Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I now command you to seek out and destroy the Nazarene child. Slay the Nazarene... and I shall reign forever. Fail... and I perish."

According to the law of deteriorating sequels, films get worse as each new instalment is created. The Final Conflict is further irrefutable verification of this theory. The first two instalments in the Omen series were not among the genre's finest movies, but stood well on their respective standalone merits. The central problem of The Final Conflict (which marks the third The Omen film) is its tendency to be overwhelmingly silly - no scares, dumb characters, horrible plot points, and little sense of fidelity to the Book of Revelations on which the series is based. The artistic positives of the first film are also disregarded, with bucket loads of nothing but violence and gore as a substitute. Glaring continuity errors plague this film as well. I mean, the year is apparently 1982 and Damien Thorn (now played by Sam Neill) is supposedly 32. In the first movie he was born in 1966...can anyone else notice the unbearably distracting continuity fault? If Damien was 32 then the year should be the late 1990s. At that stage, you'd might as well regard your political leader as the Antichrist!

The Final Conflict now follows Damien Thorn - a.k.a. the offspring of Satan - as an adult who is steadily running the Thorn industries conglomerate as the company extends its far-reaching arms all over the world. The film opens with a salvage operation in Chicago to recover the artefacts that survived the destruction of the Thorn Museum that burnt down at the end of Damien: The Omen II. During the operation, the seven daggers of Megiddo are recovered. Said daggers are the only things on Earth that can kill the Antichrist. They are soon circulated to an assembly of seven monks, headed by Father DeCarlo (Brazzi), who embark on a mission to rid the world of Damien Thorn. Meanwhile, Damien flexes his political muscle as he is appointed Ambassador to England. The seven monks begin executing multiple hysterically ill-conceived endeavours to assassinate the Antichrist. All signs begin pointing to the possibility that that Nazarene has returned in the form of a child in the British Isles. This begins another ludicrous sub-plot as Damien sets out to eliminate the Nazarene who weakens and diminishes his influence and ability on the world with each passing day. Meanwhile, a dumb romantic sub-plot is tossed into the mix as Damien becomes interested in a journalist named Kate Reynolds (Harrow).

The Final Conflict depends far too much on the showcase of effects and innovative (gory) methods of killing different characters...all without tension or scares. Jerry Goldsmith's score is the only aspect that creates a somewhat intense atmosphere. Every other aspect of the filmmaking leaves a lot to be desired. The horror genre that was once prominent has now transformed into a film perplexingly lingering in an indefinite genre between 'horror' and 'drama'. There is insufficient horror to be part of the genre, and there is inadequate drama to be classified as part of that genre. The gore effects have been amplified and look superior to those used in the previous films; however the screenwriting leaves much to be desired. Horror fans will be left disappointed and disorientated, fans of the Omen series will be left even more devastated, while religious nuts will condemn the film! Why? The source material is disregarded while spiralling towards the film's silly conclusion that ultimately confirms this as a wasted opportunity. The ending seems far too rushed and looks underwhelming. I was laughing! I wasn't at all scared!

Overall, The Final Conflict is an extremely disappointing addition to a potentially outstanding horror series. The series of events were occasionally fascinating, but ultimately very silly. Like the first two movies the cast is very impressive, with Sam Neill effective as the Antichrist. The actors do everything in their capability to improve the woeful script they are working with. If only the first film concluded with the execution of the Antichrist...if that happened, then the world wouldn't have been exposed to two below average sequels. At least there's finally a sense of closure. Followed by a TV movie a decade later.

4.0/10

Cab Driver: "Look out there, its a fucking coup d'etat."
Agent Sands: "I can't see, fuck-mook. I have no eyes."

Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi trilogy is brought to a conclusion with the entertaining, big budget Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Something must be stated about the Rodriguez method of filmmaking: the critics perceive his films as unadulterated crap because they're generally pure action with desperately convoluted plots. On the other hand, action lovers such as myself will delight in the inexorable blood, gore and action the director habitually flaunts. This instalment in Rodriguez's El Mariachi trilogy features an enormously impressive cast including the return of Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek (among others) mixed with new names such as Johnny Depp, Ruben Blades, Mickey Rourke and Willem Dafoe. What started as a small film made on a $7,000 budget featuring a cast of friends and unknowns (in the original El Mariachi) has ended on an extremely larger scale and with more action, blood and guts with an extraordinary cast to boot.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is another tale of the famed musician-turned-gunslinger only known as the "El Mariachi" (Banderas, reprising the role from Desperado). The character's story started a long time ago when a naïve, simple mariachi (played by Carlos Gallardo) was seeking a job when he accidentally came into possession of a guitar case stocked with an impressive assortment of weapons. His girlfriend was slaughtered, and our hero went on a fierce rampage. He slaughtered the bad guys but was wounded, and another love was taken from him - his ability to play the guitar. That was El Mariachi: the first film in the series that was made on an ultra low budget but was so successful that Columbia gave it a theatrical release. Following Rodriguez's unexpected directorial triumph, he made Desperado with Hollywood backing to bring the series a fresh new look. Antonio Banderas took over as the character of "El Mariachi" in the second instalment, receiving a new guitar case loaded with an improved arsenal of firearms. The first embodiment of the character was a simple man who was placed into incredible situations and strained to become a hero. Banderas' portrayal was that of an extraordinarily accomplished gunslinger who is the biggest and baddest in the land and a man who has found new love in the spicy Salma Hayek.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the third film, picks up after the events of the first two movies. We now find the El Mariachi who has retreated to a life of isolation: he's haunted and scarred by the tragedy of losing his new wife Carolina (Hayek). The legend of the character has become so fabled that even the Mexican president is looking to have him eliminated. Now without his love, he settles in a tranquil town. A corrupt CIA agent known as Agent Sands (Depp) wants to eliminate the Mexican president and pulls the El Mariachi out of retirement to complete the task. He compares his reasoning to that of shooting a chef: to bring balance to country. He explains that if a chef cooks a meal that is the best he's ever tasted, the chef must be executed to give other chefs a chance to excel at their profession. Sands knows that the El Mariachi will have no problem with fulfilling his task as it will allow him retribution on the man that killed Carolina. At least that's what I picked up of the plot. There are so many characters and conspiracies here that it gets a tad too perplexing for a dumbarse action film. However, it is still watchable and as a swansong to the trilogy this ambitious film does pale the former releases.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is held together by the stellar cast that features some amazing actors. Antonio Banderas is engaging and credible as the infamous El Mariachi. But for this film, it's Johnny Depp that completely steals the show. Depp again displays his versatility, and reminds us why he's one of this generation's finest performers. With the character of Agent Sands, he skilfully pulls off the subtle wit and humour of the character. The screenwriter granted Depp lots of terrific dialogue that he pulls off remarkably! Johnny Depp is in supreme Johnny Depp mode with Agent Sands. One of the film's highlights is a diner scene that depicts excellent dialogue between Depp and Banderas. Also in the cast you'll discover an extremely cool Mickey Rourke, a sinister Willem Dafoe, and a few good actors such as Danny Trejo and Eva Mendes among others.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico greatly benefits from the style and approach supplied its director (who was also the producer, editor, cinematographer, production designer, sound effects mixer, visual effects supervisor, camera operator and the one who supplied the music). Rodriguez is a capable filmmaker that has a unique look and feel that he brings to his creations. He isn't afraid of attempting different things with the camera and he is one of the few directors that can make fast cuts and edits actually work without being annoying. Rodriguez crafts films that progress and perform rapidly. He doesn't allow the viewer much time to rest. In a society plagued with movie-goers whose attention spans are becoming increasingly short, Rodriguez makes films that have no issues with keeping short attention spans happy. This is his greatest gift. In short, Rodriguez knows how to make a film fun. He demonstrated with Spy Kids that he's able to keep the kids happy, and it shows his talents are even greater for the adults in Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

