Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."

Unforgiven could be the greatest western film in the history of cinema. Clint Eastwood proves an able director for this stunning film, and shows that he has learnt much from starring in spaghetti westerns by Sergio Leone.

Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman play William Munny and Ned Logan; two retired gunslingers who live tranquil lives. After a group of cowboys horribly disfigure a prostitute, a bounty is put on their head. Eastwood and Freeman answer the call, hoping to put an end to their gunslinging after picking up the sizable reward of $1,000.

As the two ride across colonial America with the help of a young wannabe cowboy (Woolvett), the sheriff of the town of Big Whiskey, Little Bill (Hackman), is doing everything he can to discourage bounty hunters as an act of social prejudice.

For its whole running time, the film is absolutely remarkable. Eastwood's sublime direction allows us to get to know each central character; as there are no good guys or bad guys here, this was a pivotal part of the movie.

Eastwood also acted tremendously well here, and displays major depth in his role as an old gunslinger. Morgan Freeman was never an actor one would expect to see in a western, but he pulls it off incredibly well. Gene Hackman, as the sadistic sheriff, was also just exceptional.

Of course the movie is primarily dialogue driven so people looking for action will find precious little, unfortunately. But Unforgiven is a character western that focuses on the drama. And when we do get to some action in the last 15 minutes or so, it's gritty and brutal. Not so much the violence displayed, but the brutality of the characters.

The film contains a very simple plot, granted, but it's not what is on the surface that actually matters here. On the surface it would seem like a dull journey into the old west, but underneath there's plenty of hidden layers and meanings told with the well-developed characters and gorgeous scenery.

Overall, Unforgiven marks the only time that Hollywood actually got a western right; in a money-orientated system, this movie shows us that something truly beautiful can come out of it. It's not concerned with the action or the blood, but rather with developing the characters and showing that there's more to a western than just the action. It's not a spaghetti western and it's not the work of Sergio Leone, but it's an utterly sublime movie. Highly recommended.

"You don't hurt Arnie, you just don't."

What's Eating Gilbert Grape is an amazing movie. The performances are absolutely sublime, the script is fantastic, the score is remarkable...and the overall result is near perfect.

Gilbert Grape (Depp) lives in a small town with essentially no future. He works at the unsuccessful local grocery store, and is stuck caring for his mentally challenged brother Arnie (DiCaprio) as well as his morbidly obese mother (Cates). A small family of campers are stranded in the town, and a young teenager named Becky (Lewis) takes an interest in Gilbert.

The whole film is an emotional journey that is told exceptionally. Although the film seems to go no-where at times, each scene is carried by flawless performances from everyone.

Depp is just brilliant. He played his character extremely well, and even at a young age he can still act superbly. DiCaprio's performance (which earned an Oscar nomination) just blew me away. Because he plays a mentally challenged boy, you'd need a damn fine actor to sell this and DiCaprio did it perfectly. When I watched the movie, it honestly seemed like DiCaprio wasn't acting because he played the part so well. Juliette Lewis does a great job here as well.

The film expertly combines some compelling scenes of drama with a few good laughs and some very heart-warming moments. No matter who you are, you will be in tears by the end of it. The score accompanying the already perfect acting was just inspirational.

By putting Leonardo DiCaprio and Johnny Depp together in a movie, you are guaranteed a winner. What's Eating Gilbert Grape is unmissable, unforgettable and heart-warming. In short: if you haven't seen this movie, you MUST. Highly recommended!

"Ahhhh!" (This is said many times when someone is eatem. This is one of the limited quotes I can remember. Proves how lazy the screenwriter was)

I am completely aware that Arachnid was only made to be a fluffy entertainment piece showcasing a giant spider eating people. Despite this, I found the movie to be the furthest thing from a decent slice of entertainment.

