Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I never did one thing right in my life, you know that? Not one. That takes skill."

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

"We've become a race of Peeping Toms. What people ought to do is get outside their own house and look in for a change. Yes sir. How's that for a bit of homespun philosophy?"

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

"Christmas Eve. Ho ho fucking ho!"

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

"You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays."

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

"I know you want him caught. We want him caught. So let us help you. America's not perfect, not at all, I'll be the first to say that, but we are good at this. Allow us to help your men go catch this criminal."

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

"Everything you have seen here has been an illusion."

The Illusionist is an entrancing period movie, featuring subtle touches of incredulity, romance and mystery. With an ideal cast, wonderful production values and elegant cinematography, audiences will certainly find this an enthralling visual experience to behold. The competent production team have produced an admirably-constructed and visually beautiful movie. However, The Illusionist is undoubtedly not without flaws. While critics generally panned the movie and audiences tended to love it, I unfortunately must side with the critics for the most part. The film may contain an absorbing story and graceful visuals, but the film's entire duration appears far too sombre and serious. As a result, the production feels considerably disjointed. There are also far too many elements that demand an overwhelming suspension of disbelief in order to ignore. Consequently, the film possesses the capacity to keep an audience rapt like an old-fashioned card trick that we've previously witnessed several times.

Based on a short story by Pulitzer Prize winning author Steven Millhauser, the title of The Illusionist refers to the film's protagonist: a stage magician (or "illusionist" if preferred) known as Eisenheim (Norton). As a child (played by Johnson), Eisenheim formed a close bond with young Sophie von Teschen (Tomlinson). However, the two are unable to be together due to the social expectations of the period (i.e. the same form of forbidden love found in Titanic, The Notebook, etc). When Eisenheim reaches adulthood, he has grown to become an extremely popular illusionist whose skills instil enchantment in his audience. Now touring Vienna in the early 1900s, Eisenheim possesses the ability to conjure illusions that defy the bounds of the physical world. The word of Eisenheim's abilities reaches the ear of the arrogant and greedy Crown Prince Leopold (Sewell). He attends one of Eisenheim's shows, during which it is discovered that Leopold is set to marry Sophie von Teschen (now played by Biel) who has reached adulthood. Jealous of Eisenheim's abilities as well as sensing romance between Eisenheim and Sophie, Crown Prince Leopold aims to debunk the illusions and reveal Eisenheim as a fraud. Unable to complete this task, Leopold consults dogged Chief Inspector Uhl (Giamatti) to reveal the secrets surrounding the popular illusionist who has now amassed a phenomenal public following.

Movies featuring stage magic are always challenging, as the point of stage magic is to create entertaining and dazzling illusions before a live crowd. As The Illusionist is a film featuring CGI and state-of-the-art visual effects, there is already a problem. The 'magic' is lost because an audience watching a movie will not become compelled to wonder how a trick was done live...they will just dismiss it as heavy CGI. Hence none of these illusions are at all magical. Despite Ricky Jay's presence on the set as a magic consultant, the illusions performed by Eisenheim are frequently eerie and impossible beyond words. That is the point of course; however we lose interest in the character on a realistic human level. Eisenheim's magic is sometimes too overused and grows monotonous. Also, with no clear-cut explanation behind Eisenheim's skills (an explanation that isn't mythical, I mean) we again cannot see the character as a credible man. Even after saying that, there are a number of good quality magic tricks that elevate the entertainment value.

Interestingly, actor Edward Norton stepped away from the clichéd over-the-top magician embodiment. Norton is instead very detached from reality and appears extremely emotionally withdrawn. He succeeds in his objective of appearing emotionless, but he lacks any personality at all. As a consequence the film often appears very frigid and impersonal. The best performance present in the film is provided by Paul Giamatti as Chief Inspector Uhl. His portrayal is as a man whose confidence in his work (and the Crown Prince) is steadily decreasing. It appears that he is primarily responsible for the protection of the Crown Prince. This job also incorporates covering up his various lurid actions. Giamatti produces a multi-faceted and identifiable character in Uhl: a man who treads the thin line between endeavouring to serve the interests of Prince Leopold and himself, while also struggling to retain his veracity and feeling of justice. Uhl comes alive when trying to decipher Eisenheim's illusions, but he also seems recurrently and pleasantly perplexed by them at the same time. Jessica Biel doesn't seem like someone from the period. This isn't her fault, as the script didn't grant her much to work with.

