Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Essentially a hybrid of Agatha Christie and Alfred Hitchcock, Identity is a contemporary reinvention of classic mystery/suspense thrillers aimed at today's slasher flick-loving movie-goers. Shades of Psycho and a few creative touches were interweaved into the framework of Ten Little Indians to create Identity, and the result is an engrossing thriller dripping with atmosphere that's imbued with colourful characters and a handful of plot twists. Effectively finding the line between psychological thriller and slasher horror, Identity begins as a seemingly routine excursion into clichés before ultimately metamorphosing into something altogether unexpected and startling.

Identity's narrative takes place in two different basic locations. In a Judge's chambers, a murderer (Taylor Vince) on the eve of his execution is being brought to a hearing by his legal defence when new evidence is brought to light that could potentially rescue him from death row. The main story thread, though, takes place on a dark, stormy night in the Nevada desert. With the roads flooded, a group of seemingly unrelated travellers are forced to check into an out-of-the-way motel. The clichéd group of strangers include limousine driver and former cop Ed (Cusack), the has-been actress that Ed is chauffeuring (De Mornay), a just-retired prostitute (Peet) headed to her Florida hometown to start over, an argumentative newlywed couple (DuVall, Lee Scott), a police officer (Liotta) transferring a dangerous convict (Busey), and a down-on-their-luck family consisting of sincere a sincere stepfather (McGinley), a critically injured mother (Kenzle) and their son (Loehr), not to mention the motel owner (Hawkes). As the weather worsens and the night drags on, the strangers begin getting killed one-by-one by a mysterious killer in what increasingly seems like a systematic fashion.

To further describe the story would spoil the surprises therein, which suffice it to say are best left unspoiled. Nothing equals the satisfaction of seeing this for the first time and being surprised by it.

Questions are raised throughout Identity. Is the motel situation a flashback to the events which got the murderer on death row? Are these two separate events happening concurrently? The uncertainty is all part of the skilful writing which throws buckets of red herrings at us. What's also superlative about the writing is the way we're compelled to guess about the whodunit aspect. Just when we become convinced that one person is the culprit, more red herrings are thrown in until the point when we are just about ready to give up. Reading the premise, you may believe you have Identity all figured out, or sigh with the feeling you've seen this all a thousand times before. Think again. For its first hour, Identity may be a B-grade slasher, albeit one orchestrated with A-grade technique, but then it completely defies expectation with a plot revelation that changes everything. However, this twist is not present for the mere hell of it - it has a true purpose for being. The twist transforms the film from what could've been a conventional high-gloss slasher into something deeper, richer and more existential in nature. All the apparent clichés are in fact just a set-up - they are more like a MacGuffin. The clichés seem to be the focus of the movie, but they are in truth a distraction from the filmmaker's true agenda.

In theory, the idea of shooting the majority of a film on a conventional dark and stormy night is the kiss of death, but director James Mangold is a skilled craftsman capable of sustaining tension and atmosphere; bringing the somewhat unremarkable script to life with transfixing technique. Identity is not an overly frightening or gory movie - it is more of a Hitchcockian thriller. The stormy night-time setting lends the film an appropriate noir tone, accentuating the uncertainty of what is right around the corner. Mangold does deploy such clichés as jump scares with regularity, yet the director executed these moments with a sense of style and panache; showing that old devices can still work if done effectively. It also helps that Mangold was aided by the sumptuously moody cinematography by Phedon Papamichael which expertly uses shadows and pouring rain for maximum effect, in addition to the well-judged editing by David Brenner which keeps the pacing tight. If there's a flaw with Identity, it's that the dialogue is not always solid, and there are moments of sheer silliness which simply don't sit right.

