Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"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

"Those are sharks on steroids!"

The tagline for Dark Waters reads "No Air. No Time. No Escape." For the safety and well-being of all audiences worldwide, it would be a sublime marketing choice to add another two words onto the tagline: "No Good!" Dark Waters is dreadfully below average, even by customary standards of direct-to-DVD features. By the look of the film, it seems every cent of the budget went into creating an interesting DVD cover: it displays a few very realistic looking sharks looming underneath an oil rig. We know it's a direct-to-DVD feature and won't be a masterpiece, but you'll think that at least it'll be worth a shot, right? After watching 90 minutes of this garbage, I'm beginning to think the front cover was images from a David Attenborough documentary!

Those familiar with the résumé of director Phillip Roth know what they're in for. Remember Boa a.k.a. New Alcatraz? Credit must be granted for director Roth, as Dark Waters is far worse than his previous movies by incredible margins: Z-Grade special effects, hideous set design, no motivation...heck even the locations appear dull due to the disjointed nature of Roth's lens. Before reading any further, be warned that I have nothing positive to say about this movie so prepare for an exhaustingly long review diving into everything wrong with this shark action tosh!

The plot is a poor excuse to showcase a few poorly executed moments of shark mayhem. Basically, an Oil Transfer Station in the Gulf of Mexico is attacked by large Great White Sharks. The owner of the station, Allister Summerville (Gray), has no idea what happened and feels the need to investigate. Enter aspiring marine biologist Dane Quatrell (Lamas) and his assistant Robin Turner (Mackinnon). The two are drugged by Summerville who plans to hire the hi-tech submarine owned by the couple.

So imagine this situation: an underwater research station, a few highly intelligent sharks, and a few people to become shark food. What's that I hear you think? You're absolutely correct...this is the sub-par low-budget equivalent of Renny Harlin's Deep Blue Sea. The CGI effects in Harlin's picture were terrible enough, but at least there were practical sharks for higher realism. Dark Waters is all CGI...almost every shot. As a result nothing looks remotely believable. It looks like the graphics of a video game from 10 years ago! Even the opening shots are enough to leave a bad taste in the mind of the audience. After the first few minutes I was bored to tears, and I couldn't even laugh at the shark attacks because they're that bad. We can't even see sharks eating people due to the poor filmmaking!

The script had potential...I must grant them that. But that's not in the dialogue, the concept or the situations. The potentiality was purely in the use of hi-tech sharks, of which have 10 minutes of allocated screen-time. Half of that shows the sharks being mobile! So this is a 90-minute shark flick, with barely 10 minutes for the sharks. What's in the other 80 minutes? Laughable drama, incompetent action scenes, atrocious acting and clichéd situations! There are countless clichés that surface within each minute: marines who can't shoot straight, inexperienced civilians who can miraculously stay alive and shoot competently, loose air vents for a convenient escape, sharks never attacking a protagonist...the list goes on!

The plot is filled with plot holes aplenty, to the point that it's a slice of Swiss cheese in comparison. There are also script irregularities, factual errors that are impossible to overlook, and even logical flaws to boot. On top of this, Roth's usage of the camera is ugly. The central fault, though, is how impossible the task remains to categorise the film. The first scene is horror, then it's a drama, then it's a tense drama, then it becomes action before returning to horror/thriller before throwing it all together for the film's climax. The worst part is that there is no intensity. Even the editing is bad! Flashbacks are unnecessary, and there's fast cutting during the attacks that frequently employ close-ups. These looks so bad that it's not even worth a laugh! Dark Waters should sink into dark waters...forever.

0.8/10

"An innocent prisoner will become more angry by the hour due to the injustice suffered. He will shout and rage. A guilty prisoner becomes more calm and quiet. Or he cries. He knows he's there for a reason. The best way to establish guilt or innocence is non-stop interrogation."

The Lives of Others is an enthralling, provocative German thriller that accurately captures a truly horrifying time in the East Germany's history (a period that concluded less than two decades ago). This sophisticated narrative is brimming with rich characters, amazing imagery, expressive direction and credible performances from a foreign cast. The brilliance of The Lives of Others warranted piles of acclaim and even an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film (a controversial win over the highly favoured and much-praised Pan's Labyrinth). The film's story is stemmed from actual happenings that transpired during the recreated period. Secret police were essentially dominating the streets. The filmmakers encompass many of the horrific rules and unfair practises that permeated the former society being depicted. Due to the amazing efforts behind the camera, the film will leave the viewer transfixed and wholly immersed in the visuals infused with such legitimacy and intrigue. Aptitude in every filmmaking aspect results in a compelling experience, one that successfully displays the devastating effects of socialism.

