Reviews by PvtCaboose91

The only reason someone would decide to view Fool's Gold is because it looks like a simple, bright, light-hearted romantic comedy with a sense of adventure. In a sense, this is the 2008 answer to films like Indiana Jones or Romancing the Stone...except this film never even gets close to matching its genre forerunners. This is a straightforward attempt to resurrect the good old-fashioned romantic-comedy adventures that were so successful during the 1980s. However the filmmakers never quite achieve their goal...Fool's Gold is more silly than romantic, more frantic than comedic, and more busy than adventurous. Nevertheless it's an admirable attempt at the genre that features an appealing cast and results in a flimsy slice of fun. You do want to be entertained, right? If you're prepared to overlook the sleazy elements, gaping plot holes and a few major illogical downfalls...you should enjoy watching this one.

Fool's Gold features Matthew McConaughey as Benjamin "Finn" Finnegan. In a nutshell, Finn is a good-natured man with a passion for treasure hunting. However Finn is also an irresponsible hoodlum who borrows money from investors to fund treasure hunts...then conveniently forgets to pay them back. Finn has more enemies than friends, and in the first 10 minutes it's established that his wife Tess (Hudson) is divorcing him. Although Finn appears to be unaware about why Tess is leaving him, it becomes pretty clear in the first few minutes: plain and simply, he's a complete moron! During their short-lived marriage (that was basically formed on great sex) they adopted an obsession for some exotic treasure lost in the 18th century by the Spaniards. In the lead up to the official divorce, Tess begins rebuilding her life by working for the wealthy Nigel Honeycutt (Sutherland) aboard his luxury yacht as a stewardess with plans to use the money to get back to the US and gain a Ph.D. However as Tess begins executing this plan, Finn discovers a vital clue that could lead to the discovery of the legendary treasure they are so obsessed with. After the divorce is finalised by default...Finn manoeuvres himself onto the yacht of Nigel Honeycutt who is currently in the company of his spoilt, ditzy daughter Gemma (Dziena). Using his good-natured charm, he convinces Nigel to fund his expedition in search of the treasure he has been so obsessed with.

So there you have it: Finn is passionately pursuing treasure and endeavouring to get his ex-wife back. Meanwhile, his ex-wife Tess is trying to get as far away from Finn as possible...obviously not succeeding or we wouldn't have a romance in this romantic comedy. The adventure also confounds Nigel, but he's such a good sport so he goes along with Finn's romantic dreams anyway. And then there's Gemma...she's frankly too much of an airhead for anything to perplex her. There's a garbage sub-plot about Nigel and his daughter that is far too superficial and superfluous, and supplies us with nothing to even remotely care about. Moe Fitch (Winstone) is Finn's rival in the story but never an enemy. Also, even though Bigg Bunny (Hart) is the film's principal bad guy, he's too much of a comic villain to be a genuine threat.

Fool's Gold at least has a decent entertainment value. This is not absolute, though, because from the outset we can predict how it will end. As a scene establishes itself, we can predict how things will pan out. It's what you expect from the genre, I suppose. The film's shortcomings are also in the script. I will admit that I chuckled a few times at the hysterical dialogue. There is a good supply of laughs to be found here: be it in the dialogue or in the over-the-top stunts. Unfortunately, the laughs are quite non-existent upon a second screening. The script is just typical genre fluff for the most part.

Even despite all these faults, the film is at least extremely attractive to look at. It was filmed in the beautiful locations of Australia and more marginally in the Bahamas (interestingly, the whole film is set in the Bahamas but prominently filmed in Queensland, Australia). The colour scheme is always bright and atmospheric. The mood of the beautiful waters of the Bahamas is perfectly captured here.

Matthew McConaughey is not exactly a great actor through my eyes. He has never done anything that's anywhere near Oscar-worthy. Here there is plenty of opportunity for McConaughey to display his new physique. He's been working out, and he wants people to be aware of it. Alas, about 800 times for McConaughey to take off the shirt and show the audience his muscles. Kate Hudson has some good chemistry with McConaughey. Both of them will never produce Oscar material of course. Despite this, there's a lovely romance sizzling here. Also in the cast there's a very funny Ewen Bremner, as well as an admirable supporting cast with names like Donald Sutherland, Ray Winstone and Kevin Hart. Alexis Dziena in particular is a stand out. Looking for someone to perfectly represent the ditsy, stupid young spoiled rich girl? You've come to the right place! Her dialogue is the most memorable.

Overall, the critics detested Fool's Gold but I have to be part of the minority that enjoyed it. In terms of production values, impressive stunts and dazzling locations...the film stocks an astronomical supply! The action is also high energy and enjoyable. It has its downfalls and major flaws, but by no means is this a terrible movie. Average at best...not terrible! The film puts forth a bundle of energy and it builds up to an interesting climax. At the end of the day it just tries too hard with too little; extending sequences that aren't very good to begin with before piling on more. Lord knows, it wants us to like it, and maybe that's enough.

Film's most notable moment: a group of zoned-out, bizarre young folk on a speed boat worshipping an unusual form of drink.

5.9/10

Rob Zombie's film directing debut, House of 1000 Corpses, was quite frankly nothing but inexorable torture porn with no heart holding everything together. That film received extremely mixed reviews and there is little wonder why. I can't stress this enough: Rob Zombie may be able to produce some decent music but his movies leave a lot to be desired. When Rob's House of 1000 Corpses finally got a distributor (the original distributor pulled out at the last second) it was a cult hit and of course inspired a sequel. Alas, ladies and gentlemen...lo and behold The Devil's Rejects. This sequel is essentially another slab of relentless torture porn. All the gory mutilations, killings, sex scenes and filthy dialogue are simply present to get a rise out of its audience. Everything has been inflated to almost hyperbolic proportions! Many of the same flaws that surfaced in the first movie make a customary return in the sequel.

The Devil's Rejects opens with news reports filled with information about a police raiding of the house that inhabited the psychotics that we were introduced to in House of 1000 Corpses. All the corpses they used to blemish the premises have been found rotting by the police. After a prolonged action scene to introduce the film, we find Baby Firefly (Zombie), Captain Spaulding (Haig) and Otis (Moseley) on the run subsequent to a manhunt being commenced by the police. While trying to evade the hordes of Texas policemen that are pursuing them, the troublesome trio of sadistic serial killers hit the road...leaving an enormous trail of corpses behind them. Because of the nature and callousness of the heinous crimes the trio have committed, Sheriff Wydell (Forsythe) aims to bring them to justice. But this quest slowly questions his sanity as he begins going above the law to bring what he feels is a necessary level of justice to the serial killing family that the media have labelled "The Devil's Rejects" (logically enough, therein lies the title).

Okay, I will admit that it's definitely an original and un-clichéd idea to follow the bad guys in a horror movie, in this case an unsavoury bunch of bastards. The key problem is that the heroes and the villains are blurred tremendously. We're supposed to empathise with some sick psychos who kill people for pleasure? On the other side of the law, we're expected to cheer for an unstable sheriff who turns out to be just as worse as the people he is pursuing?

Director Rob Zombie casually tosses away the subtle horror film homages that were a prominent element in House of 1000 Corpses. Now the film is nothing but violence and gore with a detestable bunch of characters. It's also really predictable as well as becoming increasingly boring. Essentially what you have here is a film that just wants to shock with violence and unlikable characters. Once you're desensitised to the violence or gratuity of it all, this isn't really enough to keep a film going. In the similar vein of gore-fests like Hostel, the film supplies nothing but mindless torture porn.

Another massive complaint about this movie is the despicable screenplay! Rob Zombie also penned the screenplay himself. There are no lines of dialogue that attempt to sound witty. This is typical Rob Zombie dialogue: swearing, swearing, swearing, heavy profanity and of course more swearing! The number of f-words that are constantly utilised can easily set a record! At the end of the day, Rob's aim was not to place the f-word here and there when it's most appropriate...instead he places the word in almost every sentence to the point that it sounds unrealistic and almost plain offensive! Rob also wants the film to dig down into the lives of these serial killers. Aside from the obvious motive of character development that horror films usually fail at, there doesn't seem to be much point at all. These people are disconcerting psychotics and they expect that fleshing out their story will help the movie?