Each member of the cast had minimal material to work with since they were playing a genre type without much psychological background. Nevertheless, the top-notch assemblage of acting talent makes each character feel real and unique, which is crucial to the narrative's ultimate destination. John Cusack has always been an amiable screen presence who specialises in laidback, everyman kind of roles, and his portrayal of Ed makes for an engaging protagonist. Usually in genre films of this type, the female protagonist is on hand to run and scream, but Amanda Peet develops her role of a former prostitute into something far more than a helpless heroine. The excellent Peet matches Cusack scene for scene. John C. McGinley was allotted a minor role, yet he's fascinating and he brings a wonderful, believable energy to his character. McGinley has proved time and time again that he's a superb character actor (Scrubs, anyone?), and Identity further reinforces this. Everyone else - especially the compelling Ray Liotta, the off-kilter John Hawkes, and bright young newcomer Bret Loehr - are terrific in their deliberately archetypal roles.

Ultimately, whether or not Identity will work for you entirely depends on how you perceive the third act. The twist may be seen as moronic by some, while others may be disappointed that the film does not go through with what is expected of a spooky whodunit slasher, and it will probably not be liked by those who don't pay close attention and decide to predict everything out loud with utmost arrogance and cynicism. However, for those tired of the same old thing, Identity is a surprisingly challenging and rewarding genre flick; a true gem in a sea of bland, by-the-numbers psychological thrillers. The premise may seem overused, but the execution coupled with a few delicious twists makes this an absolute must-see.

8.2/10

Patricia Highsmith's novel of the same name was held in high regard in the literary world. Anthony Minghella (R.I.P), celebrated director of The English Patient, has made a terrific psychological thriller out of the already outstanding source material. The Talented Mr. Ripley subsists as a terrifically unique, mysterious drama/thriller assisted by a marvellous horde of actors and some exotic locations.

Initially set in late 1950's New York, the film introduces its audience to a young underachiever named Tom Ripley (Damon). Tom is talented at playing the piano in addition to possessing the skill to impersonate people, yet he is down on his luck. After playing the piano at an upper class garden party he meets the wealthy Herbert Greenleaf (Rebhorn): the father of recent Princeton graduate Dickie Greenleaf (Law). Herbert mistakes Tom for a recent graduate of Princeton University who also knew his son - and Tom lets Herbert believe it. Tom is offered $1,000 to travel to Italy and convince Herbert's son Dickie to return to New York. Down on his luck and with very little money, Tom reluctantly agrees. Upon arrival in Italy, Tom meets with Dickie who is in the company of cultured girlfriend Marge (Paltrow). Dickie is a rich boy with inclination for nothing more than sailing his yacht, masquerading as a playboy and spending time with Marge. Following a few initial meetings, Tom grows an attachment to Dickie and Marge: he is fond of their style of living and develops a mad obsession for Dickie. Tom begins compounding lies, fundamentally assuming the identity of Dickie Greenleaf.

Director Minghella expertly creates three quarters of an excellent movie, with the concluding segment transforming into a complex amalgamation of typical clichés with little to sustain one's interest. This can also be attributed to the film's length - it seems the screenwriter was incapable of upholding any further appeal from limited subject matter. Of course, the subject matter is fascinating by all accounts; however it lost its overall appeal with gross over-length and sluggish screenwriting.

Screenplay flaws aside, The Talented Mr. Ripley is overall somewhat staggering to watch. Anthony Minghella is an expert at the helm of a thriller. This essentially Hitchcockian thriller is occasionally very exhilarating with strong directing and outstanding performances in addition to gorgeous scenery and an elegant setting to boot.

Matt Damon became a household name with Good Will Hunting. Triggering elements of his brilliant portrayal in that earlier film, Damon is in one of his best performances to date. I don't think we've ever seen Damon with this level of vigour or intricacy surrounding him. He is supported by a number of equally excellent performers. Cate Blanchett once again displays her amazing skills as an actress. The film also flaunts great performances from Jude Law and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Law and Hoffman do a fine job in convincing us of the playboyish nature of their characters. Gwyneth Paltrow's portrayal is moderate. Paltrow is a mediocre actress still incapable of painting an entirely convincing character portrait.