Director Neil Burger shrewdly blends intrigue and romance with a nourishing dosage of misdirection. The peculiar characters mixed with largely unknown motives and enigmatic plot elements never seem to add up. Burger maintains a sturdy mood of utter solemnity throughout the film, which enhances the film's coldness. Burger also declines the opportunity to take any significant creative chances. He instead often relies on a succession of insipid cinematic devices such as the love triangle and the "twist" ending. The cinematography, on the other hand, is truly marvellous. The visuals are always amazing. Cinematographer Dick Pope presents some wonderful contributions. Each shot has the look of a vintage photograph: gold wash sometimes framed in brown edging. The art direction is stunning: the sets and costumes are all intricately created. The music as well is worth mentioning. It sets the mood and gives the impression of a fantasy.

Overall, The Illusionist is a moderately enjoyable period movie that's worth viewing for its enthralling visual flare. While some performances are questionable and there are gaping script errors, one will find this film to be adeptly-paced and terrific to watch. The suspension of disbelief required is sometimes far too demanding. I mean, all the characters reside in Vienna but never adopt any of the genuine accents. And the illusions are usually too unbelievable for a light slice of entertainment. The ending is also disappointing. It's an unpredictable twist, but in general it's too feel-good, cute and clichéd.

6.7/10

"Ellis de Vries: "They're working off a list. Of Jews with money. They murder them."
Gerben Kuipers: "How do you know all this?"
Ellis de Vries: "Because I was set up myself! Because I've seen my entire family be slaughtered!"

Dutch director Paul Verhoeven returns to his culture and heritage with Zwartboek (known more universally by its English title Black Book): this film is a passionate, invigorating war drama as well as an electrifying World War II espionage thriller. Verhoeven, who co-wrote the screenplay over the course of 20 years with collaborator Gerard Soeteman, illuminates a particularly overlooked aspect of WWII: the war in Holland, and the devastating effects of the Nazi soldiers. After Verhoeven spent several years directing Hollywood films such as Starship Troopers, Total Recall, RoboCop, Showgirls and the disastrous Hollow Man among numerous others, the director opted to return to Holland with a budget of 16 million Euros to replicate a shocking component of Holland's history. Black Book focuses not merely on the Nazi occupation in Holland: its key story concerns a young Dutch woman who joins the Resistance towards the concluding months of the war. It's a tale of audacity, integrity, love, revenge and betrayal that masquerades as an entertaining spy serial in the backdrop of the war in Holland.

Dutch singer Rachel Stein (van Houten) is a Jewish woman hiding in a rural sector of The Netherlands during the 1940s. Her hiding place is abandoned when German bombers cast their devastating power over that region. With the Nazi soldiers further expanding their Holland occupation, Rachel wishes to escape across into liberated territory. She joins a group of Jewish refugees for a river crossing, but their boat is soon ambushed and Rachel emerges as the soul survivor. Rachel is fast running out of options, and joins the Resistance in The Hague. Rachel is forced to change her name to Ellis de Vries, and becomes entangled in the conflict against the Nazis when she consents to perform espionage work in order to infiltrate the regional Gestapo headquarters. In order to complete this assignment she must become involved with Nazi officer Ludwig Müntze (Koch). Driven by the hope of avenging her murdered family, Ellis (a.k.a. Rachel) is forced to navigate a minefield of deception and consequently becomes an enemy to both sides. The underlying plot relates to an untold story of World War II where the distinctions concerning good and evil become distorted by the density of human nature.

The title of Black Book can be interpreted in one of two ways. By saying "black book" one could be referring to something sinister, hateful or profoundly evil. Alternatively, one of the characters possesses a collection of pertinent information that can lead to the true villain written down in a black notebook. Draw your own conclusions.