Instead I was fed this stupid, cheesy, barely memorable poppycock that could be beaten by a student film! I can't honestly believe that this film was marketed as being an addition to the horror genre because I didn't find anything remotely scary about this horrible mess other than the terrifying thought that people actually gave money to filmmakers to get this thing made.

The story of the film is basically about a group of people who are terrorised by some giant mutated spider. Well...how impressive is that? This is a plot that has been reused for a countless number of monster movies, most of which score as much better quality than this rubbish.

One of principal things that stuck out for me here was the terrible screenplay and the bad actors involved. It's truly painful how conventional and by-the-book all the characters are. There must be a book for screenwriters to turn to for ideas on what characters to include. Spider expert who is an easy target? Check. Big-breasted girl for show? Check. Dumb characters to get knocked off first? Check. Smart character that swoops in and saves the day? Check. A few tough-looking soldiers to die in triumphant, heroic ways? Check. From the first few scenes we can comfortably predict which characters are going to die, and in which order.

The script is filled with cheesy, dull dialogue. And none of the actors appear to make an effort. The special effects were cheesy and laughable. The animation honestly looks like a group of students made a dodgy clay model. They aren't even slightly impressive. If you want the special effects to look just marginally striking then you'll need to get drunk - fast! All this film has to show for is a bit of gore and a spider killing people in predictable ways.

What I also picked up is that when the spider is shot the bullets comfortably fly off the thing's body with no effect at all. For the final showdown the hero picks up a gun and suddenly the thing is vulnerable!

In the style of Anaconda the film is nothing more than a trip into clichéd territory. I found the film so clichéd it was almost to the point of offence. It will lower your IQ because of how incredibly appalling the film is! Arachnid is a foolish, juvenile, laughable B-Grade horror movie. Despite some action, the film is also incredibly boring. I was watching it with some friends who had fallen asleep half-way through the movie. I wish I could have done the same thing. The film is not at all scary, thrilling or even entertaining. I've seen better quality movies produced on a budget of $5.

"How swift thy sword."

This reviewer has never been a fan of Asian cinema, and Hero is a film that further solidifies my neutral attitude towards film exports from Asian countries.

The film is seemingly inspired by Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon. Like Akira's film, I found Hero to suffer from the same flaws. First of all, the filmmakers poorly distinguish what is occurring on the screen. The script is filled with convoluted lines of dialogue that don't appear to advance the plot very much at all. The movie appeared to be a random selection of action scenes that don't make a lick of sense. Even when I paid 100% attention I was frustrated at the film's difficult nature. Some say it's just the nature of the Asian filmmakers. If this is the case then I'd take a Hollywood film over an Asian production any day.

The script underwent extensive rewrites over the course of several months during pre-production. Makes me wonder why the script was nothing more than cryptic dialogue that didn't make any sense at all in the long run. Maybe it will improve with repeated screenings.

Hero is also an incredibly boring film. I generally appreciate slow paced films; I just prefer them when I can understand what is going on. Perhaps it's my maturity or taste in films, but even mindless action films are easier to understand and hence better quality. All in all, with such a convoluted script this was a wasted opportunity. If the script was dropped into Hollywood's lap there would have been some discernable dialogue.

Set in ancient China, Hero tells the story of a nameless warrior (Li) who has been tracking three assassins who have threatened the life of the king on several occasions. When news reaches the palace that the warrior has defeated all the assassins he is summoned before the king to tell his tale. This plot comes from reading the back cover because I didn't pick up any plot at all.

If a character is telling his story why can't there be more narration to remind the audience what is happening? I was none the wiser until I read the back cover of the DVD I rented. You know there's a problem when absolutely no lines of dialogue make sense, even during action scenes.

Fortunately the film's limited list of redeeming features includes the action scenes. Now these were dazzling and a real visual feast. But they weren't without issues: slow motion does not look cool in my eyes. At all! It looks contrived and distracting. With the film stocking a good supply of slow motion shots I was not happy. Still, the moves are very impressive at times. Another thing about the action scenes: some of the moves are just far too over-the-top. Fighting while hovering over water? Maybe enthusiasts of Asian cinema will find something that makes sense during those scenes. Some of the action is obvious wire-work and it's infinitely distracting!