The Talented Mr. Ripley is a fine psychological thriller boasting a wonderful ensemble of excellent actors. Some have called this a Hitchcock production of the 90s. I strongly agree. Matt Damon's ability to represent a human leach is amazing at times, proven by the scenes when I actually had sympathy for him. There are scenes of utter shock and dismay, but it is the engulfing build to the inevitable murder and mayhem that grabs you. By all accounts this film is by no means perfect due to some problems in the screenwriting department; however this is a thriller definitely worth checking out.

A Streetcar Named Desire is a compelling, mesmerising drama that exhibits a benchmark in revolutionary screen performances. This formidable tour de force hasn't dated one iota: even after several decades the film's prominent themes and potent nature are still convincingly evident. This is an example of filmmaking from Hollywood's golden age. The magic of these classics will never be recaptured by any modern filmmakers.

Based on a successful play by Tennessee Williams, we follow Blanche DuBois (Leigh) as she arrives in New Orleans suffering from a condition of psychological apprehension attributed to a number of financial difficulties. Blanche comes to New Orleans to visit her sister Stella (Hunter) who had recently gotten married to the authoritative Stanley Kowalski (Brando). The lives of Stella and Stanley are overturned by the arrival of Blanche: a sexual disturbed, delicate and neurotic woman on a frantic prowl for someplace in the world to call her own. Blanche is in a world of illusion as she is immediately drawn into a battle of wills with her intimidating brother-in-law who lacks in refinement. With the brutal, terrestrial Stanley in her life, Blanche's world begins to crumble as she slowly finds her circumstances unbearable.

This is the essential performance from Marlon Brando: a truly electrifying piece of acting that earned him an Oscar nomination (he ultimately lost to Humphrey Bogart). Stanley Kowalski is an animalistic individual brilliantly captured in two different styles by actor Brando. Many of his lines are absolutely unforgettable. (The most notable line of Brando's is his much imitated, much parodied line "Hey, Stellaaaaaaa!")

Brando is not the only stand out in the cast: we also have an outstanding performance from Vivien Leigh in the title role. Leigh earned herself an Oscar with this astonishingly realistic, haunting, stimulating and extraordinary performance. Leigh's portrayal is one of the finest screen performances in cinematic history. She never strikes a false note and always keeps the audience enthralled throughout the film's duration. As questions regarding her sanity arise, Leigh always remains 100% focused. An Oscar was also awarded to Kim Hunter whose performance is incredibly unforgettable.

I can't stress this enough: the central three protagonists are flawless in every respect. This high level of determination is a rarity in modern cinema. The film was also awarded with an Oscar for actor Karl Malden in addition to an Oscar for the film's elegant art direction and set decoration. There were several other nominations, including Best Picture, Best Music and Best Director.

A Streetcar Named Desire features an undeniably stunning, spellbinding score. This jazzy music was highly influential at the time of release. Even now the music is disturbing and haunting. This music sets the mood amazingly, and is complimented with the stylish directing and incredible black & white photography.

A Streetcar Named Desire is a classic production that welcomed a new era of filmmaking. This will always be one for the history books: a timeless movie that exhibits magnificent performances and persuasive themes. Marred only marginally by its slow pacing during the middle section.

When the film was initially released the censorship board removed a few minutes of the film that underscored the sexual tension between the central characters. These few minutes were eventually restored back into the movie.

The Last King of Scotland is an intense, embracing thriller inspired by the true historical events of a horrible dictatorship that grappled Uganda throughout the 1970s. In the contemporary period of filmmaking it's an arduous undertaking to discover a film that truly stands out. With this film director Kevin Macdonald has outstandingly crafted a compelling drama abundant with tremendous power.