Black Book is an extremely riveting war thriller that is competently crafted. Although made on a reasonably low budget, all the money is employed resourcefully for a more effective result. The replication of Holland in the 1940s is both faithful and authentic. The filmmakers lovingly recreate the era and its atmosphere with impressive sets, scenery and costumes. Director Paul Verhoeven provides the film with its realistic edge. His lens is complimented with enthralling visuals that appear to have the same polish and sheen as a Hollywood production. In fact, the visuals are so impressive that you won't realise the budget constraints and you'll wonder why it missed a more mainstream release. Some of the films faults, however, lie in the screenplay. Despite the 20-year period utilised for scripting, there are some unfortunate problems. At times the dialogue seems overly melodramatic and unnecessarily cheesy, while other times stilted. Also, there is far too much relentless nudity and scenes of sensuality. The central female spends most of the film topless, and this is distracting as well as awkward at times. The nudity is gratuitous and occasionally very unnecessary.

For a film made on a modest budget, the acting is first-rate! Carice van Houten steals the show with her incredible performance as the title character of Rachel Stein. She's emotionally-charged and infused with passion. With performances as terrific and powerful as this, she should easily reach the position of a well-paid Hollywood actress. Sebastian Koch is perhaps best remembered for his role in the German film The Lives of Others that was also released in 2006. Koch is memorable, potent and credible. Both he and van Houten are supported by a solid cast surrounding them. Above all, with flawless visual effects and outstanding direction there are simply no technical faults to be pointed out.

In spite of a few minor script flaws and constantly feeling a tad disjointed, Black Book is an enormously effective World War II espionage thriller that is guaranteed to entertain. With Verhoeven at the helm, you can certainly expect a tremendous amount of graphic violence. To cement his anti-war message, the realism in the violence is sometimes shocking to witness. The film is also permeated with adult themes concerning suicide and plainly the malevolent nature of mankind. Black Book contains marvellous visuals that are simply engrossing, and spectacular to observe. For a war drama made on a modest budget with virtually no globally big name actors present in the cast, the filmmakers succeed in their objective. It informs the intended audience of the period and the devastating happenings that the Dutch were forced to endure. On top of this, the film moves at an intense pace with very few dull moments. The characters are developed efficiently, plus there's a great balance of action and absorbing drama.

Black Book is an emotionally-straining, expressive, seductive and violent movie that I certainly recommend.

8.4/10

Of all fictional movie characters in existence, none are more recognisable than Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp. The baggy pants, top coat, vest, oversized shoes, derby hat, cane, distinguishing walk, and truncated moustache made the tiny chap an icon. Chaplin's wonderful creation became an instantly identifiable symbol of the small man standing up against all odds.

By the year 1925, Charlie Chaplin (frequently billed as Charles) had become the biggest star in the world. The continuing adventures of the Little Tramp were fast becoming more popular worldwide, and The Gold Rush was Chaplin's most ambitious project yet. Chaplin promised a film that would be his "epic": greater in duration, scale, cast, and everything he had previously undertaken. These efforts paid off as audiences loved it, and it was an instant box office hit. In some theatres specific scenes were rewound and played multiple times to the satisfaction of adamant viewers. Today, The Gold Rush may certainly seem dated and not without faults, but this film remains to stand as one of Chaplin's greatest works in addition to being one of the best comedies in cinematic history.

In addition to Chaplin starring in the film it was also produced, written and directed by the multi-talented individual. His inspirations were the Klondike gold strikes of the late nineteenth century and the Donner Party a half century prior. The expectancy of discovering easy money in the Yukon and Alaska sent thousands of men scurrying north, while the unrelated Donner Party of Western settlers met with catastrophic consequences and reports of cannibalism. For writing the script of The Gold Rush, Chaplin stitched together components of these two situations into the foundation of tragicomedy. It's what Chaplin did best: blending pathos with humour, and his Little Tramp was the ideal vehicle for the job.

