Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"The only true currency in this bankrupt world... is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."

Writer/director Cameron Crowe won an Oscar for his extraordinary script for this outstanding semi-autobiographical tale. Crowe accomplished an astronomical achievement with his previous film, Jerry Maguire, so people had set their expectations pretty high because of his potential and talent as a writer/director.

The film is essentially the tale of what happened during Crowe's teenage years with altered character names. In Almost Famous, teenager William Miller (Fugit) becomes besotted with rock music despite the strong negative response from his overprotective mother (McDormand). When William is 15 years old, he becomes a journalist for a magazine. Then when William's talents are realised by the editors of Rolling Stone magazine he is hired to tour with an up-and-coming rock band to get the opportunity to write a story about his experiences. Director Cameron Crowe tells his story extremely well, with an Oscar winning script that is quite incredible. Every line delivered by a member of the cast had me fascinating and intrigued. The opening scenes in particular are highly memorable not to mention very interesting. I studied this film as part of a screenwriting course and now with each new viewing I appreciate the screenplay even higher.

Newcomer Patrick Fugit is really impressive in the lead role that symbolises Cameron Crowe in his youth. Like most child actors I found that Fugit was still in need of a number of acting lessons. Having said that, he was far better than many child actors I've seen over the years. I thought he perfected the style of a teenager very believably with charm and appeal.

Billy Crudup was also someone who achieved excellent results. He actually felt like a member of a rock band; drugs, facial hair, etc. Frances McDormand realistically portrayed an overprotective parent.

And the sugar on top was the enormously talented direction from Cameron Crowe. My only complaint would be over-length, but although saying that I still found a bulk of the movie to be very entertaining.

Believe me I was not interested in seeing this film, but Almost Famous is a remarkable effort and a drama you will want to see again. For those of you love music and have a song that reminds you of a time or place, you will understand the driving force behind this movie. The film is able to trigger nostalgic memories for those who appreciate the value of treasured songs. If you love 70's music in particular you won't regret watching this one.

"Conquer your fear, and I promise you, you will conquer death."

If you're enthusiastic to waste 3 valuable hours on Oliver Stone's tedious, meaningless, lackluster epic then I won't stop you. But the fact remains that Alexander is a substantially appalling film that should never plague your DVD player.

Before continuing with this review, I must clear up a few things: Oliver Stone is a talented filmmaker. Stone's films for the most part have been masterpieces of the utmost quality, and epics like this are ordinarily excellent...but there is nothing here that engages you and consequently the result is 3 hours of an uninspiring script accompanied with barely any action.

It appears that every single actor is miscast: Colin Farrell breathes no life into the character of Alexander (who's turned into a sexually frustrated arrogant king who spends half the film naked), while Jolie adds absolutely nothing but useless dialogue scenes of philosophizing. And every other addition to the cast does nothing more but talk or get killed; no distinguishing features, and a non-sentimental approach to the whole thing.

And even the battle scenes, the only thing you would think would be redeeming, look dull and lifeless and were shot in a manner that results in the audience having no clue as to what is going on. The shaky cam was fruitless, distracting and all it did was cause the audience to sit there thinking "What...the hell...is going on?!" And if that's not enough, why in the name of god did the post-production crew decide to tint part of a battle in red?! You can't make out ANYTHING! I was struggling just to distinguish who is stabbing who.

There was no point to the movie. All it does is try to outline the life of Alexander the Great (played appallingly by Farrell) but instead the dismal script is hard to comprehend and makes it into something from Shakespeare. After watching the movie I had no idea what point it was meant to make, not to mention what actually happened during the movie, and why it's nothing more than violent manslaughter with horrible acting and a script that could be beaten by one penned by a 5-year-old.

Alexander's life was filled with battles of epic proportion and that is what I was at least expecting. Stone never got close to this. When I first saw the trailers and read the information about the movie I expected good results. All the film returned was a bunch of negative reviews and a poor box office return.

Alexander is the first Oliver Stone film one can honestly describe as boring. Please do yourself a favour and leave this one on the shelf! Don't waste your precious time.

"Please make me a real boy?"

Unfortunately, it seems that A.I. is Spielberg's weakest hour. But that's not to say that this Kubrick-style sci-fi production is bad; because the premise is excellent, but the film takes a few too many wrong turns.

A.I. is set many years into the future when the polar ice caps have melted and coastal cities are underwater. Presenting us with a dystopian vision of the future, we follow a group of scientists who develop highly advanced mechanoids. The science team decide that they should develop and design a robotic child with the ability to love.