This pathetic screenplay is not exactly assisted by the actors. Just like the first film, the actors are a bunch of losers. Sid Haig was very underused in the first film and this disappointed me. I was hoping that the second film would show more of the eccentric clown. I actually got that! But not what I was expecting...you see I wanted clever dialogue that he frequently delivered in the first film. Here we are just fed a bunch of profanity and a revolting background. Sheri Moon Zombie is only here because she is the wife of director Rob Zombie. Rob just wants to flaunt his wife and hopefully make people think that he's a lucky man. But his wife cannot act! She's an annoying jabber-jaw with a knack for making the dialogue sound even worse. I thought my ears were going to explode! Bill Moseley is more of the same.

The filmmaking is everything we've come to expect from director Rob Zombie: terrible editing and bad cinematography mixed with fast, jumpy edits and loud rock music. I could barely stand it. The only redeeming features include some of the satisfying gore, and there are a number of laughs. Aside from that it's also mildly entertaining for the first half an hour before trailing off into the universe of monotonous, pointless storytelling.

Overall, The Devil's Rejects may be marginally better than its predecessor, but that still isn't saying much. The horror scenes don't have much depth and aren't suspenseful. It seems the director wants to create gore, not horror scenes. The worst part is that the songs employed by the filmmakers may be good music, but are used inappropriately in my opinion. The script tries to shock with vulgarity in the dialogue that ultimately backfires completely.

This film strives to reference the horror films of the early days of the genre that were relentless and satisfying. Rob relies on people who like that sort of stuff. In a sense he found his target audiences because a lot of moviegoers liked it. Well, they are entitled to their own opinion I guess. The target audience must be too foolish to realise they are just watching a bunch of garbage. Most of the sequences in the film are stretched out and forced. The hotel hostage situation kept dragging on and on...there was never any freaking point! The biggest detractor and insult is luring the audiences into empathising with the murderous family that the film follows. The lines between good and bad are so blurred that you just don't really care and you are never given a reason to care!

5.1/10

In the 1980s and 90s, Rob Zombie emerged as a successful musician equally as a solo performer and as a component of his heavy metal band, White Zombie. The man was born Robert Cummings, later changed to Robert Straker. In Rob's early days he dwelled on a diet of comics, heavy metal music, low-budget horror and science fiction. Low-budget horror was observably his foremost influence when he completed his directorial debut.

House of 1000 Corpses is irrefutably the work of Rob Zombie as his prime inspirations are palpably noticeable while examining the film's style. Rob's extraordinary and unique visual style is instantaneously identifiable and this film indubitably exhibits a number of the elements he has employed in the past. Writer/director Rob Zombie aimed to return horror back to its low-budget roots: back to the glorious halcyon days.

The film opens on the date of October 30th (Halloween), 1977. Local news communiqués are dominated with reports in relation to five missing cheerleaders who are presumed dead. Their disappearance was under suspicious circumstances. Meanwhile, it's a dark, cold and rainy night as two young couples are travelling together: driving to random locations with the intention of noting and researching roadside attractions for a book they are determined to publish. Practically out of petrol (aren't we all used to that in this day and age...) the four stop at the bizarre, curious establishment of "Captain Spaulding's Museum of Monsters and Madmen". Upon arrival, they discover that it is extremely to their liking and style: the kind of peculiar roadside attractions that they are out searching for. They are openly greeted by the enthusiastic, quirky and eccentric Captain Spaulding (Haig). Much to the dismay of their female companions, the guys indulge themselves in the wacky attractions on offer. Spaulding then tells the group of the local legend of Doctor Satan, and the guys believe that it would be a splendid subject to cover in their book. As they continue their travels that are welcomed by an unusual family who turn out to be an insane horde of psychotics. The four are set upon by these psychotics, and are now forced to endure the horrors of the house of 1000 corpses and its dark secrets.

As a first-time director, Rob has succeeded in generating an authentic and credible comedy-thriller, with an undeniable 70s feel throughout the film's duration. To his credit, House of 1000 Corpses flaunts a virtuoso filmmaking debut for Rob that wears its influences on its sleeve and makes no secret of the fact that it is paying tribute to a genre that is in urgent need of resurrection.

Although there are a number of admirable traits on exhibition, there is also an abundance of unneeded elements. For example, Rob splices the footage he's shot with footage from old horror movies. There are also a lot of titles created in true 1970s style: the kind of thing you'd expect to see at the drive-in cinema. Even some of the footage Rob had filmed has been made to look dated and grainy to add to the established authenticity. Unfortunately, these edits are jumpy and fast; ultimately leaving the audience with a sense of gross disorientation. The editing is particularly abysmal as a whole. Rob could have achieved something much more if his cinematography techniques more closely followed its inspirations. Low-budget horror films of the 1970s contained steady and concentrated cinematography that allows the audience to understand what is going on.

Rob's cinematography is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre style (shaky cam) mixed into the MTV-quick-cut style of the contemporary horror genre. With this fatal trait in place, the film becomes nothing more than an excuse to showcase some appallingly gory scenes of torture and mutilation that have been filmed dreadfully! These gory scenes will have you closer to vomiting because the shaky cam and fast cutting will make you feel queasy, while the torture on display will make you violently hurl everything in your stomach. The prosthetic effects are disturbingly effective. The editing flaws could have been a lot worse, but with these implemented flaws the film cannot reach the standard that Rob was probably aiming for.

House of 1000 Corpses is also radically dissimilar to all other horror films due to the distinct lack of likable characters. It's impossible to empathise with any of the characters as they are all despicable. On that note, the script is a dismal piece of material. Rob Zombie also penned the screenplay himself. There is a short supply of witty dialogue; instead going for disgusting dialogue mainly consisting of profanity and people using embarrassing terms.

The performances are mainly quite hollow and sometimes the actors will actually hurt your ears! As this is a homage to the early low-budget horror movies, bad acting can be forgiven. But this is another thing that detracts from the overall film value. The only performance I found good was Sid Haig as the suitably quirky clown who owns the bizarre roadside attraction. Unfortunately, Haig is criminally underused. This is the single good actor in the whole film...and he receives roughly 20 minutes of screen-time! Most of the females are there to squeal and swear. Sometimes their feisty nature is a little disturbing.

As director Rob Zombie's early days were in the music industry, we must expect an interesting array of music on display. It's hard to describe the music. It's catchy but occasionally unsuitable. I guess it supplies the film with an almost laughable atmosphere at times. There are a few shootings that occur to typical redneck music while events unfold in slow motion...this is just one example of the peculiar music employed heavily by the filmmakers. Some of the music is moody enough to suit the film; however at other times...not so much.

Overall, House of 1000 Corpses is an interesting directing debut from one of the music industry's most popular names. Rob Zombie proves that with a modest budget he can create a slab of unique torture porn that will be happily devoured by horror fans. If you enjoy low-budget horror of the 1970s, this film is probably for you. The film is unsettling and atmospheric, and to be frank it's quite excruciating during the final act. The film sets up an interesting host of characters that are also very disconcerting. Rob Zombie is seemingly determined and creates a visually engaging production. Apart from being torture porn with a bit of catchy music and interesting characters, the film is nothing more. Currently this film balances comfortably on the fine line of "barely watchable". I'm happy I saw it, but I'm in no rush to revisit. Followed by The Devil's Rejects.