The film's plot is quite straightforward: the Little Tramp (actually billed as 'The Lone Prospector') heads northwards in search of his fortune. In the frigid wastelands of Alaska, the Little Tramp becomes stranded in a cabin when a fierce snow-storm forces him to take shelter. While staying at this small cabin, he crosses paths with two other men: another prospector named Big Jim McKay (Swain), and fugitive Black Larsen (Murray). Following many scenes of hunger-related humour, the Little Tramp finds his way back to civilisation where he meets and falls in love with dance-hall denizen Georgia (Hale). Like I said, the plot is very straightforward and isn't anything overly deep. Basically, this plot is a tool for Chaplin to pull off some enormously hilarious and memorable gags.

The film's highlights: "dance of the rolls" (later re-enacted by Johnny Depp in Benny & Joon several decades later), eating a boot for dinner (which was achieved by creating liquorice boot), being tied to a dog while dancing with a girl, and even Chaplin in a chicken suit. These scenes are extremely memorable and tremendously funny.

The Gold Rush is a very unique style of comedy. Granted the plot appears to be thin, but this film is a masterpiece and it's vastly superior to typical modern comedies. This is simply because of the poignancy and realism of a period depiction. The laughs are always memorable as well. Those who over-act for laughs (Adam Sandler, Jim Carrey, etc) never have any heart behind their performances and you'll generally forget their brainless antics within a few days. Charlie Chaplin stated in later years that The Gold Rush is the film he wanted to be remembered for. He achieved this objective, as his career only spiralled upwards with later hits such as Modern Times, The Great Dictator and City Lights. However, this film is among Chaplin's simplest, most charming films. Regardless of its frequent comedy of a high standard, the film never drifts significantly from Chaplin's eager clutch of solitude and lonesomeness.

Overall, The Gold Rush proved that actor Chaplin was a man of many talents. This is a film of comedic genius, and it has aged gracefully. The film is kept moving at a brisk pace with plenty of humour and a solid plot driving the events. In 1942, Chaplin re-edited and re-released the movie. This new version was shorter (70 minutes as opposed to 95 minutes), and added narration instead of the titles.

9.4/10

"Harvey and I sit in the bars... have a drink or two... play the juke box. And soon the faces of all the other people they turn toward mine and they smile. And they're saying, "We don't know your name, mister, but you're a very nice fella." Harvey and I warm ourselves in all these golden moments. We've entered as strangers - soon we have friends. And they come over... and they sit with us... and they drink with us... and they talk to us. They tell about the big terrible things they've done and the big wonderful things they'll do. Their hopes, and their regrets, and their loves, and their hates. All very large, because nobody ever brings anything small into a bar. And then I introduce them to Harvey... and he's bigger and grander than anything they offer me. And when they leave, they leave impressed. The same people seldom come back; but that's envy, my dear. There's a little bit of envy in the best of us."

Actor James Stewart cultivated into a household name for playing loveable characters. Harvey is a classic in every sense of the word: it's an emotional, uplifting and comical romp that illustrates life as being all about perspective. Initially, the story found success in the manifestation of a stage production composed by Mary Chase. It's prudent to assume that a cinematic rendering of the treasured Mary Chase stage production would be a daunting and intriguing undertaking, as Chase secured a Pulitzer Prize for her writing. However the indications during pre-production were promising, with James Stewart and Josephine Hull agreeing to appear. Little did the filmmakers realise that in the decades to follow, Harvey would become a tremendously successful film: one that would frequently be regarded as superior to its source material. Although the production is somewhat dated, and there are countless flaws present in its hyperbolically pretentious screenplay, the eccentric performances elevate the screenplay and production to satisfying margins.

The timeless story of Harvey is summed up by a simple premise that sounds boring and preposterous: a man befriends an imaginary 6-foot rabbit (6 feet, three inches to be exact). Granted, if the filmmakers did not proficiently fulfil their duties then it would have been a disaster. Due to the film's nature of never actually seeing Harvey the 6-foot rabbit, choosing an actor to fill the title role would be difficult. Thankfully, though, with veteran actor James Stewart in place, the film's proceedings are far more absorbing. It's also worth noting that one short line of dialogue delivered by the main character sums up the film's underlying morals and messages: "Nobody ever brings anything small into a bar".