The result produces an artificial child named David (Osment) who is adopted into a reluctant suburban family. David learns to love his "mother" Monica (O'Connor), but unforeseen consequences with David result in his abandonment. Being inspired by the story of Pinocchio, David sets out to find the Blue Fairy to make him a real child and put an end to the barriers between man and machine that caused the troubles in the first place.

The first half of the film sets everything up brilliantly; it's very well scripted and contains some highly creative concepts. But alas as things get too fanciful, long, and exceedingly more dull it results in this mediocre product.

Steven Spielberg's directing was superb like always and strong from start to finish. But despite this strong direction the film still suffers greatly into the second half like I previously stated.

The film holds a heavy reliance on the performance by young Osment. He is capable of establishing himself as a robot due to being emotionless at times. This is a rare case when the robotic nature of an actor is actually a positive. But then again it seems the filmmakers relied too heavily on Osment looking cute in order for us to empathise with him. But the biggest flaw in the film as a whole was the concluding 20 minutes. Not only are these final minutes highly unnecessary, but they're also just plain stupendous.

One of the film's strengths was in the fantastic score provided by none other than John Williams. Whenever he works with Spielberg he manages to produce some extraordinary tracks of music.

The visual effects are nothing but the finest in such an ambitious project. The mechanoids actually feel quite genuine and looked very impressive. Visually, the film is extremely eye-catching.

At the end of the day, A.I. is an extremely underwhelming film from one of the world's finest directors. It seemed that all the proper ingredients were present; good cast, legendary director, celebrated composer. But somewhere during the moviemaking method I feel that they lost the plot and ended up creating a highly average, albeit visually impressive film. Robin Williams, Chris Rock and Meryl Streep appear uncredited for use of their voices.

"I am Jaques Cousteau!"

Adrift is an example of Hollywood studios cashing in on the success of a movie by tagging a completely unrelated film as its sequel. This movie boasts itself as the sequel to the 2004 film Open Water. I liked the 2004 movie, so I decided to give this a shot.

It comes as no shock that the movie was a complete disappointment and marketed as a sequel to get more money.

A group of 6 friends venture out in a yacht to the open ocean. They decide to go for a swim, but soon realise that no-one lowered the ladder and the boat is too big for anyone to climb on-board. So thus starts a stupendous drama that is unrealistic and quite laughably stupid at times.

The cast give it all they can, but it's clear that the screenwriter is what ultimately doomed the movie. There's no intensity to speak of, and instead of playing on human fears and using sharks we're given an episode of a dumb soap opera that's set out in the ocean.

I couldn't believe that no sharks turned up...even when there's lots of blood in the water! If only we lived in this alternate reality!

As a tale of survival, it's surprisingly unremarkable and uninteresting. The film loses steam extremely quickly, with the final 50 minutes becoming increasingly boring; forcing viewers to stare at their watches or just turn off the movie altogether.

For me, I just wanted to know what happened so I stuck with it. The hope of the group surviving maintained a bit of tension throughout. The direction was actually quite above average. It was well shot, directed and edited considering the very limited budget that the film was made on. But it's a shame some of that cash wasn't used to tidy up the script.

The film is incredibly stupid at times, but well made.

"Your request is not unlike your lower intestine: stinky and loaded with danger."

Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls is the inevitable sequel to Jim Carrey's popular 1994 comedy film Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. This sequel is even more random and hilarious than the first film...but a lot more stupendous as well. If you can imagine it, When Nature Calls is filled with laughs that are even more exaggerated than those used in the original. The filmmakers have chosen to focus less on the plot, and more on the hilarious gags.

The fairly straight-forward plot follows Ace Ventura (Carrey) who returns as our beloved Pet Detective. After an assignment goes very wrong in the Himalayas, Ventura goes into exile. That is, until he takes up his job again and flies to Africa to investigate the disappearance of the sacred Great White Bat. If Ace does not recover the bat in time it could mean civil war between the two rival tribes.

In typical Ace Ventura style, there are plenty of hilarious gags to see here (many of them being just plain disgusting), but a lot of the better ones were in the first half. Throughout the second half it seems the gags slowly lose steam, descending into nothing more than a string of highly entertaining gags that sit the film in the 'watchable' category.

If you're not a fan of Carrey and his mannerisms I suggest you stay clear. It's no wonder Steve Oedekirk was involved in this film. Even if you can't imagine it to be true, this sequel crossed the line even more than the first film. It's loaded with random, sometimes disturbing gags that make the film very enjoyable, albeit stupendous.

If you're looking for something thought-provoking and full of meaning I suggest you stay perfectly clear of this one. But if you want harmless entertainment that can be continually enjoyed, then rent this immediately.

