin until marriage. Dawn finds it difficult to remain focused on her vow with stepbrother Brad's (Hensley) inappropriate behaviour, not to mention the fact that Brad has sexual desires for Dawn. Little does Dawn realise that she's a living representation of the 'Vagina Dentata' - this literally means that she possesses a set of sharp, dangerous mutant teeth in her vagina. After her supposedly likeminded boyfriend forces himself upon her...the vagina begins chomping and her boyfriend's death is the outcome. This is just the beginning as this powerful tale of female empowerment only grows increasingly twisted and disturbing.

Teeth was marketed as a horror/comedy hybrid. The film could only work as a cross between horror and comedy, simply because no-one will ever take the concept seriously. And as a comedy...the horror scenes are too ghastly and difficult to stomach for someone searching for a straightforward comedy.

Director Mitchell Lichtenstein proves competent behind the camera with a limited budget. He is aware of how preposterous the concept is, so he inserts some subtle dark humour. Many of the "chomping" scenes are hilarious beyond all belief. Just the noise of a set of teeth between Dawn's legs... munching on a man's joy department...it will have you in fits of laughter. I must give kudos to Lichtenstein for not following the B-Grade horror path. If it was totally B-Grade, and he was proud of it, we probably would have seen a giant vagina monster with teeth...salivating and laughing in sinister ways. Who knows how cool that could have been, or how much of a travesty it could have been.

Considering the low-budget origins, the acting on offer isn't too bad. It's Jess Weixler's show as she's the one with the mutant vagina. Jess is well-nuanced as she conveys necessary humour, ambivalence and self-doubt in her portrayal. John Hensley isn't too bad as Dawn's brother from hell. On the other hand, acting from some of the other cast members is quite atrocious. The gynaecologist in particular sounds contrived and unrealistic. Not to mention a few school children extras who look as if they've just endured a monotonous multiple-day lecture on politics. For your typical low-budget Sundance feature, the sub-par acting is generally to be expected.

Teeth has a few jolts, jumps and unpredictable twists up its sleeve. It's a grave disservice to the filmmakers to dismiss the film based solely on its premise. If you're one of those people, then the movie probably isn't for you anyway. At no point is it difficult to believe the premise due to the realistic prosthetic effects and the haunting noises. For an indie feature, the acting is standard but the director should be proud of his efforts. It sometimes follows the horror template while also being a potent commentary on abstinence and the growing restrictions. The film is marred overwhelmingly by its temptation to become very silly and stupid, sometimes preposterous, as well as unconvincing acting playing its part.

5.5/10

Amy Heckerling single-handedly created the "chick flick" genre with Clueless: this hilarious, creative, original and delightful teen comedy that launched the career of actress Alicia Silverstone (who unfortunately never capitalised on her success and is now treacherously skirting on "Former Celebrities: Where Are They Now?" territory).

Heckerling's Clueless is a modern appropriation of Jane Austen's Emma, faithfully paralleling the story in terms of plot and characterisation. Both Austen's original novel and Heckerling's 1995 film are satires of their respective societies, using the most suitable medium as a vehicle to convey their social parodies. Although Emma is now considered a canonical text, at the time of the initial publication audiences would have perceived the novel the same way as audiences saw Clueless. The target audiences for both texts contrast enormously: Emma being aimed at the upper class and the aristocrats of the patriarchal society at the time, whereas Clueless appealed to the female teen audience. The audiences that have been enlightened by both texts acquire an insight into the morals and ethics created by the characters in their different societies that possess a certain degree of poignancy and realism.

The plot of Clueless closely follows the formula established with Austen's Emma. Director Heckerling, who wrote the screenplay, employs the Bildungsroman approach to storytelling. 16-year-old teenager Cher Horowitz (Silverstone) is your typical high school student living in Beverly Hills. She's extremely popular at school, and lives off her father's affluence. Her best friend is a teenager named Dionne (Dash). According to Cher, her and Dionne "were both named after great singers of the past that now do infomercials". Due to Cher's charm and social status she has a distinct penchant for meddling in the affairs of others and manipulating people to her advantage, which she justifies by thinking she's doing them a favour. After hooking up two lonely teachers to boost her grades, Cher then undertakes her next "project": to take the new "clueless" arrival at her school, Tai (Murphy), under her wing to give her a makeover and transform her into someone desirable.

The indubitable highlights of Clueless are the various one-liners and clever satire that permeate the dialogue and the voice-overs. Heckerling frequently employs hyperboles to provide a viewpoint of its female characters: their obsession with make-up, fashion, phones and the most expensive material goods possible. These character depictions are frequently hilarious. This film is extremely charming, bright and is of a pleasant nature. It moves at a fast pace and it's virtually impossible to feel bored. You will want more when the film is over.

Alicia Silverstone is ideal in the title role. Complete with pseudo-philosophical voice-overs and a chaotic lexicon of teenage vernacular, Silverstone possesses the correct amount of dizzy charisma to carry out her duties as the title female character. A spoiled brat Silverstone's character may be, but an endearing one all the same. The conclusion, obvious as it is, is gratifying. However, this film lives and dies by its supporting cast. Said supporting cast is nothing short of impeccable. Actors like Breckin Meyer, Stacey Dash, Brittany Murphy, Paul Rudd, and Wallace Shawn (among countless others) are of a high standard. The film may seem predictable and dumb on paper, but these actors carry Heckerling's screenplay stylishly. Due to the great cast all round, the film pays off in spades. It's a shame that Silverstone's career became so lacklustre after this film launched her to fame. (I think her prime problem was agreeing to star in Batman & Robin...)