The protagonist of Harvey is a moralistic, caring man named Elwood P. Dowd (Stewart). Elwood no longer needs to work as he inherited an estate and loads of money when his mother died. Now Elwood is a semi-alcoholic who frequently warms up to everyone he meets: providing them with his card, and commonly inviting them to dinner as well. People constantly take advantage of Elwood's generosity and caring persona. Many people think he's crazy because Elwood is always accompanied by an imaginary friend named Harvey. Harvey is a "pooka": a large, invisible rabbit. In ancient Celtic mythology a pooka is a fairy spirit in animal form, a benevolent albeit mischievous creature fond of oddballs and rum pots. Elwood lives with sister Vita (Hull) and niece Myrtle Mae (Horne) who tolerate him merely for his fortune. However, they are increasingly annoyed at their social situation. Thanks to Elwood's insane nature of introducing people to Harvey, friends are quick to leave social events. Eventually they become so fed up that the mutually acquiescent decision is settled upon to have Elwood committed to a sanitarium. Trouble and comedic mayhem follows...

James Stewart is impeccable in his portrayal of Elwood. The actor is charming and charismatic like always. Josephine Hull is frequently over-the-top, but she at least has the ability to overshadow the script. Hull earned an Oscar for her portrayal. Needless to say, this Oscar is well earned! It's impossible not to be enthralled with the rest of the cast. They are all eccentric and frequently funny. In spite of this, the script is conceited and disappointing. Age has not been kind to the script. It's frequently stilted, and as a result it's sometimes very hard to follow. We are looking at some fine, charming acting but nothing further. Even with a poor screenplay, the film is still atmospheric and appealing. The messages shine through perfectly. The pace is also brisk as the film runs at about 100 minutes.

Overall, Harvey isn't perfect but no film is. Considering the potentially disastrous outcome as this is an interpretation of a stage play, the filmmakers have done a stellar job in bringing the beloved source material to life with fantastic results. It's sweet, delightful, alluring and entertaining. Although flawed in its script, this is a quality classic that's of a standard rarely exhibited in this modern age.

7.8/10

"I know who killed me." (That's an actual quote...wow the filmmakers are trying to relate a quote back to the title...who would've thought. And I know who killed me: the filmmakers. For making this painful garbage!)

I Know Who Killed Me is officially career suicide for Lindsay Lohan: an actress who seemed to have a promising future as an actress after films like Mean Girls and Freaky Friday. The most unfortunate fact is that Lindsay desired to be taken more seriously as an actress by starring in a serious movie. Like most working actors/actresses, there comes a time to aim for an Oscar moment. Little did young Lindsay realise that this was the time for the Razzie committee to review her work. Lindsay became the honoured recipient of several Razzies: she tied with herself for Worst Actress, and she won Worst Screen Couple (once again shared with herself).

During 2007, audiences witnessed several inhumanely appalling horror flicks including Captivity, Hostel: Part II and even The Hills Have Eyes Part II. However, Lindsay's flick managed to rightfully beat the competition for the Razzie award of "Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie". Needless to say, I watched this film with shockingly depleted expectations. I knew that I was going to see a fairly poor flick...I just wasn't aware it would hold a convincing place on my 'Worst of 2007' list. Why is the film so appalling? Well, where to start...Lindsay's acting is dismal, director has no sense of style, the screenplay moves from one pointless scene to the next, it contains atrociously written dialogue, it's poorly made, and the film is also highly boring. I had to press the 'pause' button every few minutes to refill my coffee because I was falling asleep!

The plot essentially borrows from most commercial torture/horror porn witnessed over the past few years. We have elements of Saw and Hostel with a script that also mirrors police detective tales. This could have worked if done correctly. However, the film represents a Z-Grade version of all aforementioned elements. The horror scenes aren't even effective! Instead we have gore...lots of gore...nothing else.