Overall, when it comes to a Robert Rodriguez film a movie-goer expects nothing further than outstanding action scenes. The director has a genuine talent for directing and lensing over-the-top action filled with over-the-top bloodshed. The stunts, special effects and explosions all look spectacular! Once Upon a Time in Mexico is not recommended for those searching for a deep experience or an exemplary character examination. Instead, it's for those looking to be reminded why we go to the cinema in the first place: we indulge in the magic of the movies to be entertained! If you're able to overlook the glaring story issues, you will definitely enjoy this film. The film's shootouts are as over-the-top as you can find. They border on silliness at times, but it's difficult not to enjoy a good guy knocking a bad guy across the room with a shotgun. Rodriguez is an action film director who takes pride in his work. You must respect him for that. Look out for Johnny Depp in the church scene doing his Marlon Brando impersonation.

8.1/10

"There's no need to lie. It's like poker. The truth is best. The others still think you're bluffing, so you win."

Even several decades after its initial release, French director Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless is still considered a defining, influential classic drama. Every few decades, a film emerges that presents a breakthrough in filmmaking. In the case of Breathless, the technical innovations and its incredibly groundbreaking style are still inspirational into the 21st century. Other revolutionary aspects include the impeccably impetuous pacing, elegant editing, potent atmosphere and the considerable substance present during a scene of drama. Godard's work is still held in high esteem; with film schools around the globe using this fine artistic slice of moviemaking as a reference...this is a tribute to an extraordinary director who achieved amazing things during his career.

Breathless is austerely remarkable even with an extremely straightforward plot. Its brilliance is drawn from the director's ability to achieve something so simple and yet so amazing. Michel Poiccard (Belmondo) is a sociopath and a small-time crook with a gangster persona who idolises the work of Humphrey Bogart. Michel becomes the subject of a manhunt when he flees after stealing a car and impulsively murdering a policeman that pursued him on a country road. Michel, now wanted by the authorities, returns to Paris where he finds a former American girlfriend named Patricia Franchini (Seberg) who studies journalism and supplies the streets with copies of the New York Herald-Tribune. Michel succeeds in seducing Patricia again, and desires for her to accompany him to Italy when he raises the money. Even with his face dominating the local newspapers and being the centre of a media frenzy, Michel seems unmindful of the police dragnet that slowly tightens its grip around him. He spends most of his time with Patricia evading police and enjoying pleasures in bed. Michel's desperation develops as the police pursue him, while he recklessly pursues his love of American movies and his strong libidinous interest in the beautiful young Patricia.

The storytelling techniques of Jean-Luc Godard are possibly the most mesmerising aspect of the film. To your typical modern audience, the jump cuts may seem lame. However, an audience must observe these editing methods from a historical perspective: never had any filmmaker utilised these prior to Godard's masterpiece. This is precisely why Breathless is such an important movie - virtually every technique is revolutionary. Through the eyes of current movie-goers, these are so submerged in filmmaking practices now that Breathless seems typical. Yet in 1960, these techniques were simply unprecedented. Director Godard's talent is also in the fantastic way the plot progresses. Each shot is framed with style and demonstrates the elegance frequently employed by Godard. All sets, locations and characters carry a certain degree of potency. For those who've studied the period, it's easy to notice the significant facets of life that are represented with great veracity. No exaggerations, no attempt to dilute the period.

Even the characters are constructed from aspects of life! These characters are wonderfully executed by a talented cast. Frankly I did not care for the film until the inclusion of an extremely long sequence in a bedroom. The drama evinces substance and magnificent artistic integrity in the filmmaking as well as the acting. The chemistry between Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg sizzles. Belmondo is charismatic in the title role. It's vital that the audience are able to empathise with him despite the character being a criminal on the run from the law. His charm in line deliveries and facial expressions boost the attraction of his on-screen persona. Jean Seberg is young, beautiful and angelic. Interestingly enough, the actress failed at American movies and fled to Europe. She was at a tender age of 21 when director Godard added her to the cast of his movie. These characters are archetypal and legendary. Look at Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty...men whose characters have descended from Belmondo's outstanding performance.

Breathless is a landmark in French cinema, as well as filmmaking worldwide. The originality in the fascinating plot is irresistible, and the viewer is drawn in by the solidity and strength of Godard's directing. To indulge in the magic of this movie is to visit a film as important as Citizen Kane, although sadly the film is less recognised and further overlooked in this current cinematic age. The film is simply a magnificently entertaining film that is the work of an artist. All film students must add this film to their collection and begin taking notes. Breathless is cinematic art that will leave you breathless! (Pun absolutely, positively intended!)