Overall, Clueless is a film I never expected to like...but did. If you can get past the predictability and the clichés, you'll see a very decent film on offer. Pervaded with an endless supply of creative laughs and a sense of poignancy, even guys will find themselves having loads of fun. Essentially, the film is Beverly Hills 90210 meets Jane Austen's Emma: a union of modernised 19th century social expectations with contemporary teenage characters.

7.8/10

Ultraviolet is high-concept, visually spectacular science fiction movie...it is also a criminal waste of both time and talent. Audiences may remember director Kurt Wimmer's initial success with the film Equilibrium. That was a highly impressive, taut action movie with an underlying message regarding the cost of being human. The established fans of Wimmer probably aimed their expectations unfathomably high when Ultraviolet was announced. Could this be another massive cult hit like The Matrix? Unfortunately, the emphatic answer is NO! It's difficult to describe all things that went wrong, as the answer is pretty much everything. The film is so dreadful, in fact, that finding the positives would prove so hard and stating the negatives is virtually redundant.

Critics and audiences alike expressed their hatred for Ultraviolet and after watching the film with high hopes, I can see why. Practically everything on show here is below average - it features an incompetent script, terrible acting, bleak directing that never generates a moment of engagement, and the entire film doesn't make a lick of sense as the exposition is drowned out by the action.

The film's setting reflects that of 2005's Aeon Flux and the plot is essentially identical. Human society has been decimated by a holocaust caused by biological warfare gone wrong. The objective of the research was to create super-soldiers with superhuman abilities...instead this materialises into a destructive virus. Said virus infects humans and transforms them into Hemophages - a sub-species with enhanced physical aptitude and vampire characteristics. Violet (Jovovich) is an infected woman battling the totalitarian dictator who is determined to wipe out her species at any cost. She steals the recently developed secret weapon...and discovers that this weapon is in fact a young boy named Six (Bright) who encompasses valuable antigens. With Violet's species wanting to eliminate Six, and the government desiring for Six's return to their facilities...let the mayhem commence.

The Hemophages are not vampires as some have said, and Ultraviolet is not a vampire movie. The species possess a few characteristics of the vampires - like teeth and sensitivity to bright light - but they don't suck blood and sleep in coffins. It's a shame, though, because that'd be something far more interesting than this.

Ultraviolet is dumb, big, loud and overblown. The sometimes impressive and colourful visuals are never grounded in any degree of credibility. Worse yet, there's no heart behind anything. The action scenes are entertaining for sure; however never are they riveting, and never is there any point! Precious little exposition means we're travelling from one needless action scene to the next. By the film's conclusion you'll be scratching your head with confusion. There is no meaningful narrative - setting up the plot is restricted to a few minutes of an excruciating voiceover. Considering the bad dialogue we do have, maybe it was for the best that it's kept to a minimum.

Worse yet, the action is awkwardly shot and stultifyingly repetitive. The overabundance of corny visual effects makes the action inscrutable. Occasionally it is entertaining and fun to watch...but not past the first 5 minutes. The use of swords mirrors Kill Bill in a sense. But here the action is seriously lacking blood. It's sanitary to extremes, ergo growing tiresome very quickly. And when the characters begin talking, they're twisting their tongues around dialogue so unswervingly awful it sounds like a feebly translated dub track.

The CGI is sub-par as well. Apparently it was to give the impression of a comic book, but this fails badly. Sometimes I honestly thought the CGI was a joke. The characters are also atom-thin, with acting that makes the proceedings seem like a corny melodrama. So neither the action, visuals, nor dialogue redeem this putrid mess! I will admit that the first 10 minutes did have me mildly interested and it saved the film from complete disaster. Things only go downhill from there. Wimmer's lens contains as much style as a monkey with a paint brush...and most shots resemble a poor man's video game.

2.3/10

For lack of a better word, 10,000 BC is genuine crap: a primitive, braindead, overblown, boring, glaringly stupid, distractingly historically inaccurate production that proves to be an exorbitant waste of both time and money.

Director Roland Emmerich is not an unfamiliar face to movie audiences. He's remembered for his previous crowd-pleasing epics including Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow and several others. The man is unable to think small. In fact, I don't think the word is even in his vocabulary. Even worse, I don't think he's even heard of the word "quality" when it comes to filmmaking. He usually makes light-hearted features with the intention of basking in the glory of box office profits. To date, people frequently regard his worst movie as Godzilla. This is understandable considering the disastrous outcome of that blockbuster. 10,000 BC easily dethrones Godzilla as Emmerich's worst movie. Where Godzilla was at least mildly entertaining in its scope and scale of action, 10,000 BC has nothing to even remotely interest an audience.
We never expected a masterpiece, of course, but we at least expected a lavish spectacle featuring impressive visual effects and a sense of escapism. We never expected a mind-bendingly lacklustre effort that provokes more questions than answers, and forever appears to be reaching for a specific MPAA rating as opposed to crafting a complete movie experience.