4.9/10

Immaculately sticking the landing, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King solidifies Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy as arguably the greatest cinematic achievement in history; an involving, visually striking saga that continues to endure over twenty years after its release. Saving the best for last, The Return of the King is a masterpiece beyond comprehension - it is the best movie of 2003 and Jackson's crowning achievement, surpassing even the most optimistic of expectations. With an enormous running time exceeding three hours, The Return of the King closes the esteemed trilogy without even the slightest drop in quality, as the writing, direction, editing, visual effects and score remain first-rate. In adapting J.R.R. Tolkien's final novel, Jackson (who again co-wrote the screenplay with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) takes certain liberties with the source material, making it clear that this is an adaptation instead of a slavish page-to-screen translation, but the resulting movie is an emotionally resonant, dramatically satisfying crowd-pleaser, making it hard to imagine a better concluding chapter. Although Jackson again increases the story's scope and scale, he never loses sight of the material's humanity, which elevates The Lord of the Rings above lesser fantasy movies. After the Academy Awards only recognised the previous films for their technical accomplishments, The Return of the King took home eleven Oscars, including Best Picture, with the film winning in every category for which it was nominated.

Without any recap or flashbacks, The Return of the King dives straight into the story, making it essential for viewers to be familiar with the earlier instalments. Picking up soon after The Two Towers, hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Samwise (Sean Astin) continue their journey to Mordor to destroy the treacherous One Ring, guided by Gollum (Andy Serkis). Gollum still greatly desires the ring and plans to reclaim it after betraying the hobbits, while Sam's unshakable distrust for the emaciated creature continues to grow. Meanwhile, after the sacking of Isengard and the Battle for Helm's Deep, hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) reunite with Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), returning to Edoras with King Théoden (Bernard Hill). Upon deducing that Sauron's forces intend to strike Gondor's capital of Minas Tirith, Gandalf rides to the city to warn the corrupt steward, Denethor (John Noble), of the impending attack. With Gondor's forces including Boromir's (Sean Bean) brother, Faramir (David Wenham), Gandalf begins encouraging the city to prepare their defences, and he signals for Rohan's assistance. However, Denethor staunchly opposes Théoden's arrival as it will bring the return of Aragorn, who is Isildur's heir and the rightful King of Gondor.

Reminiscent of The Two Towers, The Return of the King cross-cuts between several narrative strands and groups of characters that eventually coalesce throughout the movie, and the editing remains smooth and fluid, maintaining momentum while building to an astonishingly emotional conclusion. With a different editor overseeing each instalment, The Return of the King reunites Jackson with long-time editorial collaborator Jamie Selkirk (Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, Dead Alive, Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners), and the cross-cutting remains astute. When the Battle of the Pelennor Fields begins, the movie rarely lets up, leading to relentless combat while never neglecting the all-important human element. Despite an intimidating running time of over three hours, The Return of the King does not feel torturously overlong or fatiguing. With Jackson working through ample narrative material, and with Jackson and Selkirk working to impeccably shape the final cut, the film possesses a storytelling economy not often glimpsed in movies of this length. The extended edition adds another 50 minutes to the experience, with the film clocking in at just over four hours, not including credits. Although Jackson prefers the theatrical cut, the extended edition adds a few beats that are crucial for narrative coherency, including a final confrontation with Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Gríma Wormtongue (Brad Dourif), plus the Witch-king breaking Gandalf's staff during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. For my money, the extended edition better serves the sprawling story, and it is the definitive way to experience The Return of the King.

Jackson amplifies the stakes with each instalment as the conflicts grow increasingly larger, and The Return of the King continues this. The Return of the King is an all-out war movie, with all remaining factions of men banding together against the armies of Mordor to prevent Middle-earth from falling into darkness. There was a tremendous sense of loss throughout the Battle for Helm's Deep in The Two Towers, but the losses throughout The Return of the King are devastating, with Sauron's forces ruthlessly slaughtering hundreds of soldiers from Gondor and Rohan, making viewers wonder if any free people will remain after Sauron's defeat. With important characters dying during the course of the trilogy, a nail-biting sense of tension permeates the battles, as it is unclear who will survive. Within the restrictions of a PG-13 rating, Jackson conveys the horrors of battle and conflict with an astonishing body count and incredible intensity. The extended edition adds more violence to the combat sequences, and it never feels like Jackson is pulling any punches for the sake of the MPAA. The Siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, which occur one after the other, represent the movie's action centrepiece, and Jackson pulls out all the stops with a mind-blowing sequence that tops the scope of Helm's Deep while remaining focused on the characters. In addition to providing emotional stimulation, the eye candy is unbelievable, with Mordor's assault including armoured trolls, catapults, gigantic elephant-like creatures, and Ringwraiths riding on large, winged fell beasts that assault the city from the air. Jackson even indulges his horror sensibilities when the Orcs launch decapitated heads at Minas Tirith. However, the action is more than just bombastic noise and death, as the battles involve strategy and intelligence, and they coherently progress while providing key narrative developments.

Although the first two Lord of the Rings films contain countless standout moments, Jackson inarguably tops everything with the Ride of the Rohirrim, which endures as one of the best film scenes in cinema history. From Théoden's inspiring, fearless speech (delivered with stirring zeal by the note-perfect Bernard Hill) to Howard Shore's evocative, exhilarating music, plus the technical execution, the sequence is a sensational crowd-pleaser, with the riders showing outstanding courage in the face of indescribable danger. Théoden riding down the line of riders and tapping each spear with his sword results in a tremendous emotional swell and an overwhelming sense of honour. Similarly, Aragorn's speech at the Black Gate also triggers immediate goosebumps as he leads a last alliance of men against the forces of Mordor to draw Sauron's gaze away from Frodo. One cannot overstate the power of Shore's music, as the composer turns seemingly unremarkable moments into triumphant and exciting sequences with his orchestral accompaniments, such as the lighting of the beacons that signal Rohan to ride to Gondor's aid. Shore's score is note-perfect, alternating between ethereal and exciting, with the music becoming as synonymous with Middle-earth as the New Zealand locations.

Blockbusters with gigantic budgets were not uncommon in 2003, with films like Waterworld, Titanic and Armageddon each approaching the $200 million mark. Consequently, it is all the more miraculous that The Return of the King only cost a comparatively modest $94 million, as the technical presentation is impeccable. Cinematographer Andrew Lesnie again captures the breathtaking New Zealand scenery with visual elegance, incorporating sweeping aerial shots to emphasise the production's incredible scale (see the Nazgul descending on Minas Tirith from the air) while also coherently capturing the frenetic battles. The director of photography consistently finds stunning screen artistry, even in minor scenes. Although a visual continuity runs throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy, each instalment still feels like a distinct and proper film with a recognisable aesthetic identity. Indeed, the scenery and colour palette change to reflect the overarching story as each film introduces us to new cities and locations around Middle-earth. Nevertheless, it is hard to approach the movies as separate entities; instead, they represent three pieces of an exquisite whole that add up to more than the sum of its immaculate parts.

With the events of The Return of the King taking place in vast locations, most notably the white city of Minas Tirith, the combination of practical sets and digital extensions is flawless. Jackson primarily uses enormous miniatures (or "bigatures") and forced perspective techniques instead of outright CGI, resulting in a tangible aesthetic that helps everything feel real and lived-in. Although there is ample green and blue-screen work (such as the Mount Doom interiors), a vast portion of The Return of the King was filmed on location. Not all of the compositing stands up to contemporary scrutiny (in a wide shot during Aragorn's coronation, green-screen is visible around the edges of several extras), but it nevertheless remains sufficiently convincing, with no shots detracting from the film's sheer magic or emotional power. Indeed, despite considerable advancements in special effects technology over the last two decades, the Lord of the Rings trilogy still looks fantastic, especially with CGI often wildly varying in quality in 2024 due to unfeasible demand and insufficient time.

Gollum remains an outstanding CGI miracle: he's a fully digital character with soul and emotion, convincingly overcoming the "uncanny valley" feeling that was prevalent at the time and for many years afterwards. With Serkis again delivering an extraordinary motion-capture performance as the haunting yet endearing creature, the subtle expressions and movements make Gollum feel more authentic, and it is often difficult to believe the character is entirely computer-generated. The prologue details Sméagol's transformation into Gollum, and it is hard to ascertain the precise moment when the digital character replaces Serkis in prosthetic makeup. Equally effective is the grotesque, digitally-created Shelob, a giant spider that lives in Cirith Ungol and feasts on anything unfortunate enough to cross her path. Even by 2024 standards, the CGI Shelob looks enormously convincing, while the scenes of Frodo navigating her unsettling lair are genuinely chilling and feel like something from a horror film. The Return of the King features more special effects shots than any of its predecessors (in fact, it has nearly twice as many VFX shots as The Two Towers), but large parts of the film receive no computer assistance, with the intricate costumes, incredible sets and elaborate makeup enflaming our imaginations. 