Nicholas Garrigan (McAvoy) is a flourishing young semi-idealistic Scottish doctor with an aspiration to escape from his conservative father. Nicholas moves to Uganda hoping to lend a hand and have some fun in the process. But he arrives in Uganda during a complicated time as the country is under the new leadership of President Ida Amin (Whitaker). Nicholas becomes inadvertently entangled with the president during a moment of crisis. Amin is highly impressed by Nicholas' attitude, medical skill, clever thinking and witty attitude: offering him a position as his personal physician and closest confidante. Although Nicholas is deeply honoured with the position he soon discovers the brutal savagery of Amin's regime. He had anticipated a wild escapade in a far-off country, but finds himself instead on a shocking ride into the darkest realm on earth: the human heart. Dismay and treachery ensue as Nicholas strives to right his wrongs and escape Uganda forever.

This mesmerising thriller goes exactly where you expect it will, but it's radiantly fuelled by the powerhouse performances from everyone in the cast. Forest Whitaker was correctly presented with an Oscar for his stunning portrayal. The actor carves an incredibly unforgettable portrait of a psychopathic dictator who ravaged his country. Whitaker's character progressively changes throughout the course of the film. At first he is friendly and forgiving. From Whitaker's charismatic portrayal an audience could never conceive this man turning sour. Sure enough into the second half his attitude turns bitter.

James McAvoy is a convincing young Scotsman. With every line he sounds like the genuine article (he was born in Glasgow). Like Whitaker's interpretation of President Amin, McAvoy's character also undergoes a substantial change throughout the movie. At first meek and willing to help, he is soon driven to gross determination as his single goal is to escape the country. The final few scenes in particular display a haunting performance by James McAvoy. Both central actors are absolutely unforgettable.

A drama in this vein relies on its steady performances as well as its visual images. The film is lavishly shot and showcases some absolutely gorgeous locations. Every minute of this film is as gripping as the minute preceding it. The storyline is particularly fascinating and never lets the viewer lose interest. Towards the film's conclusion the imagery becomes extremely heavy. This heightened sense of realism accurately displays the true atrocities that actually occurred. Due to the violence and grotesque images this is not a film for the faint of heart.

The Last King of Scotland is a brilliant drama elevated by its credible cast and concentrated directing. This is a nasty piece of history astoundingly told with a high level of realism. It's not entirely true to its source material of course (hence tagged as 'inspired by true events'); however the film is riveting and hard-hitting. An intricately created masterpiece that cannot be missed!

Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch was greeted with a controversial reception upon its original release. The westerns distributed throughout the 1960s contained moderately tame violence. Peckinpah changed all of that - The Wild Bunch stimulated controversy for its explicit, relentless violence and virtually non-stop bloodshed. For director Peckinpah, releasing such graphic carnage was an intrepid move. However his conversion from conformist tame violence into all-out action and mayhem works amazingly.

The period is the early 1900s on the eve of the First World War. An aging gang of outlaws fronted by Pike Bishop (Holden) enter a small Texan municipality with the intention of robbing a band and using the funds for their retirement. The gang have no idea that they are walking into an ambush planned by an assemblage of bounty hunters. After the robbery goes astray and a gunfight erupts, the surviving members of the gang flee to Mexico to escape the law with bounty hunters in hot pursuit. With nothing to show for their failed robbery, Pike and his gang are desperate for work to restore their fortunes. They sell their services to a Mexican general; formulating a plan to steal ammunition and rifles from a US Army train. That's a moderately brief plot outline of an otherwise luxuriant, multi-faceted and intricate story.

Although at first glance this may seem like a standard addition to the western genre, underneath the thin surface a far more complex tale materialises. Not only does The Wild Bunch flaunt the best, most intense action scenes of the genre: it also features some of the deepest character relationships as well. The predominant gang are illustrated as having a sense of humour as well as possessing immense admiration for each other.