The plot, if it can even be called as such, concerns some tribe of cavemen in the year 10,000 B.C. The opening narration sets up the story as being about "destiny, myth and legend". He probably should have introduced the story as being about science fiction and pure fantasy, because that's exactly what we're given. Anyway, the protagonist (I think he's the protagonist. Just like every other character in the film he's poorly distinguished and has no discernable personality. I think he's the main character because he's just given the most screen-time) is a guy named D'Leh (Strait). For some reason he's "destined" to marry some girl named Evolet (Belle). We're never told why they're in love, and why they're meant to be together...apparently it's just convoluted mumbo jumbo concerning fate. After D'Leh's tribe is attacked by a horde of so-called "demons", D'Leh now tries to accomplish two things: remove the strain of his father's so-called cowardice, and rescue Evolet from those who kidnapped her. Cue plenty of boring dialogue, remove the small evidence of a plot, introduce a few beasts, set up a few action scenes...and this is the result.

The script feels like it was written by a room of fourth-graders. Either that, or director Emmerich was desperate for ideas so he stole a few stories from local kids. The problem is, one wishes that the story was penned by children much younger...because then at least we'd have characters battling T-Rexes. It'd be preposterous, but no more absurd than what we already have.

We feel most cheated at the lack of ambition. The director's previous movies weren't masterpieces; however they were adequately entertaining at least. With this film, the action scenes fail to be eye-popping, the special effects look mediocre at best, and there's never any intensity to keep one on riveted. The concluding battle amidst pyramids is also far from captivating. It never serves any purpose...but apparently this is an action movie so a final action sequence just had to be necessary. Because the filmmakers were aiming for a watered down rating to attract the biggest box office gross possible, everything fails in this final battle. With lack of blood or gore, we're watching as people lightly hit someone else and they die. Or even worse, an arrow that has barely broken the skin proves lethal. The lack of blood acts a microcosm for everything that's wrong with this film. With the sanitised violence, everything else is dumbed down into horrific stereotypes. The climactic battle is perhaps the worst mass action scene in current film history. Not plainly due to its lunacy (that does play a rather large part), but because there's never a sense of conflict or even a build-up to it. Everything just...happens, hopeful to come off as an extravagant event. It's just blasé and unimaginative.

So all we have in terms of action apart from this pyramid battle and a mammoth battle is giant chickens and a sabre-toothed tiger. The giant chicken attacks could have been brutal and graphic, instead we see poorly orchestrated action and we cannot make out what's going on for the most part due to low light and poorly designed locations. And as for the tiger...nothing happens. It's a cameo where the main character becomes a feline whisperer. It doesn't attack the protagonist. Why? Become D'Leh saved the tiger's life, and the tiger remembers this event.

This big turkey also commits a cardinal sin of boring the audience. If they weren't going to introduce epic battles with rampaging dinosaurs, Emmerich could have at least thrown us a frickin' bone! It never happens. Also, the cast deliver deadpan performances. They remain solemn and serious...never any smile, never a sense of humour to be uncovered. But the worst has yet to come...the main characters speak perfect English the whole time while the enemies speak sinister gibberish with subtitles. Both the English dialogue and the grunting dialogue is poorly written and cheesy. Also, every character has perfect 21st century dental. Even some of the protagonists have dreadlocks. Maybe this unspecified land eventually became Jamaica...

Overall, 10,000 BC deserves all the panning it took. This is the worst big budget movie in recent memory. You'll be laughing at the funny climax where people lightly hit each other, resulting in immediate death. It looks so fake and staged, in fact, that in its already terrible context I can imagine a warrior hitting someone and saying "Sorry, old chap, was that a little too hard?" Hey, at least then the film could have had an intentionally comedic undertone to it.
The film never gives its audience any reward for the lead-up. It's not entertaining at all, to the point that every scene and every frame is excruciatingly boring. I had to pause the film multiple times to refill my coffee as I was falling asleep. Even then, the caffeine levels weren't sufficient. On the other hand the film doesn't have any historical insight either. What are we left with? Dull, monotonous, appalling and drastically un-entertaining epic fluff that proves to be as primitive as a cave painting. Everything is missing - an entertainment value, a sense of excitement, and even the punctuation for "B.C."

1.4/10

In Hollywood, it's an extraordinarily scarce occurrence to behold an action film that isn't afraid to push the boundaries in terms of violence and carnage. Wanted is an incredibly entertaining, hardcore action film submerged in an ocean dominated by lacklustre sequels and films that are hopelessly overhyped. With 2008's summer line-up featuring The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Get Smart, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull among several others, it's a breath of fresh air to witness a production such as this.

At its core, Wanted is an amalgamation of The Matrix and Shoot 'Em Up. It's a combination of jaw-droppingly awesome action with thrilling plot twists and complex characters. Timur Bekmambetov proves to be a foreign action director with a keen grasp of the action genre. This is his first American movie, and he proves that he's the most exciting action émigré since John Woo. Better yet, this isn't mindless action garbage. In a season featuring predictable action yarn, Wanted offers adequate twists, turns and revelations to even deceive viewers who believe they know the story.

The film is based on a series of comic books, but don't be fooled - this isn't Spider-Man, Batman or some other comic book adaptation for the kiddies...this is a graphic, hardcore, mature and adult adaptation not to be taken lightly. Instead of some costume-donning superhero, Wanted tells the tale of one lethargic nobody's transformation into a supreme enforcer of justice.
Wesley Gibson (McAvoy) is bored with his insignificant existence. By day he's dwelling in an office cubicle as an accountant while his boss chews his ear off constantly...by night his girlfriend is either ignoring him or whining constantly. He seems like an ordinary bloke until it's revealed that he's the son of a professional assassin. Following the death of his estranged father, Wesley is recruited into a secret society known as the Fraternity. Wesley is trained to follow in his father's footsteps and ascend to the rank of a first-rate, expert assassin.