8.9/10

NOTE: This is a review solely for season 1

"I'm Mike Moore...welcome to Frontline"

By the mid-1990's, Current Affairs programs had developed into a strange nightly beast on our television screens. These programs were more tabloid than journalism: few viewers truly understood the extent to which they were being manipulated. Even in the current generation of television viewers, shows like Today Tonight and A Current Affair are seen to be concealing themselves behind the facade of journalistic professionalism. Yet they feed us nothing but tiring stories about weight-loss and dodgy tradesmen, in addition to shameless network promotions and pointless celebrity puff-pieces. Stories broadcast in these Current Affairs programs are not determined by their importance but their entertainment value. How severely will ratings rise if fascinating (futile) stories constantly fill their time-slot?

Enter the brilliant satire team of Rob Sitch, Santo Cilauro and Tom Gleisner. Following the triumph of The Late Show in 1992 and 1993, and prior to the creation of The Castle (still regarded as Australia's best film) in 1997, the team behind those classic Australian comedies produced what is extensively regarded as one of the smartest and funniest satire comedy series ever created in Australia. This aforementioned series was of course Frontline, and the fact that many of the episodes are still used as a part of school syllabuses around the country is a testament to the esteem in which the series is held.

In the early 1990s, Frontline took audiences completely by surprise. The brilliant show opened up the eyes of the gullible viewing public to some of the more dubious and entirely debauched procedures of commercial tabloid television...all while stocking a high amount of laughs. Frontline covers everything in the dishonest Current Affairs industry: from the use of concealed cameras, the standard foot-in-the-door bullying approach of interviewing, the vulgarity of cheque-book journalism and the necessity to consider ratings wins above everything else - Rob Sitch and his loyal team include the whole package. The show also deals with the huge egos noticeably present in commercial television and the incapacity for many television stars to stop thinking about anything apart from themselves. Frontline satirised many events that were topical at the time: such as a real event when the host of A Current Affair, Mike Willesee, actually talked to a gunman during a siege. Within one series of the wildly innovative program, the team managed to tear down the apocryphal pretences constantly surrounding the medium using brilliant satire without exaggerations.

Frontline is fundamentally a satirical fly-on-the-wall account (almost documentary style) of the background workings of a commercial television Current Affairs program. 'Frontline' is the title of the news program aired each weeknight on an unnamed commercial network. Consider a cross between A Current Affair and Today Tonight...and you are accurately comprehending the types of stories that Frontline is after. The show is hosted by former ABC journalist Mike Moore (Rob Sitch). Mike believes that he's hard hitting and in the same league as Laurie Oakes or Kerry O'Brien, but in actuality he's fairly light weight and nothing overwhelmingly superior to a talking head. Mike uses a great deal of each episode trying to prove his journalistic worth and increase his standing in the hierarchy of Australian television...all without much success.

The on-air reporting responsibilities are carried out by Brooke Vandenberg (Jane Kennedy) and Martin Di Stasio (Tiriel Mora). Brooke is a highly motivated, upwardly mobile young lady who will let nothing get in her way as she scrambles to the very top of the television pile. Marty is a somewhat disparaging, hard-bitten and extremely rough-around-the-edges veteran journalist of countless years. He's seen and done it all, and genuinely cannot be bothered with all the shenanigans of those wannabes surrounding him. Similar to Brooke, he has been known to bend a few rules and stretch the journalist’s code of ethics to breaking point to secure the exclusive story. The man charged with the responsibility of getting the show to air each night and keeping the ratings on the upward trend is executive producer Brian Thompson (the late Bruno Lawrence). Brian is a man with one eye on the ratings, one on his staff, and one on the executives pushing for higher ratings. His life is one extreme stress attack and he is never settled. The real brains and effort behind each of the stories is program producer Emma Ward (Alison Whyte), who comes up with most of the ideas for the stories, does almost all the research, and is also probably the only staff member with any hint of veracity.

The creative team behind Frontline did not exaggerate because there was no need - Current Affairs programs generally used over-the-top methods of getting the most fascinating stories to boost their ratings. This behind-the-scenes examination looks in-depth at two different aspects of the show: the journalism + planning of an episode, and the broadcasting of an episode with Mike at the newsdesk. These two aspects portray a different version of the truth. While the show is being planned, we watch the actual truth being manipulated by the sneaky journalists. This aspect of the show is portrayed using hand-held camera as it is essentially behind-the-scenes footage. During a broadcast, the manipulated version of the truth is shoved into the head of the viewer. Of course, these shots are filmed using steady tripod camera.

Overall, Frontline is a clever Australian TV show that is still rightfully held in high regard over a decade since its initial release. The form of humour is dissimilar to the brainless slapstick and constant swearing present in American humour. It's a breath of fresh air. This is a stunning show which relied on a subtle wit and an intelligent dissection of a media white elephant. Watch this series and you will never, ever look at A Current Affair, Today Tonight, or the myriad of other current affairs shows that have long come and gone in the same way again.

9.0/10

Siegfried: "I find that hard to believe..."
Max: "Would you believe Chuck Norris with a BB gun?"

Get Smart is the latest Hollywood endeavour to remake a classic TV series for the big screen. In recent years films like The Dukes of Hazzard and Wild Wild West have proved to be complete tripe, with others of its type to follow. I'm certain that many of us hold nostalgic memories of watching the occasional episode of the original Get Smart. Personally, Buck Henry and Mel Brooks' Get Smart was an influential TV event during my childhood, and (like everyone else) I was sceptical when I heard that the film reinvention was in the works. With the mistreatment of other classic television shows over the years, one cannot dispute that things didn't look promising. I especially remember mourning the death of Don Adams who played the illustrious title role many decades ago.

The filmmaking team in general was subject to abject criticism and scepticism: after all, the original show is outstanding and its style of spy spoof has subsequently never been matched. It's interesting to note that the film entered production at the beginning of 2007, eying a mid-2008 release. The first trailer was released roughly 13 months prior to the film's release...allowing 13 long months of internet chatter and uncertainty regarding the final product. No-one expected Get Smart to be this good.