With the characters continuing to grow and progress over the trilogy, the ensemble cast remains ideal, effortlessly handling the nuances and requirements of their respective roles. There is a distinct cadence and a beautiful poeticism to the dialogue, and, thanks to the performers, it all sounds wholly natural instead of contrived. Front and centre here are Elijah Wood and Sean Astin as Frodo and Sam. The Return of the King powerfully portrays the physical, mental and spiritual exhaustion of their journey - as they approach Mount Doom, all vestiges of cleanliness, happiness and energy are gone, replaced with intense fatigue and haggard faces. The resultant emotion is overpowering, and the actors are up to the task, never setting a foot wrong. Gandalf, meanwhile, plays a more prominent role in these proceedings, and McKellen (who received an Academy Award nomination for his performance in The Fellowship of the Ring) emanates gravitas, warmth and a sense of regal authority as the great wizard. The Return of the King also gives Gandalf more to do on the battlefield, where he leads Gondor's army and fights the Orcs using his sword and staff instead of mere magic. Mortensen also takes on more responsibility as Aragorn, and he remains a perfect embodiment of the reluctant king, who is a skilled warrior and a humble ruler.

Bloom and Rhys-Davies continue to impress as the duo of Legolas and Gimli, and it is difficult to hold back tears as the competitive pair at long last vocalise their friendship in the face of almost certain death. The actions of all the characters carry more weight and significance here because of the amount of time we have spent with them in the preceding films, making it even more poignant to see Merry and Pippin express their desire to fight despite their small stature, or Eowyn bravely stand up against the intimidating Witch-king of Angmar to protect Théoden. Boyd makes a huge impression as Pippin, with The Return of the King introducing more nuance and emotion as the burden of the adventure finally takes its toll on the hobbit. Boyd even shows off his remarkable vocal talent in one scene as Pippin sings for the selfish, short-sighted Denethor while Faramir leads a squad of Gondorian soldiers in a fruitless attempt to reclaim Osgiliath. Speaking of Denethor, Australian actor John Noble is terrific in the role, seemingly teetering on the edge of insanity while unable to face the reality of the situation facing him.

The Return of the King's prolonged epilogue has become a pop culture joke (see 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), but Jackson needed time to properly wrap up the story, especially with such a vast ensemble of characters and many narrative strands to resolve. In Tolkien's The Return of the King novel, over 100 pages remain after the ring's destruction, which would translate to over an hour of screen time. The elongated epilogue once again reiterates that The Lord of the Rings is a story more about people than fantasy or action, and the ensuing catharsis is overwhelming. Additionally, one of the film's underlying themes relates to the loss of innocence, and the ending of The Return of the King explores the ostensible impossibility of returning to one's old life after a traumatic adventure. Although Sam's last words of dialogue in the movie's final scene seem insignificant, his proclamation of, "Well, I'm back" refers to his metaphorical and physical return to the Shire, whereas the mental adjustment was not as easy for Frodo. This material reflects the experiences of war veterans whose lives were irrevocably changed by the battlefield, which is unsurprising considering that Tolkien fought in the First World War. If anything, the epilogue is not long enough (more scenes were shot but remain unreleased). Indeed, the appearance of the end credits triggers an immediate sense of melancholy as they signify the end of an amazing adventure. Annie Lennox's original song Into the West accompanies the credits, and it adds even more emotional weight to the beautiful illustrations of the actors (drawn by the trilogy's conceptual designer, Alan Lee) during the all-important curtain call.

With each passing year, it becomes clearer that The Lord of the Rings represents the pinnacle of cinema, with the industry growing increasingly worse in subsequent years as digital technology took over and agendas hijacked production integrity. The Lord of the Rings was produced at just the right time when CGI was one tool in an endless arsenal of filmmaking techniques, shooting on celluloid was still commonplace, and before Hollywood became obsessed with subverting expectations and reimagining source material using diversity checklists. Jackson and his crew were merely concerned with creating the most coherent, dramatically satisfying and exciting adaptation of Tolkien's works, retaining his spirit and tone without relinquishing artistic integrity or inserting additional messages or themes. After all, Tolkien despised allegory. Simply labelling The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as a film feels like an injustice; it is an experience that practically transcends the medium, delivering awe-inspiring visual spectacle, grandiose imagination and overwhelming emotion, and the fact that it still remains at the forefront of pop culture consciousness is a testament to the trilogy's unmatched staying power. Indeed, for many fans, The Lord of the Rings is more of a spiritual experience than just a movie. Although this reviewer is a fan of Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy, it does not come close to recapturing the magic of The Lord of the Rings. It is doubtful that anything ever will.

10/10

Following the critical and commercial success of 2001's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is an intimidating prospect for any filmmaker, even with existing source material to guide the narrative. Fortunately, 2002's The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers lives up to and even surpasses expectations, representing another magnificent epic with tremendous visual splendour and overwhelming emotional power, immaculately bringing J.R.R. Tolkien's novel to life. Once again helmed by Peter Jackson, who co-wrote the script with Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Stephen Sinclair, The Two Towers equals The Fellowship of the Ring from a writing and technical aspect, as this follow-up retains its predecessor's boundless positives while increasing the stakes and expanding the scope of Middle-earth. Naturally, with The Two Towers representing the trilogy's middle chapter, viewers must be familiar with The Fellowship of the Ring before viewing, as the first instalment establishes the overarching story and the mythology surrounding Sauron's One Ring.

After the Skirmish at Amon Hen, the Fellowship is fragmented, with Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) continuing their journey to Mordor to destroy the treacherous One Ring. Without a guide, the two hobbits struggle to make progress through the labyrinthine hills of Emyn Muil, seemingly going in circles. With the obsessive former ring bearer, Gollum (Andy Serkis), tracking their movements, Frodo and Sam capture the emaciated creature and allow him to serve as their guide into Mordor. Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) set out to save their hobbit companions, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), from a band of Uruk-hai. After Merry and Pippin manage to escape their captors, they flee into Fangorn Forest where they encounter Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies), an Ent who acts as a shepherd of the forest. Learning that Merry and Pippin are safe, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli encounter Gandalf (Ian McKellen), who is reborn as Gandalf the White, returning to help save Middle-earth from the threat of Sauron. The four travel to Rohan's capital, Edoras, where Gandalf frees King Théoden (Bernard Hill) from Saruman's (Christopher Lee) control. With the armies of Mordor closing in on Rohan, Théoden chooses to evacuate the city, leading his people to the fortress stronghold of Helm's Deep.

Tolkien's novel concentrates on a single narrative strand at a time, but such an approach would not work in a cinematic setting. Accordingly, this film adaptation consistently crosses between locations and characters, building to the climactic third act involving the Battle of Helm's Deep, the attack on Isengard, and the siege of Osgiliath. Although the novel continues beyond these events, they represent a perfect closure point for this film, with Jackson saving the remainder of the book's events for The Return of the King. Thanks to the astute editing by Michael J. Horton (Once Were Warriors), the cross-cutting is astonishingly effective instead of frustrating, with ample momentum as the movie builds to its dramatic crescendo. As with The Fellowship of the Ring, the screenplay takes liberties with the source material to streamline the story's events, but The Two Towers remains true to the spirit and tone of Tolkien's works, retaining the broad strokes while changing some of the fine details to ensure a coherent, engaging and dramatically satisfying motion picture. It is crucial to perceive Jackson's trilogy as an adaptation instead of a page-by-page regurgitation.