Director Bekmambetov indulges in an abundance of carnage and destruction. Unlike various American action directors (such as Michael Bay), Bekmambetov appreciates pacing and intensification: action scenes escalate the film's intensity, and each sequence is overflowing with ingenious gags or gimmicks. This is one example of slow motion being employed more effectively. I commonly abhor the use of slo-mo, but here it's elegant, classy and valuable. Many of the director's distinguishing cinematic techniques are mind-blowing. Every action scene is pervaded with adrenaline and innovative filmmaking. Insert a score courtesy of Danny Elfman and you can't go wrong!
On top of that, the script is smart enough to stay away from clichés and preposterous dialogue. Granted the final 20 minutes become increasingly silly, but it's still a fun ride to take. The frequent plot twists are skilfully written and well-realised. The final half in particular is overflowing with shocking surprises.

James McAvoy proves an excellent casting choice to pull off a tricky role. Think Fight Club meets Office Space before tossing in some James Bond. McAvoy is charming and charismatic, while also being occasionally scary. He's given a great script to work with.
Angelina Jolie has never been much of an actress as her prime talent is that body of hers...but her character never calls for any Oscar moments. She is determined to do what she can.
Morgan Freeman is impeccable as the enigmatic leader of the Fraternity: Sloan. One of the film's highlights is Freeman exclaiming "Kill that motherf**ker!" I think he's taking his influences from Samuel L. Jackson.
For me, Thomas Kretschmann was the standout performer. Unfortunately he isn't utilised frequently enough, and is confined to a minor role. The actor still delivers one of the most memorable performances.

Overall, Wanted is stuck in a filmmaking age dominated by watered down action flicks. Films as hardcore as this are a rarity, so be sure not to miss this one! This is also a blueprint of a hardcore action film done right. Like Stallone's Rambo, films like these give action fans a glimmer of hope for the future.

7.9/10

The Long Kiss Goodnight is a substantially entertaining action romp in a similar vein to typical action vehicles such as Die Hard (director Harlin also helmed Die Hard 2), or films from the bona fide 80s action stars like Stallone and Arnie. The film is convincingly elevated above your typical action thriller, simply due to an assortment of fantastic actors and a fascinating plot.
Following the disastrous Cutthroat Island, director Harlin and star Geena Davis needed a film to resurrect their respective careers. This is an exceedingly effective tool for both of them, thanks mainly to the advantage of working from a sharp and playful script penned by Shane Black. Screenwriter Black possesses a penchant for action movies: he can generate comical one-liners, riveting stories and even better...leaves plenty of room for an abundance of violent action. Personally, I'm a sucker for a quality action movie and virtually seek out hardcore carnage. Being a massive fan of Shane Black's previous films (like Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout), I felt compelled to visit this film...and I thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

Samantha Caine (Davis) is a suburban mother who suffers from amnesia. For 8 years she has lived her new life with no knowledge of who she once was. Despite hiring endless private detectives to uncover information about her past life, there has been no success. Samantha now has loving husband Hal (Amandes) and young daughter Caitlin (Zima) to support her, so she elects to simply disregard her former identity. Samantha is a successful school teacher living an ideal suburban existence. But after a car accident, she receives a bump on the head and she starts evoking recollections of her past while recovering. The government recognises Samantha as an assassin named Charline Baltimore who was supposedly killed several years earlier. Following an attack on her life during which she was capable of defending herself skilfully, her curiosity about her past amplifies. A cheap private investigator named Mitch (Jackson) obtains a lucky break in illuminating the information of Samantha/Charline's past. While being hunted, Samantha/Charline partners with Mitch to finally expose the truth of her identity. As usual, some convoluted government conspiracy is uncovered.

Now that the slender plot has been established, the action rapidly commences. In tradition with routine 80s style action flicks, the violence and carnage is unbelievably ruthless at times. The Long Kiss Goodnight flaunts some remarkable action sequences. Stunts and special effects are first-rate, with a booming sound mix for a towering entertainment value. When it comes to the action, never is an erroneous foot trodden. Harlin's lens captures the action sequences with immense elegance and visual finesse. However, Shane Black's script suffers from a number of problems. Predictably, we're offered with an abundance of clichés. We can also safely predict the outcome of the events. Sometimes we're also given dialogue that serves no purpose other than to provide a cheap laugh (plenty of guilty pleasures, I admit). However, this build-up is worth it for the spectacular climax and final showdown. It's exaggerated, over-the-top and silly...but it's fun!

The cast certainly elevate the otherwise flawed screenplay. Geena Davis is granted the daunting task of undertaking dual roles: that of an innocent suburban house-wife, and a brutal assassin whose language is relentless. Davis pulls it off. Samuel L. Jackson is always a fantastic choice for a foul-mouthed, raving side-kick. I'm particularly fond of Jackson in Die Hard - With a Vengeance where he played opposite Bruce Willis. This is the same kind of character: very comical, very well written and dexterously realised. Craig Bierko is a stellar villain. Other great additions to the cast include Brian Cox, David Morse and a young Yvonne Zima.

Overall, The Long Kiss Goodnight will be gleefully devoured by action fans. Most of the film's fun is derived from the Davis/Jackson coupling and several frantic action scenes, though there are script flaws in place. Action masterpieces are rare, so just enjoy indulging in this entertaining action romp.