Several advanced screenings were apparently conducted in the months leading up to the film's release, and the general vibe was that the film is a complete disaster. Essentially, I assumed that the film would have a few laughs but would be quite average...I couldn't have been more incorrect! Get Smart has taken audiences completely by surprise. In a summer season of wholly overhyped blockbusters, this is a breath of fresh air. So what's the massive appeal? A plentiful supply of quality laughs dominating the running time, some exhilarating action (that's also humorous at the same time), fine filmmaking, a solid script and an equally satisfying score running throughout the film.

Get Smart opens in a contemporary setting: CONTROL is secretly operating despite being apparently disbanded after the cold war, and KAOS has been supposedly defeated. Maxwell Smart (Carell) is a dedicated analyst for CONTROL who has his heart set on being promoted to a field agent. However, Max's skill as an analyst proves to be an obstacle and the Chief (Arkin) feels he is more valuable in his current position. Max specialises in deciphering recorded conversations at which he is excellent. After all, he seems to be the only one capable of interpreting the meaning behind a conversation during which enemy agents discuss eating muffins. Trouble strikes when KAOS penetrates CONTROL headquarters and steals the identities of the current field agents. Hence, the field agents have all been compromised. Thankfully for Max, the Chief has no choice but to let him reach his desired rank of field agent. Max is partnered with the competent Agent 99 (Hathaway) to thwart the latest plans of KAOS. Admirably, the screenwriters stay away from inserting a high number of unnecessary sub-plots that ultimately water down the jokes and amusement. The script is extremely tight without any fluff to divert our attention away from the central plot. Admittedly there are a few unnecessary things included just for laughs: the difference is that there's no overkill in this department.

After all the hype concerning this film, the ultimate question is how does Steve Carell hold up as Maxwell Smart? In my opinion the actor succeeds with flying colours. His deadpan delivery and complete adherence to the screenplay transcends whatever stupidity Max experiences, allowing the audience to realise that the character isn't deliberately attempting to be funny. Films featuring Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey grow monotonous because all they do is overact and try to be funny. Carell has a talent of delivering hilarious material while making it seem like it's in the context of the situation. No other field agent would reach for a snack while spying on enemy suspects. In effect, this fact makes Steve Carell the best "name" actor to tackle the role previously made memorable by Don Adams. Carell never tries to mimic Adams' interpretation of the character: instead he presents something original, while still being the classic Maxwell Smart we all know and love. Also, the film embodies a different form of comedy: they have resurrected the original humour used in the original Get Smart. Granted, bottom jokes and a few childish remarks do appear as well as perhaps some superfluous political jokes. Not all of the jokes work well, but there are certainly enough to keep us entertained.

Anne Hathaway has strong chemistry with Steve Carell. Hathaway portrays a beautiful, competent heroine with a feisty attitude. Alan Arkin receives a lot of screentime as the Chief of CONTROL. He cannot match the actor from the original show (of course), but he presents a good interpretation of the character. Also in the cast we have Terence Stamp playing a trademark villain, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as a proficient field agent, and even actors like Ken Davitian, James Caan and David Koechner thrown into the mix. A special mention for Bill Murray who portrays the forever memorable Agent 13: Murray is underused but tremendously amusing! His cameo is one of the film's highlights.

Get Smart has been created by a commendable creative team. The film's concluding action scene contains some exciting action, amazing special effects and a great team of stuntmen. However, this film is not without flaws. First of all, the film plods enormously during the middle section. A lot of characters are neglected with the obvious exception of Max and 99. This mid-section could have benefitted with heavy trimming. Also, the character of Agent 99 is poorly developed. She comes off as more of a serious mother figure that never smiles. Maybe I'm comparing this too severely to the original TV show, but Max is not entirely fitting when he's intelligent. I miss the incompetent Max who made frequent mistakes that created hilarious consequences. Of course, Carell's interpretation of the character is vastly different, but Max just isn't as good with higher intelligence.

Overall, Get Smart is not the disaster that we were all expecting. It has the classic gadgets (shoe phone, cone of silence, etc), the classic lines and even the classic characters. The amalgamation of comedy and action is a difficult task, and the filmmakers have proved able to accomplish such a daunting feat. There's a healthy dosage of action with witty laughs and an intriguing plot to boot. The film does not provide a terribly deep experience; however it achieves its goal to make the audience laugh. This is a fun little comedy flick clean enough to entertain the whole family.

7.2/10

For such are false apostles. Deceitful workers whom lie and transform themselves to look like real apostles of Christ. II Corinthians, Chapter 11, Verse 13.

When Richard Donner crafted the prolific 1976 horror film The Omen it was met with a generally strong response from the critics, and enjoyed a profitable sum at the box office. The Omen was fundamentally a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo (based on the Book of Revelations) mixed with stellar acting, effective horror scenes and an interesting screenplay. The film was in particular and artistic triumph - boasting eye-catching production design and fascinating satanic images. Through my eyes the film was underwhelming, but interesting viewing nonetheless. The studio's decision to green-light a sequel was not an artistic choice...it's simply another question of how much money a sequel can reel in for the greedy studio heads.

Richard Donner was entrenched in his commitment to direct Superman when the script for Damien: The Omen II was busily being penned. Donner had no interest in returning for this instalment, and he would have no reason to return: the cliffhanger for the first film works because of the sense of never-ending terror. Hence, the audience are left to draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately with such a meaty cliffhanger and room for a sequel, the studio doesn't take the interpretation option: instead they select the sequel option as it means more money for them.

Damien: The Omen II opens a few days after the first film concluded. The purpose of the opening is to depict a dialogue scene that basically recaps the ending of the first film, and begin things with a bang. Fast-forward seven years and we find adolescent, 13-year-old Damien Thorn (Scott-Taylor) who's currently living with other relatives: Uncle Richard (Holden), Auntie Ann (Grant) and his cousin Mark (Donat). Damien has become a surprisingly successful young man considering what happened to him several years earlier. As the film opens, Damien and Mark are being sent to military school. This sequel is mainly concerned with Damien, the Antichrist, coming to terms with his unholy heritage and horrific destiny. Like the first film, the current guardians of the son of Satan begin suspecting things after freak occurrences that result in people getting maliciously killed or brutally injured. The stage is set for another fruitless string of events as people work to eliminate the satanic influences that are prominent in Damien's unhuman body.