Another great aspect about The Wild Bunch is its inclination to resolutely break away from the ordinary conventions of the western genre. The decade of the 60s featured films and TV shows that endlessly highlighted the romance of the West. Here we have no damsel in distress and no woman who demands affection. The misogynistic elements in its depiction of women were enormously controversial as well: they are shown as whores and sex objects. Peckinpah does not water down the true nature of the West. His depiction is gritty and wholly realistic: a move that deserves tremendous acclaim.

The Wild Bunch contains some of the best action scenes I have ever seen in a western. The opening shootout is particularly impressive and embodies a sense of elevated intensity. There's a high level of violence normally displayed in slow motion. This is exaggerated but at the same time hard-hitting and brutal. The director is never concerned with suppressing the violence. Whenever a character is killed, geysers of blood spurt from the body. This is generally in slow motion, and can be interpreted as a way of emphasizing the pain and suffering one undergoes when hit by a bullet.

Despite the film's malevolent nature it is essentially a character piece driven by sublime performances from the fantastic cast. William Holden genuinely looks the part. His face looks craggy and rough; an attribute that only heightens the already established level of realism. Holden's performance is outstanding: he superbly mixes anguish and repentance with rigidity. His counterparts are all as memorable as his performance. Notably the cast features Robert Ryan, Ben Johnson and Warren Oates.

Overall, The Wild Bunch is a groundbreaking western that is still regarded as one of the genre's finest. It's a very mature western and contemporary audiences may find it difficult to look past the film's violent nature. It's extremely difficult to follow and understand due to the sometimes unrealistic dialogue and a confusing set of events. Naturally this just demands more screenings. If you're a fan of westerns or just violent films, this is one to rent or buy. They don't make them as good as this anymore.

After the unanticipated success of Robert Rodriguez's little known movie El Mariachi it was pure fate that a sequel would be instigated. In this case, Desperado is a reworking of the original film while also acting as a continuation of the story. El Mariachi was made on an astonishingly small budget of $7,000. Logically enough, Columbia channelled a lot more money into the sequel hoping for similar success and a bigger bang.

Desperado is set various years following the events of the first film. El Mariachi (now played by Banderas) is an acrimonious former guitarist presently determined to exact retribution on the men held accountable for the death of his girlfriend. He is continually on the move - travelling to different towns searching for his principal target. He now has a partner (Buscemi) who precedes him in the towns they visit with the intention of elevating fear by telling exaggerated stories regarding the escapades of the legendary warrior carrying a guitar case loaded with an assortment of firearms. El Mariachi arrives in a small Mexican town looking for a local criminal/drug lord named Bucho (Almeida). Subsequent to an impressive shoot-out and a large disbursement of ammunition, El Mariachi befriends a young beautiful woman named Carolina (Hayek) who owns a local book store that also acts as a café. With plenty of ammunition and weapons, El Mariachi is hell-bent on locating Bucho and getting revenge with an army of blood-thirsty desperados on his trail.

Desperado is an exciting action film abundant in violent shoot-outs and creative character deaths. However the film is basically an unnecessary rehash of the original film. When you boil down the essential elements and events it's the same movie - a musician killing warlords and lowlifes with the obligatory love interest thrown into the mix. It is fundamentally and purposely a remake, granted, but there's a sense of déjà vu and predictability as well. This will always be expected when it comes to watching an addition to this genre.

Antonio Banderas is charming and suitable playing the role of the legendary Mariachi. It's an outstanding choice to cast Banderas as a replacement for the Mexican individual who played the title character in the previous film. In the case of the first film, the non-actor filling the part was skilled in the transition from meek musician to bitter gunslinger. Banderas is skilled in portrayed the character as bitter and blood-thirsty. Overall Banderas is quite remarkable and extremely easy to watch. Salma Hayek oozes sensuality whenever her character appears on screen. She makes the perfection companion for Banderas' equally charismatic portrayal. No action film is complete without the nefarious villain, in this case portrayed by Joaquim de Almeida.