7.0/10

Rear Window is an undemanding lesson in accomplishing perfection from simplicity. This classic film was the creation of Alfred Hitchcock during one of his last grand creative spells. In the years to follow, the all-time master of suspense produced such classics as Vertigo and Psycho.
Rear Window is Hitchcock's supreme cinematic creation, his crowning triumph and the feather in his cap. With this particular production, the director influenced thrillers and their formulas still decades following its release. Rear Window is a film that invents the clichés. Preceding Hitchcock's masterpiece, said clichés didn't exist. The certain formula didn't exist either. Ergo, a modern audience labelling the film as "clichéd" or "predictable" is both unjust and unfair. Taking the film's age into account, this is a faultless production that unfortunately gave birth to millions of subsequent reproductions. The film is a multi-faceted production enriched and permeated with screenplay integrity, realism, credibility and originality. On top of this, Hitchcock's competently entrancing direction is capable of keeping an audience enthralled from start to finish.

Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, Rear Window, is a riveting thriller pervaded with tension and a spellbinding atmosphere. It's truly a gem and a half! Everyone has at least heard of this production. If one hasn't seen it, they're probably sick of the hype, praise and acclaim. Be that as it may, there is a reason why Rear Window is held in high regard over 50 years since its initial release. The crux of its perfection is within its straightforwardness. It's probable to argue that the film is supported by an exceedingly boring concept, as the film's events concern one person in one room. Mind you, that one person is actor James Stewart...and that one room is an intricate creation augmented with authenticity and absorbing panorama. Moreover, this is Alfred Hitchcock we're discussing. That director has forever been regarded as the master of suspense. Although countless have endeavoured, no other directors can competently tackle the genre like Mr. Hitchcock. His filmmaking allure lies in his ability to keep an audience captivated and interested. This is achieved by employing attention-grabbing camera movements and a succession of proceedings grounded in gripping realism.

This simple story is set in the apartment of successful, professional globe-trotting photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jefferies (James Stewart). After an unfortunate incident during an assignment, Jeff becomes confined to a wheelchair in his boring apartment. Jeff is faced with sheer boredom and, with nothing else to do, he begins spying on his neighbours. With the occasional visit of his nurse (Ritter) and beautiful girlfriend Carol (Kelly), there's plenty of time for Jeff to become consumed in the private dramas of his neighbours. One night his voyeuristic activities pay off when Jeff believes that he witnesses a murder. Salesman Lars Thorwald (Burr), living in the neighbouring apartment building, begins acting suspiciously after the unexplained disappearance of his nagging wife. Gradually, Jeff builds his investigation and he becomes increasingly convinced that the salesman is guilty of murder. While he steadily gathers evidence, Jeff draws others to his intrigue.

Witty, enthralling, poignant, comical and prudent - Rear Window challenges an audience with its connivance in the stories witnessed. Hitchcock also works up the film to one of cinema's greatest hero-and-killer confrontations. This confrontation is particularly memorable for Thorwald's acquiescent perplexity that a stranger would be interested in his certain life, let alone keen to expose his secrets. Flawless...essential.
Hitchcock's camera remains in one apartment, with very few exceptions. Despite sounding quite boring as we remain in one location for the film's entirety, Rear Window is an absorbing film crammed with limitless suspense. Hitchcock is of course the master of suspense, so you'll find many moments here when it's difficult to draw a breath. The director keeps his audience enthralled and engrossed until the unforgettable climax. The classic touches from a classic director are truly hard to beat. He can raise a clever grin occasionally while keeping an audience riveted and on the edge of their seat.

The single location is also an extremely fascinating one. Cleverly, the focus isn't directly on the murder plot. The characters are occasionally entangled in the dramas unfolding in other apartments. We are introduced to a cavalcade of people, and the short character development is effective despite being brief. The script is always taut and there is never a wasted frame. Hitchcock always uses his visuals to tell his story with further intrigue and suspense without relying solely on music. Silence, in fact, provides some of the film's most terrifying moments. Even better, the focus is on the protagonist and his story. The ending may seem rushed as the explanation is revealed very quickly, but this is one of the best decisions on Hitchcock's part in my opinion. It reminds the audience that we're following Jeff, and only a few moments of pure exposition were necessary. It also shows the build up of tension in Thorwald that eventually bursts open forcefully...he becomes ready to confess. This is a rare film that flaunts excellence and perfection in just about every aspect.

James Stewart's performance was absolutely essential. As we're spending the duration of the film in a single location with a chief protagonist, it was a necessity for Stewart to exude charm and charisma to keep the audience enthralled. Stewart has always been one of the screen's greatest performers. Partner him with Alfred Hitchcock and you simply cannot go wrong. For every shot...every frame...Stewart never strikes a false note. He's also fascinating and he possesses a particularly engaging voice. The eminence of his performance is demonstrated in the nuances, and none are superior to the expression of reprieve as he relieves the itches caused by the plaster cast. Stewart is simply so darned excellent in any role he tackles! Alongside Stewart, the beautiful Grace Kelly appears as the love interest that becomes entangled and obsessed with uncovering evidence to prove a man guilty of murder. At the time of release, Grace Kelly was one of the screen's greatest beauties and she abundantly reminds us of this. Thelma Ritter brings a delightful comedic sense to her role as Jeff's nurse. Across the entire film, there is an evident ring of excellence around the entire cast (no, not the cast on Jeff's leg).