Of course, we all know that more sequels are to come and hence the string of events all appear to be for absolutely nothing! Because of the nature of the film's conclusion, this whole second instalment is completely unnecessary and lacks most of the charm of the original. Also, now that other sequels to the film exist, we can predict what the outcome will be like. Let's see...the next film stars Damien and has no prime characters from this film included. Begin your theorising!

Damien: The Omen II has a few interesting aspects that redeem this theoretically useless sequel. The film poses a few interesting questions in relation to the Antichrist and his discovery of his heritage. The dialogue ably sets up the film for the initial few scenes before falling back into clichéd territory. That is, people who rant truthfully about Damien are going to be killed pretty soon. It doesn't take long for the outlandish and exceedingly gory death scenes to kick in. Composer Jerry Goldsmith contributes a foreboding score that establishes a terrifying atmosphere. Unfortunately, like most horror movies, this is a case of aiming for as much gore as possible instead of scares. There are a few effective horror scenes, but overall an insufficient amount. One of the film's most notable features is a few creative deaths like drowning under the ice, sliced in half, etc. This is reminiscent of the famous beheading scene featured in its predecessor.

Overall, Damien: The Omen II is an unnecessary sequel that lacks a certain charm. William Holden is the only veteran actor to find in the cast and, similar to Gregory Peck in the first film, comes off as dull and unexciting. This sequel may be useless, but it is competently made and occasionally is very spine-chilling despite some shortcomings in the screenplay. Sequel: The Final Conflict.

6.2/10

Captain Stanley: Now, suppose I told you there was a way to save your little brother Mikey from the noose. Suppose I gave you a horse and a gun. Suppose, Mr. Burns, I was to give both you and your young brother Mikey, here, a pardon. Suppose I said that I could give you the chance to expunge the guilt beneath which you so clearly labour. Suppose I gave you till Christmas. Now, suppose you tell me what it is I want from you.
Charlie Burns: You want me to kill me brother.
Captain Stanley: I want you to kill your brother.

The Proposition is an artistic tale of disloyalty, honour, rituals of violence and familial bonds. Not only does this gritty film accomplish a new standard for the western genre (previously shaped by Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns and other such films as Unforgiven and The Wild Bunch), but it additionally inaugurates a new era of Australian filmmaking. The Proposition is a peculiar film that can best be described as a beautiful nightmare mixed with an absorbing character examination and some unconventional underlying messages. Nick Cave, the famous Aussie rocker, wrote the screenplay as well as assisting in the creation of the powerful and evocative musical score, with John Hillcoat at the helm. In a nutshell: this is one of those westerns you will either love or loathe. It is a strange, unsettling film that is both gratuitous and relentless - exactly the tone of the period in which it is set. Some people criticised the strong explicit violence; however I find it necessary to underline the strong moralistic message that stimulates the film's proceedings.

The title of The Proposition refers to a significant facet of the film's plot: a facet that virtually fuels the film for its duration. The typical plot for a western has been transplanted into the harsh sands of rural outback Australia. Mikey (Wilson), Charlie (Pearce) and Arthur Burns (Huston) are three brothers who are prime suspects in raping a pregnant woman and subsequently murdering an entire family. A British lawman known as Captain Stanley (Winstone) is hired by the local Australian authorities to track down the three brothers. At the beginning of the film, Charlie and Mikey Burns lose in a shoot-out to the authorities and are arrested by Captain Stanley. But the supposed mastermind of the brothers, Arthur, is on the loose. Stanley strikes an impossible proposition with Charlie. Basically, Stanley will agree to pardon both Charlie and Mikey if Charlie agrees to venture out into the desert and hunt down his brother Arthur. If Charlie does not return by Christmas Day then young Mikey will be hung by the neck. Either way, one of his brothers will be killed on Christmas Day. Charlie is faced with the gruelling decision of choosing which brother he must sacrifice to save the other.

The plot is straightforward and easy to follow, but at the same time it's also highly effective and embodies tremendous emotional depth. This praiseworthy emotional depth can be attributed to the potent screenplay penned by Nick Cave, the powerful performances, astonishing direction and the captivating cinematography that accurately encapsulates the unsympathetic rural outback. Using beautiful cinematography, the filmmakers present a commendable portrayal of the landscape of the Australian desert. This aforementioned landscape is a character equally as vital as any of the damaged souls wandering through it. The outback is laudably photographed by Hillcoat and cinematographer Benoit Delhomme: it's beautiful yet hostile, recognisable yet alien and ultimately indifferent to humankind. The sands of this desolate area are spectacular to witness. Scorched and sun-blasted - this is the kind of location where awful, violent things are bound to transpire.

The Proposition returns the western genre to its roots by resurrecting classic trademarks. One of these admirable qualities is the equivocations while establishing the heroes from the villains. The three Burns brothers are portrayed as evil, but on the contrary the film explores this facet to be marginally untrue. Charlie in particular is on the road to redemption and this film depicts the change of mindset. This inner journey is a deeply explored, leading to an remarkably potent final shot. The authorities of the genre are stereotypically depicted as the heroes of the film. The Proposition blurs that convention and presents us with a diverse slate of characters. For the most part, the authority figures are shown as brainless and inept, but above all are even more heartless than the outlaws they are currently hunting.

The transformation of locations is another innovative feature in this particular film. Filmmakers have endlessly portrayed the period in different American locations, so when the creative team shifted the focus to Australia they were already breaking new ground. There are many stirring and memorable things about this brutal Australian western, but personally the flies created the most potent effect. Possibly this is for the reason that they're absolutely everywhere; the majority of the film's scenes feature the omnipresent buzzing of hundreds of hungry flies. Whether indoors or outdoors, moving or standing still, it matters not - they're there and you cannot avoid them. Some scenes even highlight the fact that inhabitants of the outback have learned to eat food even if infested with the entire fly population. Their presence is inescapable in the blistering outback wasteland in which The Proposition is set, and that impression of suffocating inevitability is raw, visceral and uncompromising: ultimately an admirable component imperative for the film's success.