Like its predecessor, The Two Towers is an emotionally resonant story about people, with themes of friendship and heroism, while the fantasy elements seem almost incidental. The film's poignancy is impossible to overstate; it is difficult to hold back tears as Théoden mourns the loss of his son or Sam reminds a disillusioned Frodo of the remaining good in Middle-earth that is worth fighting for. Strong, well-developed characters make it possible to feel empathy for the ensemble and care during each action sequence, adding a layer of intensity that most blockbusters fail to match. The crowd-pleasing moments are exhilarating, from Gandalf the White emerging to the shock of his friends to the climactic moments at Helm's Deep as the devastating battle reaches its rousing conclusion. The extended edition of The Two Towers restores 45 minutes of excised footage, adding more dramatic scenes, intimate character moments (including a flashback featuring Sean Bean as Boromir), and action beats, including a few additional dismemberments at Helm's Deep. The extended edition is the definitive way to experience The Two Towers, as the experience feels more complete, but Jackson's theatrical cut nevertheless remains a masterpiece and does not lose anything truly essential to the narrative.

Returning cinematographer Andrew Lesnie beautifully captures the breathtaking New Zealand vistas and intricate sets, with intermittent aerial shots augmenting the movie's impressive scope. From the first frame, Jackson convincingly transports us to Middle-earth, a place that feels lived-in and authentically real instead of a generic fantasyland. With Jackson and his team filming the Lord of the Rings trilogy back-to-back, there's palpable visual continuity to the locations, production design and special effects. The Two Towers thankfully relies on extensive location filming, vast sets, miniatures, forced perspective, intricate prosthetics, and many other old-school techniques to create Middle-earth, while digital effects further enhance the visuals. The height difference between the hobbits, dwarves and humans seems effortless, as the crew used scale doubles, trick photography, and compositing to convincingly sell the illusion. But the most notable special effects accomplishment is the character of Gollum. The notion of a fully digital character seems quaint in the 2020s, but the technology was still in its infancy in 2002. The computer-generated Gollum represents a landmark in special effects, helping to earn the movie a well-deserved Academy Award for Best Visual Effects. Especially with the 35mm photography giving the film a tangible aesthetic, Gollum looks thoroughly convincing, and the illusion still stands over twenty years later. In addition to Gollum, The Two Towers features other digital creations. Treebeard is another special effects miracle, though parts of the character were achieved practically, especially during close-ups when Jackson's crew only used CGI to animate the face. The Wargs are slightly less convincing, but this is a minor imperfection.

Whereas The Fellowship of the Ring involves smaller, more intimate conflicts between the Fellowship and the armies of Mordor, The Two Towers expands the scope of Middle-earth, portraying larger battles with higher stakes. Jackson continues to demonstrate a superb flair for action, staging intense and violent set pieces that are visually distinct. Tolkien's prose does not outline the battles in great detail, leaving Jackson and his team to creatively interpret the material, devising battle sequences that make narrative and visual sense. Among the highlights is a sensational skirmish between Rohan's soldiers and a group of Warg-riding Orcs, but the movie's centrepiece is the Battle of Helm's Deep, which is one of the most magnificent battle sequences in cinema history, a masterclass in fight choreography, immaculate special effects, nail-biting tension, and affecting heartbreak. The battle lasts for the best part of an hour, yet it progresses coherently while maintaining interest, never devolving into a numbing, soulless, or nihilistic collection of drab combat beats. With the battle featuring thousands of combatants in singular shots, the special effects team designed a groundbreaking software program called Massive, which generates thousands of artificially intelligent characters. Instead of individually animating every digital soldier, Massive dramatically simplified the process, and the technology is still in use over twenty years later. The digitally-created long shots showing hundreds of Uruk-hai and men look borderline photorealistic and seamlessly cut in with the live-action photography, allowing Jackson to spatially establish critical parts of the battle before putting us in the thick of the visceral combat alongside the characters. Additionally, composer Howard Shore continues to demonstrate his unmatched talents here, making it hard to imagine The Lord of the Rings being the same without his truly impeccable music. Shore builds upon the motifs established in The Fellowship of the Ring, developing more cues and distinct themes for locations and characters. This is most deeply felt in the distinctive Rohan theme, which gives the city and its people a strong aural personality. Shore's original score enhances the film's emotionality and sense of exhilaration, delivering far more than mere background noise.

A pitch-perfect selection of new and returning actors fill out the enormous ensemble. It is genuinely impossible to imagine any other performers playing these roles, to the extent that the actors have become synonymous with their respective characters. With the One Ring starting to take its toll on Frodo and impact his mental state, Elijah Wood demonstrates more dimension and emotion here, while Sean Astin remains thoroughly likeable and human as the noble, heroic Samwise, who refuses to let anything happen to his companion, and brings Frodo back from the brink in several scenes. Meanwhile, although Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies showed ample personality in The Fellowship of the Ring, the pair truly come into their own throughout The Two Towers, trading banter and showing their competitive sides, adding humour and levity to augment the story's humanity. Alongside them, Viggo Mortensen remains an impeccable Aragorn, fully embodying the character and appearing fearless during combat. Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan once again provide worthwhile comedic relief as Pippin and Merry, but they also handle weightier material here, with Monaghan, in particular, showing more dramatic range.

Liv Tyler also deserves a mention as Arwen Evenstar, an elf in love with Aragorn. After her introduction in The Fellowship of the Ring, Tyler has more to do here, submitting a nuanced performance with profound emotion. Miraculously, Tyler's Arwen is strong and brave but also beautiful and innately feminine, and she convincingly plays a world-weary elf who is thousands of years old despite being in her early 20s here. Out of the newcomers, Andy Serkis makes the biggest impression as Gollum. Using groundbreaking motion-capture technology, Serkis's facial performance wholly translates to the digital creature, and the results are breathtaking. Thanks to Serkis, we feel pity for this tragic and conflicted figure who is fundamentally a villain but receives more dimension and depth than expected. Through clever editing and Serkis's nuanced performance, Jackson brilliantly sells the duality between Gollum and Sméagol. Also joining the ensemble is Bernard Hill, who plays an authoritative and engaging King Théoden, while Miranda Otto is strong and regal as Théoden's niece, Eowyn. Like Arwen, Eowyn is endearingly feminine but also wants to fight for her loved ones, coming across as courageous and determined. Additionally, Otto shares several wonderful moments with Mortensen, and the two share wonderful chemistry. Meanwhile, Karl Urban appears as Éomer, a steely and ruthless warrior who leads a band of Rohirrim cavalry. Despite his limited screen time, Urban makes a terrific impression. In the villainous role of the slimy Grima Wormtongue, Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky) superbly plays alongside Christopher Lee, who remains an ideal Saruman.

Inevitably, since The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is the trilogy's middle instalment, it only continues the story instead of starting or finishing it, but it is still a distinctive motion picture that builds to a satisfying conclusion, finding a logical closure point as opposed to a frustrating cliffhanger. In other words, it still feels like a proper film. Complaints that the movie does not contribute anything worthwhile are frankly puzzling, as each narrative thread in The Two Towers receives a resolution, from Théoden successfully defending his people against the thousands of Uruk-hai sent to destroy Rohan, to Merry and Pippin managing to take an active role in the war against Sauron, setting the stage for the events of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Under Jackson's careful directorial eye, The Two Towers is full of astonishing spectacle and tremendous action set pieces, but he never lets the special effects overwhelm the story's humanity or emotional core. Like its predecessor, this is another award-worthy production that does not feel like tepid homework.

10/10

Four Brothers is a gripping, gritty, brutal, emotionally powerful action-packed urban drama from Oscar-nominated director John Singleton (who reached success with his debut drama Boyz n the Hood). Unfortunately, upon release I judged the book by its cover and awarded this film the dismissive cold shoulder with little intention of approaching it. I didn't know much about the plot, but nonetheless the poster looked stale and didn't flare an interest in my mind at all. As it turns out, Four Brothers is an exceptional crowd-pleaser that surpassed all my expectations.