Desperado is tremendously watchable and is solid even after repeated viewings. Combining plenty of skilfully created over-the-top, cartoonish action with the typical revenge plot creates a highly entertaining addition to the genre. The action is dexterously filmed and edited courtesy of director Robert Rodriguez. Similar to the first film the action is continuously very violent and gruesome. The body count remains on the rise. The film is also copious in likable characters and some fantastic tongue-in-cheek humour (one of the film's highest points is Quentin Tarantino's cameo when he tells a very funny joke).

Desperado is a weaker addition to the series that commenced with the impressive El Mariachi. This action film is loud, dumb, explosive and seemingly pointless. Naturally, this means that action lovers of any kind will have a fantastic time watching this one. It's the furthest thing from a masterpiece, so take the film for what it is: over-the-top action complimented with humour and sex scenes. Followed by Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

Amadeus is a film that bears numerous adjectives with self-confidence: this film is stunning, beautiful, wonderful, powerful, amazing, incredible - and anything stemming off from these words. It's a tremendously rare event when a masterpiece like Amadeus is made; a remarkable movie of jealousy and envy that conveys the biographical story of an extraordinary individual. This film has been a critical success as both a play and a movie. It went on to win several Oscars and it still gathers tremendous acclaim during the contemporary era of cinema.

Amadeus is the story of two composers who lived throughout the 18th century. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Hulce) is regarded as the best composer of all time. This film chronicles the period of his prime when his greatest work was composed: a time when Mozart's outstanding imagination allowed him to simply write music as if it was dictation. The film is also concerned with a second composer: a man named Antonio Salieri (Abraham). Salieri is a court composer for the current emperor (Jones). Salieri has aspirations of becoming a flourishing composer since his childhood. However his imperfect abilities are highlighted by the works of the young Mozart whose music is divine. He believes that God is mocking his mediocrity through Mozart's music, and Salieri cannot understand how God could favour such an uncouth individual as his instrument. Driven by rage and jealousy, Salieri instigates a scheme to bring about the fall of Mozart. The film is told in flashback as Salieri is now confined to a mental asylum. Now aging and slowly going insane, he tells the story of how he caused the failure of Mozart; how he gained Mozart's trust that he later betrayed.

One must remember that Amadeus is based on a play, not on history. The film indicates that the character of Salieri was involved in the eventual death of Mozart. In history there is barely any indication at all - instead his death was recognised as a combination of alcoholism and depression. If you're expecting an elaborate film based solely on fact you may be disappointed. This is the film's single flaw.

Amadeus is a film that never grows dreary. Although at a length of about 150 minutes you will never feel bored. Every aspect of the production is faultless. The sound and music are truly sublime; the collaboration of acting and directing is outstanding; cinematography and editing are wonderful; with costumes and art direction that are generally terrific. In short: this is almost a definitive example of crafting a faultless movie. It's long but far from overlong. Every member of the cast and crew did their job to perfection; never is a false note struck.

The powerhouse performances are truly incredible to behold. F. Murray Abraham was correctly presented with an Oscar for 'Best Actor in a Leading Role' (actor Tom Hulce was also nominated in the same category) for his fascinating characterisation of a man fuelled by envy and antagonism. Tom Hulce as Mozart is yet another magnificent decision of the casting department. He nails the role of the multi-faceted tragic composer. No-one would ever have an image like this of Mozart in their head: Hulce displays the raw childish nature of the man. His mannerisms, inappropriate sentences, irritating laugh - all played to perfection by an actor who excels at his profession. The whole cast perfectly capture the emotional depth of the character they are portraying. Astonishing work!

Visually, Amadeus is perfectly created. The film features sets and costumes that feel like a photograph of its period. Never is there a lack of focus in any part of the creative team. The directing in particular is absolutely breathtaking. Never is there a lapse in concentration for any shot. From start to finish, the film is exquisitely filmed and a pleasure to view. For a film that runs for 150 minutes this aspect is vital.