The cinematography, locations, production design, props and costumes all look gorgeous. For the most part I was impressed with the visuals as the film is overflowing with colourful imagery.

Hero is a typical piece of fluffy cinema courtesy of Asian filmmakers. If you like the works of Akira Kurosawa or films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon then I'm sure you'll be enthralled. Hero is strictly for those who are fans of the genre. The film is convoluted, confusing, poorly written but executed impressively. I can't stress that enough.

Granted the Australians haven't had the best luck in creating successful television programmes, but the Chaser boys changed all that. The first time I saw this show I became addicted.

Why is The Chaser's War on Everything the greatest TV programme to be created by the Australians? Just watch one episode and you will find out why. The boys have skilfully created a bunch of hilarious segments that give them the opportunity to make jackasses out of themselves (on that note this show is a bit like Jackass...except Chaser is actually good).

Believe it or not, the Chaser team are a group of Aussie blokes who met in law school. They would need a damn good bunch of lawyers on their side because of how funny that are capable of being. That Apec stunt is a good example of the authorities strongly disagreeing with their actions. "You're not funny" says a policeman during an interview. All I can say is...the bloke is only saying that because he's the one who got in deep shit for being incompetent. Heh, maybe it will teach you to actually have a good team of security guards next time. Sheesh!

Of course the Chaser team have their fair share of scandals. The "dead person song" in particular caused a negative ruckus. For me, I didn't find it insensitive. The boys just had a little bit of fun. They're not hurting anyone, are they? People should just grow up and appreciate a bit of entertainment.

The Chaser boys originally had their own newspaper column (they still do) but they were eventually given the oppportunity to give TV a shot. Australian television has become better with the Chaser filling up a suitable time slot. As a result the show is so popular that tickets are sold astronomically quickly for being a member of the audience.

In a nutshell: The Chaser's War on Everything is the greatest Australian television programme of all time. It's funny, witty and entertaining! When you get the chance you must watch an episode. You will not regret it!

"Sometimes it's easier livin' the lie."

Catch Me If You Can is one of Spielberg's best films of late. The whole film is told with a very bright, charming atmosphere accompanied by great filmmaking in every aspect.

Based on the real life story, Leonardo DiCaprio plays teenager Frank Abagnale Jr. who runs away from home at a tender age of 16. After the bitter divorce of his parents, Frank can't deal with the emotion and flees his home in an attempt to escape what is happening. But Frank soon discovers that he has very little funds to keep him going, and realises that he can pose as someone employed in a high class occupation to get him a nice fat paycheck.

Before Frank reaches his 21st birthday, he proceeded to impersonate a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer and became a dab hand at forging cheques and making millions in the process. Tom Hanks is FBI agent Carl Hanratty who is assigned to the case. Over the course of many years, Carl chases Frank in an attempt to bring him to justice for his brilliant crimes.

The film's running time hinges on the lengthy chase that ensues when Carl is chasing Frank who appears to be one step ahead all the time. Many may complain about the running time, but I was engaged in the film from start to finish.

Spielberg's direction makes for a fascinating visual feast for the eyes, and John Williams' jazzy score creates an audio feast for the ears. The style of the film has yet to be matched in a film of this genre. Because everything is done to perfection there are little flaws, and hence an astronomically high entertainment value.

From the cleverly animated opening credits that set the atmosphere right up until the brilliant conclusion, I was hooked.

Leo DiCaprio was a great choice for the title role. Although I'm not an overall fan of the young fellow, I felt that only Leo could pull this one off. Tom Hanks is exceptional as an FBI agent.

Catch Me If You Can is a high energy romp that is truly one of Spielberg's best films in recent years. It will surely provide great entertainment for a rainy afternoon or a boring evening.

"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.