The film is a testosterone-fuelled drama with an equal mix of humour, action and drama. This is the furthest thing from your typical fluffy action film that boasts someone like Van Damme or Steven Seagal as the film's primary acting talent. There is violent action aplenty (one of the film's primary action scenes I already want to see again), but what makes this film so excellent is that it's not just a string of continuous action scenes. The filmmakers also boast an impressive amount of emotionally-driven moments that are fuelled by the powerhouse performances. From a simple plot synopsis, one would probably think that this is a straightforward, predictable clichéd-ridden story of achieving retribution. On the contrary, the results are simply stunning: director John Singleton has great skills when behind the camera, bringing this action-packed drama to life with visually remarkable consequences. The film is well-paced, taut, stylised and violent - the filmmakers never attempt to hold back on displaying heavy violence and bloodshed.

In essence, Four Brothers is a modern-day Western. But this is not your ordinary Western: this is an urban-infused, Western-style drama set in the inner city of snow-gripped Detroit. The typical spaghetti Westerns would portray a lone gunman riding into town to face the bad guys head-on. In this case, the film trades in the single gunman approach and instead places four men as an alternative. The four central protagonists are the adopted Mercer brothers: two white, two black - Bobby (Wahlberg), Angel (Gibson), Jeremiah (Benjamin) and Jack (Hedlund). After the brothers lived through their childhood, they all went their separate ways. Their mother is a much respected elderly citizen named Evelyn Mercer (Flanagan). Evelyn is a well-liked lady with a penchant for helping the lives of troublesome young kids. One night, Evelyn's tranquil life is disrupted when an apparent grocery store robbery results in her being gunned down in cold blood. Her funeral attracts the four brothers who hadn't been together since their childhood period concluded. These estranged brothers reunite and seek revenge on whoever is responsible for the murder of their mother. The police don't appear to be doing anything to solve the case, so the brothers take the law into their own hands and commence their pursuit for justice.

As the plot thickens and the investigation lengthens, it becomes apparent that the "accidental death" of their mother might not have been unintentional after all.

Four Brothers is visceral filmmaking that satisfied my every requirement for entertainment. Like I stated previously, the film has lots of action but it's not a ludicrous string of action with no heart. At the core of the film there is heart and an important sense of camaraderie. Running at approximately 100 minutes, the film successfully packs one heck of a wallop! It's tightly edited and encompasses a lot to examine underneath while not spending an overwhelming amount of time on unnecessary drama. To establish the characters there's no extensive dialogue scene; instead they are introduced when they are being reunited at the funeral and the cops discuss the history behind each individual. Without being corny or poorly written, this is an extremely creative way to feed the audience everything they need to know before proceeding into the nitty gritty.

I was especially fond of the atmosphere the film creates. The use of carefully-chosen music (mainly hip-hop) gives the unmistakable impression of an unsavoury neighbourhood. Leave it up to John Singleton: a man who completely understands the style, genre and background. You can also expect a thread of unpredictability: the audience will be lead down a continuous path of red herrings until the film's wholly satisfying conclusion. Another completely admirable element is that the filmmakers are not afraid to be relentless. One character is treated with about as much sentimentality as the next. They're never afraid of the consequences when one man is killed off.

One of the main qualities of the film is the strong sense of companionship and solidarity between the four lead characters. Mark Wahlberg is an outstanding actor who infuses a sense of brutality and conviction in his portrayal. So to speak, his role is that of the older brother who feels compelled to be an authority figure for his younger siblings. Wahlberg's character Bobby is able to endeavour an older-brother-type take-charge attitude that helps bring his three brothers together in their search for their adoptive mother's killers through the callous streets of Detroit. This is a veteran Hollywood actor amidst a fundamental cast of unknowns who mainly have a background in the music industry (a notable fact is that Wahlberg also has a past in the music business). Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin and young Garrett Hedlund are the other three brothers who appear to be equally as concentrated as Wahlberg. All four actors deliver amazing performances and fall squarely into the "anti-hero" category. The excellent chemistry between the four leads adds to the feel of the film. Altogether they are the Western-style lone gunman out to execute the guilty party. Terrence Howard and Josh Charles are both quite extraordinary as the cops who aren't willing to allow the four brothers to exercise their own form of street justice.

Overall, Four Brothers is a film one would never expect to be so excellent. At the end of the day it's only flawed faintly in the script department in the sense of over-length and a few hollow lines of dialogue. Okay, I know what you must be thinking. Rappers being actors...doesn't sound too promising does it? Before I watched the movie I must admit I was afraid of this and the thought that the film might be drowning in hip-hop music that will make you want to slice your ear-drums out! You don't need to worry at all, as Four Brothers does not submit to these anticipated flaws. The film is a compelling drama permeated with an equal dosage of humour, drama and action. To quote a reviewer, this is a "gritty urban drama". Bottom line: an excellent Friday night at the movies!

8.2/10

Wolf Creek is tagged as "based on true events". This statement is in the same vein as tagging the cult favourite 1974 horror film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as "based on true events". Essentially, the core of the concept of Wolf Creek is inspired by the serial killer Ivan Milat who brutally slaughtered backpackers from different parts of the world. Writer/director Greg McLean utilises these murders as the foundation for this low-budget Aussie horror film. In 2005, audiences welcomed such horror films as Hostel: a film that was nothing more than torture porn and an excuse to showcase gory mutilations. When it comes to a film like Wolf Creek, I was afraid that the Aussie filmmakers would yield to the typical flaws of the horror genre. Fortunately, the final results are brimming with superiority and tower over such horror porn as Hostel or some of the Saw sequels.

The opening few minutes introduce us to the three main protagonists. The title sequence runs a whopping 11 minutes! That's 11 minutes to set up the characters and establish the journey ahead of them. Two British backpackers named Liz (Magrath) and Kristy (Morassi) agree to travel across outback Australia with their Aussie mate Ben (Phillips) who originally lived in Sydney. They are all in their early twenties and enjoy the pleasure of each other's company. On a minuscule budget they purchase an old bomb of a car which they plan to use as transport to visit tourist sites of the outback. The first stretch of their journey is through the scenic Wolf Creek National Park. In the first few days of their trip, their car breaks down in the middle of the desert. Soon a seemingly friendly bushman with sinister intentions (Jarratt) enters their lives. For Liz, Kristy and Ben the trip was supposed to include many days of great fun in good company. However this soon turns into a dark, horrifying nightmare when they become unwilling participants of torture and dismemberment by a man with a sick mind.

The first time I watched Wolf Creek I hated it. My maturity at the time reflected the kind of films I enjoyed viewing. After I tremendously enjoyed McLean's next feature, Rogue, I felt it was time to revisit the roots of McLean. The second time around I was alone in a dark room when it was late at night. It's a lot more effective when one grows and matures. I'm surprised that the reviews were such a mixed bag when the film was initially released. I admit that when I first saw the film I favoured the negative reviews, however as the film grew on me I became more fond of it. The atmosphere of terror and dread is effectively established half-way through the movie.

The first half lets the audience familiarise themselves with the characters. Some critics disliked this character development. Personally as we see the characters having a casual chat, I found the characters more likable. This first half is more of a drama that has many scenes of absorbing dialogue. I particularly liked the atmosphere. Be it the audio mix that clearly represents the true sounds of the outback, the fascinating shots of animals and plants or the down-to-earth realism; this is an exemplary method to portray my home country. After this atmospheric drama, McLean has the viewer at ease with what is occurring. He has the viewer exactly where he wants them: liking the friendly characters, and under the impression that nothing can happen to them. This is effective when McLean unleashes relentless mayhem and violence.

The film flaunts performances from a bunch of almost-actors. Being a low-budget Aussie film, the filmmakers couldn't afford actors with an impressive reputation. John Jarratt plays his role wonderfully. There's a great deal of subtlety in his portrayal: representing a deranged bushman who kills tourists for pleasure. His over-the-top characterisation of Mick Taylor is nothing short of amazing. Apparently Jarratt is a method actor who stayed in character throughout the duration of the shoot, even when the cameras weren't rolling! Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi had trouble convincing me in their portrayals. The first half particularly lacked anything spectacular. Nathan Phillips is talented at portraying Ben. Phillips comes across well as a simple Aussie bloke trying to impress his girlfriends with his simple laid-back Aussie traits while a budding romance is a possibility. Phillips disappears into the second half as that section of the film is more concerned with his female companions suffering through the anguish inflicted by their tormentor.