"If I'm not back in five minutes... just wait longer."

Jim Carrey's hilarious antics always guarantee a bunch of quality laughs. Over the years, Carrey has starred in an enormous amount of nonsensical comedies that are funny but nothing groundbreaking.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective is a textbook example of one of those aforementioned comedies that are nothing more than light-hearted entertainment. Jim Carrey has no problem with bouncing around the screen embarrassing himself while overacting, performing hilarious stunts and just acting in a wild (not to mention bizarre) fashion; demanding attention for every scene he appears in. What is there not to laugh about?

Ace Ventura (Carrey) is a unique pet detective; that is, he solves crimes that involve typical household pets and other animals in that vein. He specialises in recovering animals that have gone missing or have been kidnapped. For Ventura's latest assignment, he is hired to investigate the sudden disappearance of a dolphin that acts as a mascot for the Miami Dolphins football team. Ventura is one whose crazy actions and antics mirror those of the animals he loves so much and has vowed to protect.

Only someone of Jim Carrey's stature could allow something like this to work. His overacting and hilarious antics will have you in stitches on multiple occasions. It's obvious that the filmmakers hired him for nothing more than his zany nature and crazy mannerisms.

Of course the film is filled with gags, but there are things that unfortunately drag down the film's value to nothing more than a bit of entertainment. For one, it's amazing that Ventura is so knowledgeable and yet acts so silly in every scene. I mean his detective skills could make Sherlock Holmes look like an amateur. Such a juvenile nature, and yet so smart. A combination that has mystified me.

And every time the film tries to turn into a serious drama to make itself seem more than B-Grade entertainment, it fails and instead makes us wonder why they even bothered. In all honesty, if they kept the quality gags coming from start to finish with a smaller attempt at drama the film would have been a lot better.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective is a single note movie filled with a bunch of great gags and clever characters. It's highly flawed, but at least it's entertaining. The kids will love Carrey, but beware the continuous string of sexual gags.

"I was in some strange territory. Was I frightened? I was petrified."

I usually enjoy watching these types of heart-warming British comedies, and About a Boy is certainly no exception. This one has a lot more heart than some other comedies I've seen over the years, and the great cast certainly help the film majorly.

Hugh Grant plays Will, a 38-year-old underachiever who is out of work, has a fear of commitment and starts a sudden obsession with dating single women. While attending a single parents gathering group, he meets Fiona (Collette) and her son Marcus (Hoult). Will's life is altered after Fiona attempts suicide, and Marcus feels that Will should marry her so he won't have to put up with her depression issues. Marcus and Will strike up a close friendship, and they both learn a thing or two about life while helping each other through their respective life problems.

Hugh Grant, although pretty much playing these types of characters all the time, is in good form and is quite hilarious at times. Young Nicholas Hoult delivers a questionable performance at times, but he's far from horrible.

I had not seen this film for a long time, and now that I've finally seen it again I rather liked it a lot more the second time around. I guess age has a lot to do with tastes in movies. The film is very charming, well made, and is quite side splitting at times as well.

British comedies are usually of varying quality, but About a Boy was a really good movie. The laughs are all over the place, the film is brightly told, and the cast is great. Makes for a great night out at the movies!

"These guys are about as much fun as a tax audit."

James Cameron was indisputably one of the most influential directors throughout the 20th Century; with each new film brought new groundbreaking special effects as well as mind-blowing, innovative concepts.

The Abyss is undoubtedly a top notch, extraordinarily well made film that can be regarded as more of an underwater adventure film than a sci-fi outing. Being a big fan of Cameron's prior films, I was eager to see this one and I was far from disappointed.

During the height of the Cold War, a group of oil rig workers are assigned by the navy to investigate a nuclear submarine that mysteriously sunk somewhere in the depths due to causes unknown. The navy suspects the Russians are behind the mysterious attack, and scramble to get to the site of the submarine before the Russians get there first. While the operation is being executed, freak weather conditions damage the platform and sever its communication with the surface. As World War III looms above and tensions rise between the divers and a deployed SEAL team, the rescuers discover that there is something else in the deep abyss of the ocean besides the submarine.

The film is told at such a snail pace but is full of state-of-the-art special effects to capture the imagination of Cameron's inspirational ideas. Each new creature only heightens the 'wow' factor of the overall production. The film's only real flaw was the convoluted dialogue that becomes hard to follow. But on the other hand, James Cameron tells the story exceptionally well.

The production design is great, as are the Oscar winning special effects that are outstanding for its age. Although they may look a tad weak compared to today's standards, they were utterly groundbreaking upon first release. I found Cameron's direction throughout to be almost flawless.