Each character of the film is played to absolute perfection. This is an Australian film with British financing, hence a rare instance when an Aussie film contains a cast filled by international stars. Guy Pearce is fierce and haunting in the lead role. We've all seen him in films such as Memento and Factory Girl, and he's tremendously suitable as a typical gunslinger. His character undergoes a subtle moralistic internal journey that leads to an unexpectedly, unforgettably brutal climax. Surrounding Pearce we have a number of fantastic international stars filling the supporting cast. Ray Winstone plays a principal character that is explored powerfully. His character of Captain Stanley does not succumb to the expected hateful authority figure. Stanley is a rational man trying to do the right thing and yet realising that he's hopelessly overwhelmed. Gazing out at the despondency of the desert, Stanley has no idea what will materialise and his uncertainty is where the central plot is constructed. The Proposition sees Stanley trapped in a hell that is partly his own doing and partly circumstance. He asserts his control early and makes his goal clear: he wants to civilise the country. However it doesn't take long before things slip from his grasp. This is especially palpable when he's upbraided by his superior: the commanding Eden Fletcher (Wenham) who's furious that Stanley allowed a prisoner to go free. Stanley becomes reduced to a dumbstruck child, unable to do much more than weep for the destruction of his pride and all he thought was right. Part of Stanley's downfall can be attributed to his desire to civilise the outback and his willingness to strike deals with devils to do so. Although actor Guy Pearce is the lead, I see the story as being more about Winstone's character of Stanley. While Pearce's Charlie confronts his inner demons to achieve a moral awakening, Stanley is also undergoing a spiritual journey as he comes to terms with the destruction of his merits. Danny Huston brilliantly portrays the murderous rage of Arthur Burns and creates a career-best performance. Also in the cast there's a superb John Hurt as a quirky bounty hunter, a unique David Wenham as the aforementioned authority figure, and Emily Watson as Winstone's bride.

Overall, The Proposition is one of the best Australian productions I have seen for years! This is an intense, riveting, wholly gratifying and poignant addition to the western genre that has remained dormant for years. Not since Jim Jarmusch's 1995 film Dead Man have I been this impressed with the genre. Before that, Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. Every generation has its definitive western and, until persuaded otherwise, The Proposition stands as this generation's definitive western. There may be a shortage on action, but it doesn't matter through my eyes. This is a beautifully filmed movie that is both powerful and challenging. The film's climax is particularly haunting. The final shot shows two characters sitting motionless in front of an achingly gorgeous sunset as one asks the other, "What're you gonna do now?" The answer goes unspoken, however it rings clear anyway: sit here and wait for the flies to come take them just like everyone else.

9.25/10

"Are your nerves shaking?...that means your instincts are turned on."

It seems that in recent years, washed up action stars like Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris and Van Damme obtain their income from starring in low-budget, crappy straight-to-video action flicks. Since they started in that industry, there is little wonder why they continued - they just don't have the acting skills to be hired for anything good.

After Wesley Snipes featured in films like Blade and Demolition Man among others, no-one anticipated that he would lower his standards to the world of low-budget straight-to-video action flicks. It's impossible not to wonder what's compelling this actor to feature in such an appallingly low-rent affair. Regrettably, with Snipes starring in scrupulously inept and poorly produced action fares such as 7 Seconds and The Marksman he's venturing into the same dangerous territory formerly tread by Seagal, Van Damme and Chuck Norris - three actors who sorely need to retire.

Okay, so I admit that occasionally I do enjoy a good violent action flick. Even if they are low-budget, they can supply a healthy dosage of thrills and action. I viewed The Marksman in the faint hope of something like that, and boy was I wrong! The paltry budget is obvious from the first shot! One of the aspects I discovered from the initial 10 minutes is how poorly the film has been made. The opening "action" sequence is impossible to watch because of the poor lighting, the abysmal directing, the choppy editing, the feeble audio mix, embarrassing acting and the shortness of action!

The plot starts off reasonably straightforward and easy to follow. Basically, there's a mysterious mercenary with a formidable reputation only known as Painter (Snipes). After a preposterously terrible opening scene that depicts a training exercise, Painter is presented with his latest mission. The US army send him to a Chechen nuclear power plant with a group of soldiers as his back-up where a group of stereotypical, forgettable evil terrorists are threatening to set off a live reactor. Though his objective is to secure the reactor and save the hostages, Painter's superiors make it clear that his priority is the reactor. However, it doesn't take long before Painter discovers that he and his soldiers are being elaborately set up - leaving Painter with little choice but to take on all the terrorists single-handedly.

After the first 40 minutes the plot transforms into some political mumbo jumbo that's virtually impossible to follow. The dialogue is hard to understand as well, thus the film is hard to follow. Then again the script is filled with dialogue that one won't want to listen to...quite simply, the script is poorly written and executed worse!

The worst insult is that the screenwriters were obviously aiming to create some interesting action flick with a political sub-plot, like Behind Enemy Lines or something. Wesley Snipes is thus tossed into the mix due to the success of his previous movies. The difference is...films in that fundamental style actually flaunt a decent script. The screenwriters here fill the film with ludicrous dialogue and forgettable action.

Wesley Snipes made a terrible career move when he decided to star in this mess. His acting isn't even slightly memorable. One would expect his experience to be the saving grace here...but it's not. Combine a talented actor with a team of hacks and this is the result. The rest of the acting is largely pathetic. You can't help but feel sorry for the waste of talent. It's apparent that the actors tried. Similar to Wesley Snipes, it's the filmmakers that destroyed all the potential for good performances.

Overall, The Marksman is a missed opportunity. The concept is mediocre and could have achieved some entertaining results for sure. However the film looks ugly and feels ugly. Every shot looks grainy, every action scene is lifeless. This film is utter tripe! Wesley Snipes was never the best actor in the world, but surely even he deserves better than this!

2.1/10

It's Hebrew, it's from the Talmud. It says, "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire."

Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List is a challenging film to review. The incentive behind this is not because it's a bad movie...but that it's such a powerful experience to exhibit and it's virtually unfeasible to illustrate its power by employing words. In a sense, Spielberg's Schindler's List is something much more than a movie: this is a phenomenon!

