Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"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

"Love life, get paid, then get laid. That is the basic philosophy of... The Finch-meister!"

American Pie: The Wedding (known in America as American Wedding) was an inevitable event considering the box office success of its predecessors. The original two American Pie films were blueprint instances of contemporary American sex comedies: copiousness of profanity, nudity, sex references and plain lewd language...while still possessing an underlying poignancy. They weren't masterpieces at all, but in any case people could relate to the characters while reflecting on the rampant hormones of their teenage years. The first film examined teens enthusiastic to lose their virginity, the second film focused on college days, and now the third film explores some of these characters tying the knot. There never seems to be much point, does there?

The preceding American Pie films I didn't overly love despite a few laughs to be had. American Pie: The Wedding is the worst film in the series thus far. This third film is wholeheartedly superfluous. The studio got their box office profits, but this instalment makes the film as gross and vulgar as achievable...pushing things to maximum extremes in the faint hope of a laugh. However it fails quite unspeakably to the point that I was rarely laughing. In fact, the film is just plain sickening, repulsive and occasionally offensive! Half the original cast is missing for this film. At least some characters have finally grown up and moved on!

Jim (Biggs) and his girlfriend Michelle (Hannigan) have now been dating for a number of years. After college graduation, Jim proposes to Michelle. As the title would suggest, Michelle accepts and the wedding preparations commence. This thin plot is an excuse for a long string of pointless jokes. These gags frequently fail. It seems that the screenwriters have a clear idea that the audience desires more Stifler (Scott). Now Stifler has been promoted to a protagonist (obviously replacing Chris Klein as 'Oz') as he endlessly swears and desperately searches for sex. Throw in Finch (Thomas) and Kevin (Nicholas) as those present to support Jim in the lead up to his wedding, as well as Jim's sex-crazed father (Levy) who's there to make things more interesting (it seems).

Before the release of American Pie: The Wedding, the marketing tried to make us believe that this is the funniest "slice of pie" yet. Either they were amazing lyers, or the filmmakers are seriously self-deluded. What has become a supposed rites-of-passage trilogy initiated as a cunningly appealing amalgamation of gross-out comedy (sometimes amusing) and a credible set of characters. With disparaging predictability and mountains of clichés, the trilogy has devolved into this mess...effectively a remake of Meet the Parents/Meet the Fockers and Father of the Bride. It's a clichéd wedding affair we've seen billions of times before! But this time, it's been given a makeover to suit the modern sex comedy genre.

Worse yet, this instalment never seems like it actually accomplishes anything. These characters are more of the same. Finch is there to confess his love for Stifler's mother, Kevin is there to whinge his way through everything, Stifler is there to shag anything that moves, etc. And of course Levy as Jim's dad is going to make a few more allegedly funny situations created at the expense of Jim's embarrment. The final insult concerns Stifler...learning his lesson and starting to change his ways. Yet this seems thoroughly pointless because by the end of the movie he's still foul-mouthed and he still just yearns for sex. Of course, for this genre it's customary for these unnecessary sub-plots to be included. The script seems to go no-where. It's drenched in dispiriting amounts of conventions leading towards the predictable wedding that we all know will turn out okay. Every other aspect of the filmmaking is standard. Acting is fair, with the exception of Jason Biggs who sometimes seems very disjointed and uncoordinated.

Overall, American Pie: The Wedding takes things too far. It's only for you if you find the following things hilarious: eating dog poo, shagging a granny, dance off in a gay bar, etc. Bottom line: mildly entertaining with a good soundtrack, but wholly unnecessary.

3.7/10

"...Then I go inside the airport and I'm watching. I'm watching on the television... and I... and I... I... I saw it. I saw it and I felt it at the same time. I thought about Geena's birthmark, and I... I felt them burning..."

Reign Over Me is an uplifting, emotionally-straining drama regarding friendships and heartbreaks set on the foundation of a person's life that was distressed by 9/11. It's intense but humorous, and heart-wrenching but touching. Reign Over Me also signifies an endeavour by Adam Sandler to undertake a serious role that espouses an unequivocally distinct style of humour. The former star of Happy Gilmore and other mediocre comedies attempts something dissimilar to anything he's done before. Instead of nonsensically overzealous and unnecessarily foul-mouthed, Sandler is poignant, challenging and moving.