The atmosphere allows the audience to really get into the action unfolding on the screen. This wouldn't have been possible without the engaging performances as well. Ed Harris was very good in the principal role. Kudos to the production team for giving the audience the sense that there was no escape. Thanks to their remarkable work we can feel the tension and the fear of the characters.

Overall, The Abyss is a groundbreaking masterpiece from a wizard of modern filmmaking. My respect for Cameron can only heighten with each new film he produces. The Abyss is a landmark film and an extraordinary experience. One not to be missed!

"I live in torture thinking of these moments. Every look he gives you I get sicker and sicker. There's a burning in me, I feel on fire and a guilt I can't comidify. Does it make you happy to know that?"

Typical, standard Hollywood epic is nothing more than light entertainment with some romance thrown in there.

A young orphan named Tristan (Franco) is heir to the British throne. During the period when the British were not at peace with the Irish, Tristan is wounded in battle and nursed back to health by young Irish royal Isolde (Myles). The two slowly fall in love, predictably. But their passionate romance is forbidden, and the two lovers must choose where their allegiance lies - love or honour.

Surprisingly, there are very few good things to find here. The performances are weak, but somewhat convincing. Franco wasn't given much to work with, with such a poor script. And Myles was bordering on average and poor.

The battles did look most impressive at times, but the American PG-13 rating means that the medieval violence looks tame and underwhelming. The film tries to pass itself off as another Braveheart, but the difference is that the extreme battle violence in Braveheart made the battles a lot more entertaining. Here I was just yawning.

The non-sentimental approach to the characters also means that when I saw a character being killed I couldn't tell whether they were Irish or English. And what's more - I never cared when someone was killed! Each character looks similar and is not memorable in the slightest. Apart from the two protagonists, I can't think of another character that was actually developed.

And the romance was laughable. I never cared for the romance for a single second. A love story is superfluous if the audience do not care about it. The parallels drawn between this and the story of Romeo & Juliet are uncanny. This film may be based on legend, but the studio appears to do everything they can to ensure it's a pointless rehash of the classic Shakespeare tale told in a Braveheart kind of setting. The tagline mentions Romeo & Juliet, and even the title of the film is similar to Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet by inserting a '+' in the promotional title.

Still, the film is mildly entertaining at times if a little overlong. Tristan + Isolde told its story, but not well. The tame battle scenes and laughable romance leave this sitting in the mediocre category.

"Hey, you wanna hear my philosophy of life? Do it to him before he does it to you."

On the Waterfront is a classic film that tells a remarkable tale of one man's struggle with his conscience and the union bosses that he works for.

The film is brutal, gripping, hard-hitting and categorically astonishing. It's just such a monumental shame that this film (along with a majority of classics) is so criminally overlooked during the time of modern cinema.

Marlon Brando, in one of his early performances, is an ex-boxer named Terry Malloy. Terry now works at the docks for a group of corrupt union bosses. But when a worker attempts to tell the authorities of the corruption that is occurring at the docks, the bosses send a clear message and have him eliminated. The dead man's sister Edie (Saint) is determined to find her brother's killer. When Terry and Edie strike up a relationship, Terry realises that he can no longer turn a blind eye to the corruption at his work-place that caused the untimely murder. Thus Terry must question where his loyalties lie, and has to make a decision about whether to stand up and testify against his corrupt bosses.

On the Waterfront is a gripping, groundbreaking masterpiece. It takes an uncompromising look its subject matter without holding back on the violence.

Marlon Brando is exceptional as Terry. He looks so young and dashing, yet every line he delivers is so powerful. I could barely recognise Brando due to him being so youthful. Eva Marie Saint, in her starring debut, is so potent and beatific. The chemistry between Brando and Saint feels so natural and real. And all the rest of the supporting cast add to the genuine feel of the whole experience.

The film's pacing is slow, and it requires heavy patience, but the performances from the cast are just so mesmerising. The scene in the back of the taxi is still one of the most moving and most powerful scenes in cinema history. The scene would not have been as good without the aid of such great character portrayals from all those in the cast.

The cinematography is another immensely brilliant aspect here. The use of grainy black and white makes it feel even more authentic. The great story is complimented by the remarkable direction of Elia Kazan. He won an Oscar for such inspirational directing. The music is used meagrely, but it is always loaded with so much power.

On the Waterfront is an astoundingly brilliant production and a marvellous movie. The film is so gripping and so compelling, with drama that keeps one engaged for the film's duration. Over 50 years on and the film has not lost any of its original impact. Highly recommended for those with enough patience. Winner of 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Writing and Best Art Direction.