Amadeus is truly a masterpiece of marvellous magnitude. A beautiful piece of art! Winner of several Oscars including Best Picture.

El Mariachi is an early film directed by now-famous filmmaker Robert Rodriguez. Initially the film was intended to be a low-budget action picture that would proceed directly to video. However the reception was far more positive than originally intended and was picked up by Columbia for a theatrical release. With this film, Robert Rodriguez proves that with an astronomically small budget of only $7,000 (approximately) he can craft a superb little action picture.

El Mariachi is the story of a young Mexican musician (Gallardo) who wishes to carry on the family tradition of becoming a mariachi (a wandering musician who travels to different locations in search of work). Little does he realise that an escaped criminal named Azul (Martinez) has wandered into the same town carrying a guitar case featuring an impressive array of firearms. Azul plans to kill local crime lord Moco (Marquardt). Moco is obviously not happy with the concept of being assassinated; sending every hired gun at his disposal to target Azul. Moco's men mistake the innocent young El Mariachi for Azul due to their similarities in appearance. While being hunted by an assortment of hitmen, the El Mariachi becomes involved with barmaid Domino (Gomez) who assists him in his avoidance of being killed.

No-one ever expected El Mariachi to be very successful, hence the small budget. Although the film was shot in two weeks and was made with virtually zero crew, Rodriguez ended up making a surprisingly fantastic, entertaining action film. This film delivers the goods in its minuscule running time of about 80 minutes. Of course there is plenty of high energy action, and even the film is superior to most stunt-reliant, big-buck Hollywood action flicks. In addition to the action there is a lot of suspense and creative cinematography.

Rodriguez was in charge of lensing and editing the material. It's very evident in the final film that he had a clear vision of what he wanted and achieved his goal modestly. One of the most surprising things is that the film maintains an actual plot throughout its duration.

To save costs of hiring actors, most of the cast was filled with family members, friends and amateur actors. Make no mistake - the acting is sometimes really amateurish. On the contrary, most of the actors are very convincing at times. There is a subtle charm to the great performance from Carlos Gallardo. For the film's final showdown, Gallardo feels very naturalistic and believable. The villains are typically shown to be evil and brooding, with their henchmen unable to shoot properly. Some of these things are conventional, but for the sake of the genre we try to ignore it.

Rodriguez was literally the only person behind the camera. He put so much into this movie and his efforts shine as brightly as the morning sun. The man was determined to do what he could with a small shooting schedule and a miniature budget. As a fellow film student I find his action scenes to be well cut and well shot, abundant in visual elegance. Most of the budget must have been channelled into the fake blood and special effects. The action is always extremely violent.

There are a few minor problems with this movie such as a few poor performances and some dumb action movie conventions; however credit of the highest order must go to director Robert Rodriguez for producing a great quality film made with such a tiny budget that one could barely afford a car with it! Copious amounts of fake blood are well expended here. There is little wonder why the director went on to continue making a lot of violent movies. His reputation began with this little movie. Now his career is very well deserved. Followed by a remake/sequel entitled Desperado.

Baby Geniuses is every bit as terrible as the critics made it out to be, and then some. Admittedly this film has some feeble potential, but the idea of talking babies has been toyed with so recurrently that it's growing old. It's apparent that the filmmakers simply wanted to make a guilty pleasure with a few laughs for the kids and adults. The kids might find some entertainment here. As for anyone over the age of 5...you'd have better luck finding a three-legged ballerina than finding anyone remotely interesting in this putrid mess of a movie!

Basically there are a bunch of babies being held for scientific experiments. Two scientists (Turner, Lloyd) who manage the world's leading manufacturer of baby products secretly plan to crack the code of baby talk. Then one troublesome young child named Sly (played by all of the Fitzgerald triplets) escapes from the facility and runs into his twin Whit (played by the same bunch of triplets) with whom he has a telepathic bond. Then some massive mix up occurs when guards from the scientific facility accidentally capture Whit who's mistaken for Sly, and Sly is mistaken for Whit and taken home by Whit's mother.