Not only is Hitchcock a master of the thriller genre, he's also one of the greatest directors of all time. In his career he directed several memorable masterpieces such as North by Northwest, Psycho, Rebecca, Vertigo and several others. No-one then or now could match Hitchcock's large quantity of quality masterpieces. They say it's impossible for a director to helm more than 2 or 3 masterpieces in his career. Hitchcock transcends this expectation. Rear Window is his best film in my opinion. Everything about the film is pure perfection. If there was a rating higher than 5/5 or 10/10, then Rear Window would undoubtedly wear that rating with aplomb.

Several film buffs and cinema enthusiasts would concur that there's no such thing as a perfect movie. In my opinion, that statement is highly incorrect. This is a masterpiece of the highest order: a faultless marriage of tension, romance, drama and mystery with undertones of intrigue. Cunningly manipulative in optimum Hitchcock elegance, as well as managing to offer us with a complete gamut of human emotions and intrinsic idiosyncrasies all from the vantage point of just the one room: there is good reason why Rear Window is regarded as a classic masterpiece. With an impeccably selected cast, a virtuoso script courtesy of John Michael Hayes and a man who was probably the most creative director to ever draw breath...it simply lacks nothing. The best aspect is in its ability to build effectively until you abruptly realise that you're completely engrossed in this cinematic universe and you don't want the film to end. You cannot afford to miss this one.

10/10

At its heart, The Ice Harvest is a contemporary film noir, and a brutal thriller with splashes of black humour throughout. Director Harold Ramis is perhaps best remembered for the bespectacled nerd in Ghostbusters. Ramis made more of an impression as a director when he helmed such films as Groundhog Day and Analyze This. The director adopts a completely different approach with The Ice Harvest. Instead of light-hearted fun, this film appears to be a dark comedy reminiscent of a Coen Brothers creation (like Fargo). The initial two thirds of the film are overflowing with humorous moments, but the final act is frankly something from the classic film noir genre. Love, betrayal, and murder...all the elements are present.

The Ice Harvest appears to be struggling in its attempt to marry the genres of dark comedy and a thriller. There are several notable moments of ingenious humour for sure that'll keep one entertained. But the dialogue isn't as adequately snappy as we've previously witnessed in a Coen Brothers production or similar films. There are various other script flaws to be pointed out, like the senseless violence and the indescribable stupidity at times, but at least you're guaranteed to find yourself entertained and having loads of fun.

In the ice-covered terrain of Wichita, Kansas, it's Christmas Eve. Charlie Arglist (Cusack) is an attorney for the sleazy businessman in Wichita. He and his unsavoury partner Vic Cavanaugh (Thornton) successfully embezzle over $2 million from notorious Kansas City gangster Bill Guerrard (Quaid). It seems like the perfect crime, however both Charlie and Vic are stuck in Wichita until the instigation of their plan to escape town the next morning. The trouble is that with torrential rain and other inconvenient weather conditions, they're stuck in town until further notice. Even worse is that Charlie and Vic must leave town before Guerrard finds out about the massive embezzlement.
Charlie soon becomes interested in Renata (Nielsen) who runs a strip club. He pleads Renata to depart town and run away with him, but she'll only flee with him if she sees the money and is guaranteed of wealth. However, Vic has the money hidden...and Vic isn't the most trustworthy of individuals. This night before Christmas becomes filled with non-stop twists, turns and eccentric characters.

The creative team involved with The Ice Harvest is an aspect that fuelled my interest. With talented director Ramis and a great cast including John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton among many others, it's hard to imagine a faulty product. The cast certainly carry the film skilfully. John Cusack exudes a low-key charm. As always, he's a pleasure to watch and is capable of delivering snappy dialogue. Billy Bob Thornton emanates a discreet sliminess. At times he's very sinister and solemn, but he's still frequently very funny. Thornton elevates the mediocre script. Unfortunately he's relatively underutilised and his fans may be dissatisfied at his diminutive quantity of screen-time. Oliver Platt is also worth mentioning. Platt is hilarious as a character that's recurrently drunk and foul-mouthed. It's arduous not to laugh at his mannerisms.

The script and story of The Ice Harvest is above average. The story is original and the script compliments this with a distinct style of black humour. The grandest form of black humour is when it's possible to chuckle at awkward situations. You'll certainly uncover plenty of those moments. The cast deliver the dialogue with straight faces and in all sincerity. That alone is worth a laugh! Other memorable laughs are simply provided by some inappropriately crude dialogue. In contrast, the script fails when the third act thrusts into action. Things become increasingly stupid, and the brutality of the proceedings is more shocking than amusing. Still, the film is at least a lot of fun.

Overall, The Ice Harvest is a decent black comedy that is perceptibly inspired by Fargo or other films of the Coen Brothers. By no means is this a masterpiece, but it unquestionably entertains. The film is unfairly unobserved and underrated. Overlook the flaws as they're not too distracting, and you'll have a great time.

7.1/10

The Third Man is an indelibly memorable thriller - an impeccable blend of stylish film noir, drama and provocative mystery. The brilliance of this captivating masterpiece is continually reflected by critics worldwide. Look at the Top 10 list of a professional critic - it's guaranteed that you'll find movies such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather...and of course The Third Man will be featured. This alone symbolises its virtuosity, and gives one an idea of the company it keeps. The film is so mesmerising that even Martin Scorsese penned a treatise on the thriller as a film student. Now Scorsese is one of cinema's greatest directors. His inspirations for the thriller genre are derived heavily from The Third Man. The film is held in such high esteem, in fact, that it's hard to imagine a movie buff who hasn't watched it at least once. Further researching the critical acclaim, I truly cannot believe it took me so long to finally watch it. It isn't difficult to determine the reason behind the film's popularity; it has the correct actors, setting, mystery, atmosphere, humour and music. Director Carol Reed carves an expressionist wonderland of immense ominous shadows and peculiar camera angles - a world of an uneven balance where ethical order has descended as low as the everlasting sewers. Friendship, love and hope are extraneous ethics in the face of Harry Lime's Darwinistic philosophy...where the pursuit for veracity is a double-bladed sword.