Basically, Aubrey Fleming (Lohan) is a promising young teenage girl living off her parents' wealth. The idyllic small town in which she lives is soon rocked when a teenage girl is abducted and sadistically murdered. Soon Aubrey is abducted by (who we believe is) the same bloke. This is where the film goes from bad to worse. Flaws in logic begin surfacing multiple times every minute. I mean, they have one dead girl and a missing girl, yet the entire police force and even the FBI are called in to investigate! Talk about overkill. I mean, shouldn't they have dangerous fugitives or illustrious serial killers to catch? If not flaws in logic, it's things we simply find hilarious. An example? Well, the town sheriff resembles Santa Claus. So as Sheriff Claus makes his suspect list (and checks it twice) we also have unnecessary, tasteless scenes of pole dancing and nudity that make no sense at all. Oh, and there's a random gardener who decides to stroke a stick suggestively in order to impress Lindsay's character. No, I am not making this up. And of course, when the killer abducts Lindsay, her friends find a blue rose in her car. How did it get in there? Due to the futility of every other scene, imagine this: Lindsay asks the killer if she can quickly put something in her car, to which the killer responds "Oh yeah, sure. We'll do this torture and abduction thingy when you're ready". I can imagine that scene actually happening. Can't you?

Lindsay Lohan's acting is bottom of the barrel. 80% of the reasons why this film is so appalling are due to Lohan and her (*ahem*) so-called "acting". Every line she delivers is contrived, unrealistic or plain dreadful. At times she's meant to be screaming because of the unbearable torture. It doesn't sound like she's in pain. It's almost like she's moaning in pleasure...I'll leave that up to your imagination. To make matters worse, her pole dancing even looks incredibly trite! Lindsay spent time "researching" her character by spending time with real strippers and pole dancers. Whoa, you mean Lindsay wasn't doing this career already? Poor Julia Ormond...she looks like she's making an effort, possibly a few Oscar moments, but she wound up getting a Razzie award nomination.

The director and writer can't be let off too easily. Director Chris Sivertson has less talent than a film student. His uses of colour motifs simply do not work. Okay, so red signifies one character and blue signifies the other. Sure, we get it. But is it necessary? Nope. Not at all. And at the beginning there's a neon sign with a bulb darkening for the right arm and leg. Seems like the director wanted some foreshadowing in an attempt to look clever...but is he clever? The answer still remains an emphatic NO! Every scene in this movie is poorly written and its execution is distressingly weak. The result is boredom from the first 5 minutes. Highlights from these first few minutes: a few shots of Lindsay being a stripper (with no talent at all to show for), some blood dripping down her pole as she slides down (even blood dripping from where she never even touched...it's like witnessing the annual sap flow of the Stripper Pole Forest), and there's a few moments for Lindsay to read a story. Her writing is god-awful, and yet the class look so entranced and fascinated. On top of this, talk about a painful stereotype: Lindsay is wearing glasses in an attempt to look smart! Take the hint, Lindsay: if you wear glasses it doesn't mean you look smart. And you're starring in this film...so you're not smart at all!

The screenwriter should be banned from writing anything else in his career. The story is far from interesting and so cliché-ridden it's almost hard to comprehend! The whole concept is based on the myth of 'stigmatic twins'. Sound interesting? Didn't think so...because it's not! This film cannot be counted as a horror flick either. Aside from a few moments of gore that showcase decent prosthetics, there isn't a shock or fright in view until the finale when we've already lost interest. In between the torture of Aubrey and the rescue of Aubrey, there is a whole lot of nothing except for Lindsay showing the world her attempt to act like the daughter of a crack whore.

I Know Who Killed Me is a boring mess that fails to frighten, fails to entertain and has little to no redeeming value. After the first few minutes I found myself indescribably bored. The director has no sense of style at all. The result is a succession of pointless scenes with no abiding content. Heck, nothing seems vital except for the abduction and rescue. I wish this was a short film, because the filmmakers surely killed me with this film. At one stage the characters describe a serial killer who kills people in the cinema. If people were in the cinema watching this movie, it'd be a truly welcome favour. That scene is more irony than this film can handle.

1.1/10