When it was announced that director Spielberg was taking the reigns, this declaration encountered nothing but abject incredulity. Beforehand the director had only helmed mainstream blockbusters and films exhibiting bright exuberance like Jaws, Always, The Sugarland Express, Raiders of the Lost Ark and several others. Questions and uncertainties began to surface concerning the director's aptitude and capability to tackle a project of such enormity. There comes an occasion in the career of a director when they step away from the genre in which they take an interest, instead attempting something new. Certain directors have failed, some have prevailed. When Schindler's List was set for release, audiences sharpened their knives due to their qualms regarding the director. But make the film Spielberg did, and the world came to watch.

Spielberg achieved his goal beyond all initial comprehension...this was a step upwards for the director and a significant milestone in contemporary cinema. For the film's three hours duration audiences sat under an overwhelming collective spell - horrified, beleaguered, fascinated, inspired. As movie-goers stumbled, erratically blinking, from the theatres of the world, moist-eyed and moved, it became clear that a new era of filmmaking had commenced. Spielberg traded in his stereotyped career in the year 1993 with an astonishing double-whammy - he envisioned an unparalleled Holocaust template with Schindler's List, as well as resurrecting the dinosaurs with his astounding vision in Jurassic Park. By 1994 Spielberg was presiding over the most lucrative motion pictures of all time, and finally he received his cherished Oscar.

The subject matter is correctly a delicate topic. After all, it was only a number of decades ago that Adolf Hitler instigated a policy that necessitated the annihilation of Jews. Personally, I have studied the Holocaust in detail and am knowledgeable in the intricate, heart-wrenching niceties regarding the events leading up to mass murder. On a daily basis throughout the Holocaust, thousands of Jews were executed in sadistic ways - people were cooked alive, some shot, even some were exposed to poison gas. The disturbing factor is that the Nazis never felt an iota of sympathy due to the attitudes they were so severely lead to believe.

The focus of Schindler's List is not to portray the horrors that unfolded in extermination camps at all. Spielberg keeps the focus purely on the more minor events, and above all the viewpoint from a select few characters. The heavy nature in its depiction of executions challenges out notion of tolerance. We are challenged not only by the staggering acts of cruelty we see, but by the equally confounding acts of kindness. As we observe these ghastly proceedings unfold, we are strained to identify those virtues within ourselves that are equally light and dark. Schindler's List is not a film that we can impassively scrutinize. We are propelled into the dismay and the panic...the indignity, the brutality. As the title would suggest, this film is mainly the story of one man: Oskar Schindler (Neeson). Schindler is a Czech of German ethnicity who travels to Poland with the intention of becoming a war profiteer. He employs assistance from Jewish investors in order to buy his own pots-and-pans factory. At the outset, Schindler uses forced Jewish labour because it was inexpensive compared to hiring Polish workers. However, Schindler witnesses as World War II and the Holocaust develops with devastating results. These events are too overwhelming to fathom, and Schindler begins experiencing a slow, subtle moral awakening. His poignant story of bravery and generosity launches when Schindler cons the Nazis as he places more than a thousand Jews under his protection. By the conclusion of World War II, Schindler had exhausted his whole war-generated wealth to guarantee that his Jews would never again be touched by the Nazis.

On a more subtle, thematic level the screenwriter portrays a battle for Schindler's soul between camp commandant Amon Goeth (Fiennes) and Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern (Kingsley). Schindler's story is a staggering one. In a cacophony of death clouding his existence, one man managed to save roughly 1,100 Jewish lives using charisma, bluster, and trickery. The Holocaust has been previously described as a mechanical insanity because of the enormity of people who followed the philosophies: they are like cogs in a machine. It took a single person...a single machine cog with alternative ideas and an ethically problematic lifestyle (Schindler treasured alcohol and womanising) to mislead the Nazis (who regarded him as their frivolous comrade).

At the centre of the film we have a simply sublime group of actors. Liam Neeson nails the character of Oskar Schindler in a satisfyingly brilliant performance. Neeson perfectly displays Schindler's quiet method of expressing his morals. His outward show suggests he is a close buddy of the Nazis, but on the inside he's resentful and anguished towards the brutal, arbitrary termination of Jewish lives. Neeson was nominated for an Oscar. Ralph Fiennes was also nominated for an Oscar. His performance is utterly terrifying: he's intimidating and unnerving whenever he steps into the frame. His sheer established cruelty and viciousness will be enough to leave you in complete shock. This actor is focused as he portrays a character that appears to be soft-spoken when in fact his intentions are cruel and inhuman.

The meticulous screenplay was penned by Steven Zallian, and was based on the source material by Australian writer Thomas Keneally. Interestingly, Keneally was an accomplished author when he strolled into a luggage shop and immediately struck up a conversation with the shop owner. Said shop owner was one Leopald Page, formerly Poldek Pfefferberg: a Schindlerjuden. During their friendly conversation, Pfefferberg conveyed to Keneally the story of Oskar Schindler: the German industrialist who had saved him and 1,100 others from certain death in occupied Poland during the 1940s. Schindler was a Nazi who had not stood back. Keneally was so inspired and moved that he transformed this story into the Booker Prize winning novel Schindler's Ark. The rights were soon purchased by Universal boss Sid Sheinberg, and the transformation from book to movie was soon initiated. When Spielberg was involved in the project he originally offered the film to director Roman Polanski, but his own experiences in Polish ghettos were too tender for him to accept the director's chair. Thus Spielberg, who was at the time ensconced in post-production work for Jurassic Park, decided to tackle the directing duties himself. The director flew to Poland and began his masterwork for which he accepted no salary, saying that it would be akin to taking "blood money."

Spielberg worked intimately with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, and the project was lensed using stylish grainy black and white photography techniques. The film was undertaken without any storyboarding: Spielberg planned each shot instinctively as the cameras were about to roll, where all of his God-given skills as an accomplished director were distilled into something intuitional and turbulently expressive. The cinematography techniques created a realistic atmosphere of almost documentary footage: he utilised jarring hand-held filmmaking to portray the intense confusion for the Jews during times of complete chaos. Spielberg evokes these creative techniques to create the illusion of complete immersion: for the 190 minutes that make up this film's duration, you will feel transported to an entirely different world...you will feel engrossed in the occurrences. The music by none other than John Williams (Spielberg's trademark composer), is a poignant composition that adds to the atmosphere. But it's not the music that ultimately helps the audience get involved: it's the visuals. One scene was played to very little music; however it always makes me cry. The scene in question is when we watch as corpses are transported past Oskar Schindler to be dumped into the ground without an iota of sentimentality towards any of the victims. No matter how manly you consider yourself, your eyes will be moist.