Wolf Creek isn't just torture porn like, say, Hostel. The gore and violence is a little senseless, but even so there are a number of real scares. The chilling atmosphere drawn from Jarratt's creepy laugh is especially effective. Okay, so I'm part of the minority that enjoyed the film. I have no shame in admitting that. On the whole the film is frequently terrifying and although slightly clichéd, it didn't succumb to many of the genre conventions one would expect. Unlike Hollywood horror movies, the film doesn't rely merely on the blood and gore: there is also suspense and tension which is vastly more effective. This disturbing film is a must for horror buffs.

6.9/10

As of 2008, it has been nine years since M. Night Shyamalan made his mark on the thriller genre with his 1999 hit The Sixth Sense. Director/writer Shyamalan proved that he is able to create some intriguing concepts and bring them successfully to the big screen. Unfortunately, from there it has been nothing but downhill for the director. In the years to follow the world witnessed the release of many more of his movies, many sinking without a trace. Signs is the only film of Shyamalan's that is almost on par with The Sixth Sense. Speaking rather forthrightly, Lady in the Water is genuine crap!

So how does The Happening hold up during Shyamalan's pursuit for redemption? Well, after reading the negative response from critics and audiences alike, I was already disappointed in one of Hollywood's most potentially talented directors. Hence, my view of the film was tainted when I walked into that cinema.

The Happening deals with an alarming prospect that is extremely plausible in this current era of humankind. In all honesty, I feel that humans could be in their final act. After populating the planet for so many years and causing gross amounts of pollution, our planet may be fed up with our selfish actions and perhaps is planning to exterminate us. Shyamalan takes this credible, distressing concept and uses it as the foundation for the film's plot. Shyamalan steadily paces the film and uses absorbing cinematography, dialogue, and media reports; letting the indisputable possibility sink into the minds of the audience. After all, we have been treating our planet so appallingly since the beginning of time...what if Mother Nature demands revenge? What would you do if the greenery of the surrounding land started releasing chemicals and toxins to bring about your demise?

The film opens as the event occurs. We are thrown straight into the action as disorientated people begin committing suicide: people stab themselves, workers throw themselves from construction sites, policemen shoot themselves through the head...and no-one has a clue why this is happening. Naturally in today's society the immediate initial thought is that a terrorist attack in unfolding. The cause of the suicides is ascertained to be the result of a dangerous neuro-toxin gas being deployed from an unknown source. The clueless population are ordered to commence the evacuation of all major cities that have been affected.

Cut to a simple school where we are introduced to Elliot Moore (Wahlberg): a teacher who excels in the area of science. The school learns of the neuro-toxin gas outbreak and are forced to evacuate the premises. Elliot leaves his home with estranged wife Alma (Deschanel) as they head for the smaller suburban towns, under the impression that this "terrorist attack" (as the media are calling it) would not be targeting the insignificant parts of the country. But reports of people being affected by the gas begin stretching to smaller towns where people are now fleeing. It soon becomes clear as the body count rises that the odds of a terrorist attack are declining sharply. The central plot branches off into numerous sub-plots as the protagonists rapidly relocate in an attempt at survival.

For those expecting a Shyamalan "twist in the tale", forget about it. There are a few interesting twists as the plot builds, but nothing major that will force you to cover your mouth in shock. There is no twist ending...in fact there is essentially no ending. On the whole, the film feels really incomplete. I felt that everything was wrapped up nicely until the film's final scene that will leave the audience feeling disgruntled and dissatisfied. There are far too many endings as well. At least 5 times there is a fade out...then it just cuts to another scene. The critics and audiences alike are feeding the film nothing but pasting and criticism mainly because of this. I am in the gross minority by saying this, but I liked the ending. The film manages to stay away from the clichés and conventions. People rely too heavily on "feel good" happy endings. If a natural event like this did occur, the chances are minute that it would actually cease. I admire Shyamalan for making a very different and unique horror movie.

I expect that because this film was released during the summer season (the American summer season, that is) people will attend a screening with hopes of seeing something like Iron Man. This film's rating will certainly reflect the maturity one must reach to watch the film. If you're in your early teen years you'll be expecting something eventful and action-packed, I presume. My advice: stick with The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man so I won't have to hear your mindless rambling. In my opinion, Shyamalan's approach of developing a fascinating plot is more intriguing than a clichéd, predictable Marvel action film.

Shyamalan uses captivating shots of the surrounding landscape. His trademark cinematography techniques are disturbingly effective. The director is skilled at creating an atmospheric thriller/horror film. Whenever people are affected by the gas, there is plenty of opportunity for you to scream. I found the suicide scenes to be eerie and unsettling. With Shyamalan being granted permission to make his first film to be classified R by the MPAA, you can expect blood and corpses. But also assume something different and unique: a film that is slow-paced but requires patience. Don't anticipate the typical clichés to surface.

Similar to everything else in the film, the performances are a little different. Mark Wahlberg delivers a unique performance unlike anything we've seen him tackle before. His dialogue delivery reflects the established atmosphere of the movie. Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo further support this previously instituted atmosphere. They usually look zoned-out and drained of emotion; however I would expect that this is how people would react if something bizarre like this actually occurred. No-one would have a clue what to do. The film manages to stay away from the conventional riots and looting that would occur in your typical epic thriller. One of my complaints about the film is in the script. Some of the dialogue feels contrived and is occasionally very dumb. Also, we're thrown into the action immediately without developing the characters. Why are we supposed to care about them? With an extra 20 minutes of character development dropped in front of the rest of the movie, the results would have been a lot better. Not to mention almost no chemistry between the leads. Towards the film's conclusion, things get extremely silly as well.

Overall, The Happening is a film that I expected more from. Shyamalan could have done a lot more with the incredible potentiality of the concept as its execution is merely average. I certainly liked it more than some of the critics, probably because I enjoy this genre and admire uniqueness.

At the end of the day, people approach a Shyamalan film expecting scares and a tense atmosphere...but above all looking for something different. On that note, the film delivers. It's slow-paced and not very rewarding in the end, but at least I was entertained and rather enthralled from start to finish. The score by James Newton Howard mixed with spellbinding cinematography is bound to impress. I am very aware that I am in a select minority of praising the film, but I am gladly in that minority. The bottom line: the film delivers an important message that is relevant to current society. It is also suspenseful, atmospheric and eerie. The haters evidently just don't understand the movie.

7.3/10

Based on the novel by John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath is a classic film that takes an honest and uncompromising look at life during the period of the Great Depression. This is an important film as it captures the humanity of the period with poor families drifting from town to town in search of a job to hold down in order to feed their family.

But transferring Steinbeck's successful novel to the screen was no easy task. In the years preceding the film finally being made, the novel had been the subject of much debate and concern. As it takes a political siding, the government were infuriated as were farm interest and banks. When the proposed film adaptation got off the ground, there was a call to boycott all films reeled out of Fox studios. The film company took great measures to assure the public that the film wasn't taking any sides; however the result blatantly sides with the poor farmers who suffer through the greed of corporate business. In a sense, the determination that is displayed in the film also represents the determination to get the film made! After the film's eventual release, Steinbeck himself proclaimed his admiration of Ford's adaptation of his novel, saying that it had "a hard, truthful ring. No punches are pulled. In fact, it is a harsher thing than the book by far."

The Grapes of Wrath is a film concerned with the Joad family from Oklahoma. A combination of callous droughts and unsympathetic bankers result in sharecroppers being compulsorily forced to abandon their homes and their land that has been their property for generations.

The film opens as young Tom Joad (Fonda) returns home after a 4-year stint in the penitentiary. He expects to come home to find his loving family welcoming him home with open arms. Instead he discovers the impact of the harsh conditions that his family are suffering through. After Tom reunites with his family and is informed of the present situation, they are soon faced with no prospect of government aid and the serious likelihood of starvation. They answer the call of quickly-circulated handbills claiming the necessity for 800 pickers in California. Similar to thousands of other despondent individuals, they pack up the family and head in the direction of California. This journey is an emotional burden on the family who begin losing people to sickness or natural causes. But worse has yet to come. After the family reach the "Golden State" with the intention of settling down, a jarring reality dawns on them: too many migrant farmers with an adequate amount jobs being offered.