It seems virtually redundant to provide a plot synopsis for this film, as it is assumed the plot is known among movie buffs and cinematic enthusiasts. The film's charm is also so overwhelming because very basic knowledge of the plot guarantees more enthralling viewing. Hence I shall provide a synopsis as I'm bound by my personal review-writing traditions, but I will be brief.
The Third Man finds moderately successful American pulp fiction novelist Holly Martins (Cotten) travelling to Vienna in its post-war period. Martins was lured to Vienna by old childhood friend Harry Lime (Welles) who promised him a job. Upon arrival he is soon informed that Harry tragically died fairly recently in a car accident. As the police investigate, Martins senses something more than an accident has occurred. He begins interviewing Harry's closest acquaintances and discovers stories that occasionally contradict the official line. Martins is told that two men dragged Harry off the road, while another witness claims three men were at the scene.
The title is derived from Martins' subsequent quest to uncover evidence regarding this enigmatic "third man".

Director Carol Reed was one of the most successful directors during the 1940s. His other films include Odd Man Out and The Fallen Idol. In later years directors such as Alfred Hitchcock would emerge with far more thriller masterpieces. With The Third Man, Reed has created a tour de force that he was never able to match previously or subsequently. Its potency and influence remains undimmed. No spurious nostalgia shrouds its strength and disparagement; the film is a faultless combination of the arts of directing, screenwriting and acting.

Cinematographer Robert Krasker earned an Oscar for his wonderful photography. The film is captured in glorious black and white: each shot is permeated with visual flare and intrigue, while bursting with cinematic elegance. There is never a wasted shot as every scene and every edit serves a narrative purpose. Vienna's grand architecture, its decrepit and deteriorated walls, and its ominously fog-enshrouded back streets institute a moody atmosphere that enhances the mysterious occurrences of the plot. Reed photographs the city from virtually every angle except straight-on. There's scarcely a direct angle to be witnessed. Everything is ever so vaguely cockeyed: this infuses the film with a peculiar, surrealistic eminence. The lighting is especially novel and innovative. The most memorable shot of the entire film is when Welles first appears...his enigmatic character being illuminated by a single light from a window that only reveals his unmistakable face. With every citizen looking malign, from infants to cab drivers, it's a combination to achieve a world where nothing is as it appears to be.

Camera techniques aside, The Third Man has yet another enthralling contribution to add: the haunting, remarkable, perfect zither music courtesy of musician Anton Karas. That tune...that main theme will haunt you repeatedly for days. It's absolutely impossible to forget the evocative use Anton's zither which is the only instrument used for the score. A paradoxical mix of the cheerful and melancholic...its frigid timbre encapsulates the alchemy of The Third Man and presents yet another dimension. This tone emphasises all of the action and is a crucial part of the picture...as important as the actors or plot. In fact, Anton's music became so popular that it made him a global star, and the theme became everlastingly linked with the film in viewers' minds. Yet its utilisation in the movie was a last minute decision. Director Reed discovered the musician playing tunes during a party just before the film went into production. Following small debates with the producers, Reed hired Karas to compose the musical score.

Apparently the title role was to be played by someone like James Stewart or Humphrey Bogart. All are great actors, but Joseph Cotton does a sublime job as Holly Martins. Cotten is spot on, contrasting a debonair urbanity with a discreet naiveté as he blunders into situations beyond his comprehension or hegemony. Orson Welles is perhaps best known for his celebrated classic Citizen Kane. Welles' glorious cameo lasts about five minutes, and he's introduced over an hour into the story as the enigmatic and mysterious Harry Lime. This is Welles' defining cinematic moment as he creates a persona far more complex and intricate than any other movie from his career. Out of the limited key scenes, Welles' lips generate words very scarcely. His story is told by the shadows and setting in addition to his hauntingly memorable dialogue. Also on display are fantastic performances from Alida Valli, Trevor Howard and a young Bernard Lee.

Overall, The Third Man remains a potent cinematic masterpiece. At times it's not as suspenseful as it wants to be, however this is essential viewing for anyone who calls themselves a movie buff. Carol Reed's The Third Man is essential for its mind-blowing technical merits and original story. Now the story may be looked upon as clichéd and unoriginal, but at the time of release it was unheard of. In later years films like Get Carter followed the formula of a civilian conducting his own investigation into the death of someone close. All these films have taken notes from this powerful classic. This is a revolutionary film noir that boasts truly passionate filmmaking and stunning central plot turns. Highly recommended!