If you're not in awe at the performances, you'll certainly find yourself profoundly amazed at the dazzling photography. This drama submerges straight into the intricate city setting: the grimy streets, the congested traffic, the regular appearance of apartment buildings...and yet the realistic view of the city is absolutely beautiful. The filmmakers opted to lense the film using digital HD in lieu of employing actual film. This look alone furnishes the film with an abundantly realistic edge. This incredible filmmaking, coupled with the equally moving music, will leave you completely transfixed. Regardless of a number of distracting script flaws, Reign Over Me is stimulating, thought-provoking and challenging - it's an extraordinarily rare event to behold this standard in a contemporary production.

Charlie Fineman (Sandler) is devastatingly afflicted with post-traumatic stress syndrome. His wife and daughters (even his poor poodle) were killed during the September 11 attacks on New York...they were passengers on one of the doomed planes. Now Charlie is distressed and living a desolate existence: he's neurotic and withdrawn...he no longer works, instead he lives off insurance money. Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a lucrative dentist on the outs with his current dental colleagues. Alan remembers Charlie from college when they were roommates. A chance meeting between Alan and Charlie sparks an intimate friendship. In such a significant part of Charlie's life, camaraderie this special is critical to him. Alan takes a fascination in his erstwhile college friend, primarily by feeling of obligation. It's obvious that Charlie needs professional help to battle his condition that's spiralling hopelessly out of control. Alan becomes extremely determined to relieve Charlie from his grief, and help him escape from his emotional abyss.

The performances present in Reign Over Me are superbly compelling. Don Cheadle looks slightly out of place as the film's protagonist, but he gives the flawed material 100%. Adam Sandler is a scene stealer. The character of Charlie Fineman is challenging and very intricate. When the character breaks down to tears, Sandler is absolutely impeccable. If you lost family in the 9/11 attacks, you will be especially moved. Some people passed up the opportunity to catch the film during its theatrical run due to Sandler's status as a mainly comedic actor. It may seem difficult to accept the actor in a serious performance. Despite this predisposition, Sandler lets us quickly forget about being a typecast funny man. Liv Tyler looks perplexed among an otherwise stellar cast. She simply doesn't suit the role of a psychiatrist. Despite this piece of gross miscasting, top honours to the rest of the cast including Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland and even the writer/director Mike Binder appears as the character of Sugarman.

The director has skilfully crafted the film, employing spellbinding visuals and an equally amazing slate of dialogue. However, writer/director Binder's script feels far too cramped. He tries to incorporate too much into his screenplay. As a result, the film plods drastically during its mid section in particular. It's a moving tribute to those whose lives were affected on that fateful day in 2001, but despite solid filmmaking the film will occasionally bore you to sobs. Miscasting (looking at Liv Tyler in this instance) and occasional humdrum pacing prove lethal to this film, and it falls marginally short of its lofty intent. Also, the film loses the plot into its second half. Without a crackling story to maintain one's interest, it's impossible to feel entirely engaged in the proceedings as there's no underlying driving force. It's a succession of grand filmmaking featuring great photography and sublime acting with no glue to hold everything together. In the long run, you'll be baffled at the over-length. Although there is a clear message and a noble portrait on offer, it takes too long to paint a simple picture. Binder relies on its subject matter to see things through. But that's the fatal element - it's driven by concept instead of plot. With too many unnecessary sub-plots including a patient who wants to "go down" on Cheadle's Alan Johnson, there is lots of potential that is sorely wasted.

Overall, Reign Over Me isn't the clichéd drama that it promised to be. Underneath an ostensibly overdrawn succession of absorbing dialogue, there's a marvellous message to be uncovered. It encompasses foreign territory in relation to 9/11 - the consequences and repercussions of people whose lives were hopelessly altered by the tragedy. Reign Over Me is a truly enthralling character study that scrutinises the lives of two friends coming to terms with the world surrounding them. At times the film is simply faultless, but a tighter middle section and a better platform could have provided this film with tremendous benefit. It's far better than Sandler's brainless comedic roles; however it's clearly distant from Oscar material in spite of a potential to reach that quality.

7.1/10