The film is then the story of the family overcoming the appalling conditions they are being succumbed to. This includes terrible treatment in camps and even in housing meant for the workers to live in. An interesting fact: the studio approached this adaptation after sending private detectives to investigate the conditions in camps to ensure Steinbeck hadn't exaggerated the situation. As it turns out, conditions were worse than described in the novel.

The Grapes of Wrath is truly uncompromising and brutal. This is not the usual Hollywood fare of happiness, but tragedy that besets the family from the outset. Do not expect a happy, satisfying conclusion as the film never even tries to hint that one is being built up to. It's not like the filmmakers could portray so many more problems the family encounter for the rest of their lives. On that note, some titles to wrap up the film's story could have heightened the film value. Even though the film may be depressing for some, the film is also uplifting as it takes an absorbing look and the spirit, compassion and determination of humankind.

Henry Fonda's performance is another aspect of the movie that highlights the human spirit in terrible situations. Fonda embodies the common man who is just trying to do what's best for his family. Towards the film's conclusion his performance should have you close to tears. Through the course of the story, Tom cultivates an interest outside himself: an inclination to stand up to the giants of oppression and fight for the rights of the little man. He becomes, in other words, a hero in every sense of the word.

My only complaint of The Grapes of Wrath is its failure to maintain my interest during its lengthy running time. At the end of the day it took so long to say so little. It outstays its welcome, and has too many burdens on the film's central plot. When the family moved to another location I was thinking "Oh no, here we go. They'll be leaving this place heartbroken in no time". It's an outstanding movie of course and an important one at that, but a shorter running time could have benefitted it.

Overall, The Grapes of Wrath is a very important piece of cinema history. With its genuinely absorbing look at life during the Great Depression and some great underlying themes, this is indeed a splendid achievement. The results convey a realistic atmosphere, and it delivers a strong political message while also being a warm human drama. The film is inspiring and touching; a story of family togetherness, family separation, and the requirement for unity among all people.

8.1/10

F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent film Nosferatu is a groundbreaking masterpiece of the vampire genre: a truly fascinating film that is the essential blueprint for all vampire movies that were to follow. Murnau fundamentally gave birth to the horror genre with this silent film from the German Expressionism era of filmmaking. At the time of release, no moviegoers had ever experienced this genre embodied on film. In essence, this film contains all the exemplary vampire components and is still the archetypal vampire movie experience.

The story is based on Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula, but director Murnau was unable to get the rights to the novel. Not willing to accept defeat, Murnau made 'cosmetic' changes to pass it off as his own creation. However after the film's release, Stoker's widow perceived that it was a blatant version of her late husband's novel and sued the filmmakers. As a result, the studio went broke (this was the studio's only movie) and the settlement resulted in an instigated court order to have all copies of the film destroyed. Obviously, not all copies of the film were thrown onto the fire. Thankfully, a limited supply of original film negatives actually still exist and can still be exhibited. Said negatives (that is, primary copies of the film that were originally distributed in 1922) that survived the fire are now a prized possession among film buffs and cinema collectors.

Recently the film underwent a massive restoration effort: missing frames and missing scenes were collected from all over the world to be inserted back into the final film and create the definitive Nosferatu experience. Over the years, cheap cut versions running at 70 or 80 minutes were common. This restored version runs over 90 minutes and is never boring for a second.

Gustav von Wangenheim plays Thomas Hutter: a successful realtor who works for the town's local real estate agent. Count Orlok (Schreck) from an isolated castle in Transylvania expresses interest in the acquisition of a house in the peaceful town that Hutter inhabits. Hutter is given the overwhelming assignment of travelling to Transylvania to complete the transaction, but as he draws nearer to the castle he begins to comprehend the genuine malevolence he is walking into. Hutter realises that merely mentioning Count Orlok's name is enough to arouse fear and dread in the local townspeople. While Hutter resides at the castle he discovers quite a bit regarding the true identity of Count Orlok...also known as Nosferatu the vampire. Orlok travels to Germany to live in his new house, said journey causing the deaths of all the crew of the ship he was on. As this terror unfolds, Hutter frantically hastens home to save his beloved wife Ellen (Schröder). Little does Hutter realise that Orlok has developed an obsession with Ellen and wants to have her under his spell. To tell you even more would be unimaginable...

This symphony of horror is the original archetypal film. Over the years it has succumbed to rotten spoofs, remakes and retakes on the story. Nosferatu accurately portrays the potency of the fear of vampires throughout the 19th century. Around this time they were portrayed as seductive and were metaphors for transmitting sexual diseases. These prominent sexual themes sparked controversy at the time of the film's release. In the film there is also frequent mentioning of rats and vampires spreading the bubonic plague. Throughout the 19th century, the plague was a tremendous worry (the last massive outbreak of the plague was as late as the 1890s).

The film is crafted to perfection by F.W. Murnau. Behind the camera Murnau's determination was palpable. Whenever the camera rolled, everything in his frame was used to great effect. He employed extreme expressionist angles that effectively create anxiety and intrigue in the viewer.

Max Schreck is one of the most terrifying and ugly screen vampires of all time. Even with modern make-up technology it is an extremely daunting task to replicate the realism of Schreck's animalistic features. When I first saw Schreck walk into frame...I found it difficult to breathe and chills ran down my spine. His appearance is truly terrifying. If you don't find him scary, you're far too familiarised with Hollywood vampires (I'm looking at you, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise among many others). This brings me onto a myth that quickly circulated in the decades following the film's release. Legend has it that Schreck was, in reality, an actual member of the undead - a genuine vampire! Ostensibly, director Murnau was so committed to producing the definitive vampire experience that he was willing to risk the safety of his cast and crew by using an actual vampire. During the production, the crew had to deal with crew-members turning up dead or going missing. This is a fact. Even despite this evidence people can be naysayers on the issue. Everyone can draw their own conclusions and judgements on the matter. The prolific myth will never be confirmed or invalidated.

The supporting cast is equipped with a host of talented actors. By today's standard, bored audiences will just laugh at the exaggerated mannerisms and be annoyed at the titlecards which were used for the dialogue. It's very simple: if you think the acting is bad and that silent movies are boring, stick to Hollywood blockbusters please. I'm sick of the usual complaint of "it's just so old" or "it's very boring". Got news for you - you're part of the "four-minute music video generation" and should never watch an actual masterpiece.

Nosferatu is only for those with the patience to sit through 90 minutes of brilliant cinema history accompanied with a sinister score. Beware: only the recent 2006/2007 restored version contains the actual original music (a new recording of it). All versions before that include the appalling techno version and many other poor orchestral compositions. Do not judge the films score until you've seen the latest restoration!

The film flaunts visual effects that were state-of-the-art when first released in 1922, but the impact has slowly disintegrated over the decades. In my opinion, Nosferatu is a riveting horror film deserving of the acclaim and accolades that were to follow over the years. Some will love it, some will hate it. Personally I can understand why some contemporary audiences dislike the film because of its age. Be that as it may, this is the best vampire movie ever made. In the decades to follow, imitations were very regular in the form of blockbusters made for a quick buck. Even TV shows use the premise of vampires in which to create a new tale of vampirism.

Nosferatu will never be tainted in my opinion. Although today it is regarded as clichéd, just remember that this is a film made before the times of clichés: it was the first horror film ever made! Respect its age! On the whole, the film is atmospheric and compelling. It's simple and not complex, but this quote from director Murnau accurately defends this observation: "Real art is simple, but simplicity requires the greatest art". Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (the original German title that commonly translates as Nosferatu, a Symphony of Terror) is true art that is hard to match. I studied this film extensively in school. Despite this broad study of the film, I never grew sick of its brilliance. It only heightened my respect. I am truly waxing lyrical when I discuss this legendary horror film.

9.0/10