9.2/10

2007 was ostensibly a crucial year for politically-charged movies. In addition to The Kingdom, audiences also witnessed such releases as Lions for Lambs, Rendition and In the Valley of Elah. It appears like a moderately insensitive move to generate box office profits from movies that address politics and tragedies in the form of popcorn cinema. In 2006, Paul Greengrass' United 93 was an example of a film that was made to tell a very powerful, uncompromising story without caring about the box office. 2007's Lions for Lambs was produced to broaden awareness of the political situation surrounding Iraq. They did this by plaguing the audience with endless dialogue for 90 long minutes. It was too disjointed to make a political statement and too boring to be an entertainment piece. The screenplay for The Kingdom was penned by Matthew Carnahan who also wrote Lions for Lambs. However, this film dials down the politics while enhancing the mayhem and action. The same principal still stands: the filmmakers were creating a popcorn flick with political messages for money. But unlike the boring Lions for Lambs, Peter Berg's The Kingdom is at least a solid slam-bang action thriller.

The genuinely captivating opening credits sequence informs the viewer of the story so far. It summarises the history of Saudi Arabia, the oil situation and the relationship with the United States. From there, the film is blessed with an incredibly tense and jaw-dropping scene that fundamentally sets up the plot. We are taken to a housing complex in the Saudi capital Riyadh where the residents are enjoying a pleasant game of softball with a summer BBQ. But chaos is the consequence when this location is utilised for a terrorist attack. While some civilians are senselessly gunned down, others are blown to pieces by a suicide bomber. Later that day, the FBI's lead agent in the country is annihilated in the aftershock.

When the FBI commences their investigation, Special Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) has the unenviable assignment of bringing the terrorists to justice for the deaths of the several American civilians that were killed in the terrorist attack. Soon Fleury is on his way to Riyadh with his investigation team in tow that consists of Special Agents Janet Mayes (Garner), Adam Leavitt (Bateman), and explosives expert Grant Sykes (Cooper). Upon arrival, their investigation is hindered by the Saudis. Fleury and his companions are nothing more than spectators who watch as the Saudi officials inadvertently contaminate the crime scene and neglect imperative evidence. They live and sleep in a gymnasium under lock and key. Even the US Embassy wants them on a plane and back home as hastily as possible. Fleury becomes fed up, and conducts more wheeling and dealing. The Saudi royals eventually give him the green light to take control the investigation. At this point the film turns into CSI: Saudi Arabia (as several critics have expressed). Fleury has only a few days for he and his team to solve the case.

The Kingdom is distinctively separated into three different genres. The opening terrorist attack establishes the film as a tense political thriller in the vein of Lions for Lambs. This first act also deals with political manoeuvring. Over into the second act, the genre switches to your typical investigative crime drama similar to CSI while the third act transforms proceedings into an explosive action film. Unfortunately, the film isn't as profound as it desires to be. It overshadows the political message with plenty of violent action. As a plus, it's at least profoundly fantastic entertainment. The Kingdom is also intensely pro-American. The central protagonists are chiefly Americans who excel in their area of expertise. It also seems to promote the message that Americans...only Americans...can perform a successful investigation such as the one at hand. While some heroic characters are Saudis, they are shown through painful stereotypes. Nevertheless, some cultural aspects that are depicted are quite memorable. When Garner's Janet Mayes is performing an autopsy she is not allowed to touch the body of a Muslim. The racial prejudice also grows more palpable during a scene when a civilian acts hostile around Saudi officials. The filmmakers at least drive this political message home: that after the 9/11 attacks, racial prejudice towards Muslims, etc, has increased.

Director Peter Berg has had little experience behind the camera. Before The Kingdom, he was probably best known for his efforts behind the camera for The Rundown and Friday Night Lights. Teaming up with producer Michael Mann, the filmmakers have adopted cinematography that essentially mirrors digital video shot with a typical home video camera. However, an enormous downfall is present in the cinematography: the tradition of shaky cam mixed with fast editing. Not only is this employed for action to "enhance the realism and get an audience engaged" (as the aim of the technique appears to be), but it's heavily utilised during straightforward dialogue as well. At times you can't figure out what is occurring without receiving a migraine. No longer is this idea novel and original. By dumping the technique and adopting the old school approach to action scenes, then it would be innovative. Camera technique concerns aside, the film's two key action sequences are absolutely mind-blowing to watch. Tension is effectively built, and the level of violence hits home greatly. The action scenes are also fast-paced and sometimes there are creative approaches to filming certain shots.

The Kingdom is occasionally extremely riveting due to the impeccable mix of versatile actors in the lead roles. Jamie Foxx is a moderately convincing protagonist. His performance here is far superior to his prior performance in Miami Vice. Chris Cooper appears to be the star of the show as Grant Sykes. Jennifer Garner appears to offer nothing more than a series of pouts, while Jason Bateman contributes a series of wisecracks. The actors portraying the Saudi officials are also worth mentioning. They add a realistic edge to the production while still presenting the audience with a pile of endless stereotypes. The acting is occasionally convincing and first-rate, with plenty of emotional power infused in their performances. There are also occasions when the actors appear quite baffled, like Garner when she raises a firearm. Certainly, room for improvement in the acting is desired - nonetheless, there are several fine acting moments.

Overall, The Kingdom succeeds in its goal of achieving an action blockbuster with moments of intense political drama tossed into the mix. Many have labelled the film as a jingoistic piece of cinema, and it's hard to disagree. The Americans are depicted as the heroes who excel flawlessly in their profession, while the terrorists are obviously the bad guys because they do bad things and we want to see their blood being spilt. Moralistically speaking the film is a travesty: an overblown action film that takes advantage of our current global fears. It's sometimes very scary and thought-provoking. On occasion the image of a Saudi speaking their native language is terrifying purely due to the stereotypes. However, if you ignore the politics and the sometimes offensive stereotypes you'll find The Kingdom to be an impressive mix of action and thrills.

7.2/10