Spielberg does not want his audience to endure a fun romp that you'll want to immediately watch again...he instead tells his story straight and with the utmost sincerity. World War II films cannot come more personal than the masterpiece that is Schindler's List. The reviews were exultant and the Oscar committee rewarded the film with twelve nominations. Although Spielberg did receive some criticism in relation to several aspects of the film, such judgements are hard to swallow after watching this film. While some slam the director for not including the prejudice towards the handicapped and the homosexuals that were also prosecuted, or that the focus was shifted away from the concentration camps...quite simply it does not matter at all. This is the story that Poldek Pfefferberg wanted told: a story that intimately examines one man and his struggle to come to terms with his morals during an internationally horrific event. This was never meant to be the definitive Holocaust film and hence doesn't need to concentrate on all aspects...this is a personal movie based on a personal experience.

After trying with such dedication since the commencement of his career, Steven Spielberg has finally achieved a mature production with Schindler's List. An extraordinary work by any standard: this intense historical and biographical drama, about an amazing Nazi industrialist, evinces an artistic intransigence and unsentimental intellect disparate from anything the world's most successful filmmaker had previously demonstrated. Infused with a brilliant screenplay, outstandingly sinuous cinematic techniques, three astonishing lead performances and an approach toward the traumatic subject matter that is both passionately felt and impressively restrained, this is the film to win over the Spielberg skeptics.

Even now, all these years after its cinematic release, Schindler's List remains an expressive, heartbreaking and remarkable slice of filmmaking that transcends all obstacles of theatrical disbelief. The film successfully draws us personally into the dark hearts of a dark age, and then liberates us with the few beams of light produced by the actions of the righteous few. The harrowing detail and poignancy of this production will enthral audiences for generations of movie-goers to follow. After you finish watching this movie you will have the words of Schindlerjuden profoundly present in your heart - "That it may never happen again." Winner of 7 Oscars including Best Picture 1993, Best Director (for Steven Spielberg), Best Cinematography (for Janusz Kaminski), Best Music (for John Williams), Best Film Editing (for Michael Kahn), Best Writing based on other material (for Steven Zallian) and Best Art Direction/Set Direction (for Allan Starski and Ewa Braun).

10.0/10

"God made alcohol as a social lubricant. To make men brave, and to make women loose."

From the viewpoint of Hollywood studios, films in the vein of Just Like Heaven are a blessing: they don't cost much to make, they don't take long to make, and they are modestly profitable at the box office. Quality is never the issue as a studio grabs an idea, hires a screenwriter to transform the idea into a full-length script, then the three major stages of filmmaking commence, and voila - 6 months later, a cheap sappy chick flick is produced. As much as it pains me to admit, Just Like Heaven isn't as bad as I was anticipating - but that's still a fairly faint praise. One of the most interesting aspects of this film is its subject matter explored by Hollywood on multiple occasions: what happens to us after we die? Films from Ghost to Beetlejuice have ventured a perspective on the matter, and despite the premise being delved into several times the afterlife is still a much-reprised foundation for a film in the age of contemporary chick flicks.

Just Like Heaven is not about to become the Citizen Kane of the genre, but it's a fair attempt at an average concept. Certainly, the film exceeded expectations set by its deplorable trailer. Successful Hollywood screenwriters Peter Tolan and Leslie Dixon have a few interesting credits on their résumé including crowd-pleasing flicks such as Analyze This, America's Sweethearts, Mrs. Doubtfire and The Next Best Thing. Their take on the concept is a fascinating one; however their script for Just Like Heaven fits comfortably in the 'average chick flick' category. This is a pleasant-enough romantic offering, but it's also a film that takes no risks and has nothing innovative to bestow. While watching the film we are always three steps ahead of it and its twists. However thanks to the likeable leads, a couple of touching scenes, funny moments and pacey direction we're content to be swept along with the proceedings.

David Abbott (Ruffalo) moves into a seemingly quiet San Francisco apartment. His life has been a total mess since the unfortunate demise of his wife two years earlier. Now his friends are encouraging him to get started on his life again. While still settling into his new apartment, he runs into the ghost/spirit of a young controlling woman named Elizabeth (Witherspoon). Three months earlier, Elizabeth had been in a car accident and is unaware that she is just a spirit. Elizabeth doesn't remember anything about who she once was, and wants David to move out of her apartment. After the two have a number of arguments and attempts are made to remove the "ghost", David becomes convinced that she isn't actually dead. Despite her controlling nature and annoying paranoia towards cleanliness, David slowly begins to fall for her. He now wants to find out more regarding the person she once was, and sets out to investigate with the spirit of Elizabeth by his side.

Just Like Heaven may be superior to your average chick flick...but this one is far from perfect. To get things started: it's far too clichéd, feel-good and conventional from square one. Almost every scene and every twist can be predicted after it's established. It's far too formulaic as a whole, and the final 10 minutes almost made me want to puke my guts out. Honestly, the ending is the worst part and almost an insult to the movie. Why? It's terribly feel-good and not at all clever. The final moments of the film can be predicted just by reading the plot synopsis or watching the first few minutes. The whole premise is completely preposterous! I mean, it's hard to overlook the obviously logistical flaws. Okay, so it's possible to turn off your brain for an over-the-top action movie but this is just way too far. As a whole the film is indescribably predictable, clichéd, formulaic, corny and sappy!

The only upside is the modest entertainment value. There is a strong group of actors involved, despite minuscule chemistry emerging between the leads. Seriously, Mark Ruffalo and Reese Witherspoon are good actors...they just don't make a convincing screen pair. Overall, Just Like Heaven is nothing more than your average Hollywood chick flick. It's entertaining enough with some good laughs and sweet moments, but it's clichéd and predictable beyond all belief!

5.8/10