Set in East Germany a mere 5 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the film conveys a beguilingly effective narrative using real events for its foundation. This was a time when the horrifying Stasi (the secret police) made it their business to employ an all-embracing association of spies and extensive surveillance to expose every secret facet concerning the citizens that surround them. This was an inhumane culture that victimised mankind's vulnerability. The Stasi possessed the ability to devastate everything it touched, and make every citizen a potential suspect. Soft-spoken, popular playwright Georg Dreyman (Koch) lives a moderately private existence with his wife - accomplished actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Gedeck). Georg remains a loyal resident, and becomes a Stasi suspect due to the fact that he's never done anything remotely suspicious. The couple are placed under scrutiny with the brilliantly skilled Captain Gerd Wiesler (Mühe) assigned to the case. With Wiesler listening in, the officer starts learning of intimate details: information that implies unsuspected motives behind the wiretapping. Wielser evolves from a desolate spectator to an emotional participant, becoming embroiled in the lives of others. His involvement transports the film's story to unanticipated and fascinating places with cataclysmic consequences.

The Lives of Others marks the film debut of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, whose meticulous and expressive direction further compliments the brilliantly written screenplay. This well-crafted thriller rapidly grasps the underlying communal and psychological factors within the film's context. This extraordinary film is both a profoundly moving human drama and a political thriller with hints of seductive features to boot. Director von Donnersmarck takes the audience into the very heart of reasonably recent European history, tackling the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and its dreaded Stasi. The directing is both expressive and engaging. Although a directorial debut, the director's utilisation of the camera cannot be faulted. Every moment is riveting, and provides deeply insightful views on the slate of characters.

Ulrich Mühe's performance as Wiesler is absolutely astonishing. The actor (who tragically died due to stomach cancer in 2007) credibly undertakes a challenging role. From the outset we find his screen presence brutal yet slightly charming. As Wiesler is entangled in the lives of the two central characters, his sinister persona withdraws and a more palpable side of his personality emerges: a sympathetic nature. Sebastian Koch is realistic as the seemingly innocent playwright that evolves into a far smarter, deeper character. Martina Gedeck is also worth mentioning for her astounding portrayal as the girlfriend of Koch's Georg Dreyman. To his credit, director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck permits the characters and their circumstances (with the back-and-forth structure) generate a natural tension. He doesn't utilise any callous camera techniques that would remove us from the story. More importantly, his transitions are so smooth that we begin to feel the close connection of the hunter and the hunted. The Lives of Others was filmed in Berlin, and this aspect only adds to the realism that appears organic to the screenplay.

On the whole, every feature on exhibition is accomplished in every aspect. The film is potent, fascinating, inspiring, powerful, engrossing and compelling, while challenging the audience to also become emotionally involved in the challenging skirmish between the protagonists. It's a smart, skilfully crafted political thriller that perhaps runs a tad too long. With flaring emotional intensity and capable filmmaking, though, it's possible to overlook the running time. The music as well is absolutely masterful. An impeccable mix of classical piano, with authentic music from the 1980s that's truly irresistible, is the final touch in the already sublime atmosphere. If that's not enough, the bleak and cold nature of the German streets is captured wonderfully by von Donnersmarck's lens. At places a tad slow, but The Lives of Others is an intriguing glimpse at subversive life in the GDR that bristles with authenticity. Hollywood filmmakers should start taking notes, as foreign films at times surpass the quality of Hollywood productions in every respect. If only these films were eligible for the Best Picture Oscar.

9.56/10

"How many lives do we live?
How many times do we die?
They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death... Everyone.

And how much fits into 21 grams?

How much is lost?

When do we lose 21 grams?

How much goes with them?

How much is gained?

How much...is gained?

Twenty-one grams.

The weight of a stack of five nickels.

The weight of a hummingbird.

A chocolate bar.

How much did 21 grams weigh?"

21 Grams comes from the same creative team that were responsible for the successful powerhouse film Amores Perros (more commonly titled Love's a Bitch). Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu's 21 Grams is a moody, confronting, stimulating, mesmerising, often gut-wrenching and uncompromising character study that tackles some of humanity's darkest moral difficulties, in addition to delving into the fragility of life and relationships. Director Iñárritu proves his filmmaking skill with this production. In tradition with Amores Perros, he's delivered an equally gritty and challenging product here. The director is capable of managing this genre elegantly. This is a temperamental drama that won't be for all tastes. Similar to the director's prior movie, he again delivers a disjointed but engrossing editing technique capable of encompassing powerful, raw emotional exuberance. It's an unusual film generally devoured enthusiastically by those who can stomach it: a vibrant, riveting complex emotional tale concerning death, life, salvation, religious conviction, violence and confronting personal demons.

The film is fuelled by a multi-faceted plot that's difficult to outline without divulging regrettable amounts of spoilers. Basically, 21 Grams concerns interweaving storylines following three central protagonists. Paul Rivers (Penn) is a critically ill professor reduced to what he regards as "death's waiting room". Due to a grave heart condition, Paul has nothing to do but wait for a new heart to be transplanted into his chest. If no organ transplant is conducted, Paul will suffer a very unpleasant death. Cristina Peck (Watts) is a recovering drug addict who's also a textbook example of your typical suburban mother: with two beautiful daughters and a loving husband (Huston) back at her ranch. Jack Jordan (Del Toro) is an ex-con who's been an intermittent resident of prison since the age of 16. Now he's being supported by a family who are trying to help him get his life back together and keep it on track. Hoping to find redemption for the crimes he's committed, Jack has turned to Jesus Christ as his saviour and accepted Christianity as his religion. These three seemingly unconnected people clash in an unforgettable, unfortunate series of tragic events.

The critics wholeheartedly voiced their praises for Alejandro González Iñárritu's 21 Grams, to the point that it's worrying to consider that it was overlooked for Best Picture at the Oscars. The film is simply a brilliant creation frequently overflowing with risky, moving and unflinching performances courtesy of an A-list cast.

Mexican director Iñárritu tells the film in fragments. Short segments of the film are edited together in a non-linear structure. The interesting thing is that the plot is coherent and linear: the film could work as a logically constructed series of events as opposed to pieces of the puzzle being randomly scattered, leaving the audience to engage their minds to slide each puzzle piece into place. This technique is unnecessary, but it helps remind the audience that this is no ordinary drama. Also, perhaps with the film assembled in a linear structure it could be harder to watch. The film would still be essential viewing, but probably more hard-hitting as the audience wouldn't have time to recover before the next emotional issue is dropped on them.

At the centre of the filmmaking, the film's actual driving power is found in the enthralling performances. Sean Penn was unfortunately unobserved during Oscar season while his two co-stars were both recognised with nominations in their respective categories. Sean Penn's portrayal is convincing, credible, realistic and uncompromising. The character's major health problems are felt by the audience thanks to Penn's incredible performance. Every struggling breath...each labouring step is palpable and it's effortless to feel completely engaged. Naomi Watts was honoured with an Oscar nomination. Her performance is amazing beyond words. Every time Watts is distraught about the tragedy that has occurred, you will feel truly touched. However, both Penn and Watts are almost overshadowed by the career-altering performance of Benicio Del Toro. He was also granted an Oscar nomination. Del Toro is always infused with such incredible emotional power: he's riveting and believable. At times his character's rage feels like a kick to the gut. And at times you'll feel goose-bumps due to his capability as a performer.

The masterful filmmaking exhibited in 21 Grams in unlike anything preceding it. The director opted to film the movie employing a grainy look, almost like a home movie. Each assembled fragment is like one situation filmed by someone on their home video camera, and then all the tapes are being played in random order. It feels like the most haunting home movie of all time. The film was made on a tiny budget of only $20 million. This is absolutely mind-blowing when you consider the congregation of A-list actors that beautifully portray their respective characters. The filmmakers also decided to aim for realism as opposed to hyperbolic and Hollywood. The sound mix, music and ambience all conform to this creative decision. Of course this realistic edge makes the film even more riveting...never do the filmmakers tread a false step.

The realism conveyed in this visually arresting production will have you believing every frame. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the material isn't adequately illuminated as much as the filmmakers probably desired. In addition, there are several "fragments" depicted throughout the film's running time that seem either superfluous or of unnecessary length. As a result, the visual elegance and great performances aren't enough to prevent audiences from being bored to tears at times. Also, with fragmented storytelling the character development is slightly skewed. Hence this was a dangerous decision. Perhaps with a few rearranged "fragments" it'd be more effective. Naturally, more screenings will further allow the audience to see the characters as far more developed.

Overall, 21 Grams has been regarded as one of 2003's most essential films. It truly is! The masterful filmmaking being offered is of the highest regard: deep visuals, a subtlety touching score, thought-provoking dialogue, stimulating emotional intensity and thoroughly convincing performances that elevate the characters astronomically. You'll be baffled at how truly moving this film is. With no hyperboles in place, the audience will feel truly engaged in the proceedings and transfixed at the visually apprehending feast for the eyes.

8.6/10