Apart from some preposterous other sub-plots that emerge, there is nothing else holding the film together. It's a string of stupid, notoriously unfunny childish lines of dialogue that some people actually regard as funny. Now that's a shock! No laughs, hideously embarrassing acting, bad storyline and no redeeming features at all. Whoever decided to green-light this project deserves to be kicked out of the industry forever! Think about it...they spent of millions of dollars financing this film. With that money they could have done two or three low budget movies that could have been decent. That's two or three movies we will never see. If crap like this is being created in Hollywood I wonder what stuff they must be rejecting... I don't think any possible film projects that have been rejected could possibly be worse than this.

Everyone on the cast should be ashamed of themselves. With names like Christopher Lloyd and Kathleen Turner one would expect something that is at least entertaining. Instead we have dreadful acting with even poorer source material. I can't believe how bad this so called "comedy" (I believe the film is incorrectly placed in the genre of comedy) turned out to be. The script is so terrible...I cannot even conceive a word to describe it. Directing is usually uneven and awkward. I don't recall any scenes that are memorable. Each and every second is instantly forgettable. In a sense this is a good thing. I'd rather forget I ever saw this movie.

Baby Geniuses marks one of Hollywood's lowest points. The whole film is the furthest thing from entertainment. Every aspect of the filmmaking falls flat. Script, directing, performances...they act as repulsive faeces in a grotty toilet. The screenwriter must've been a 1-year-old baby...and not a genius.

The fourth and final instalment in the celebrated Indiana Jones series was a long time coming. It has been 19 years since the release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; that's 19 years of the project being stopped and started. The classic adventure hero could only return if the correct screenplay was discovered. George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford finally gave the green light to a screenplay penned by David Koepp.

Every fan of the Indiana Jones movies will want to know if the painfully long wait was worth it. So is this fourth Indiana Jones film really worth the wait? The answer is an emphatic yes!

The plot of this movie was kept an enormous secret throughout the production. In this day and age that is a daunting task. The film is a lot more special when you don't know much about the plot. I don't intend on spoiling the film by providing an in-depth plot synopsis, so I shall be brief.

Beloved archaeologist and legendary adventurer Indiana Jones (Ford) becomes entangled in a Soviet plot to uncover the truth behind the Crystal Skull; an object of myth and superstition. The Soviets, lead by the nefarious Spalko (Blanchett), believe that with the power of the Crystal Skull they could dominate the world. Indy is now accompanied by several cohorts including the young Mutt Williams (LaBeouf), former lover Marion Ravenwood (Allen, reprising her role from Raiders of the Lost Ark), insane professor Oxley (Hurt) and long-time partner Mac (Winstone). With the Soviets endlessly pursuing them, the gang must try to elude capture and prevent the powerful ancient object from falling into the wrong hands.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a lot deeper and more complex than implied in the short plot synopsis. The typical formula has been drastically altered, but this is a change for the better. Everything has been structured differently. The memorable opening in particular introduces us to the new Indiana Jones: he's no longer young and fast, but aging and fit.

An Indiana Jones film would never be complete without loads of action and exciting adventure. In this case there is plenty of action that begins quickly. The film is exceedingly fast-paced and over-the-top. There are several homages to classic films from the works of Spielberg and Lucas (the opening few shots mirror Duel and American Graffiti) while always being original and exciting. This film also retains numerous crew-members who worked on the previous movies. From the casting department, the editor, the producers - they have all been called back to make this one.

Of course this is now the age of CGI and blockbuster effects. About 30% of the film is CGI. But much of the film is actually live action. Old school effects appearing in contemporary cinema is a rare event indeed. Heaps of the action is extremely over-the-top. More so than the other films. A lot of the action is absurdly unrealistic, and this is one of the film's only flaws. All the action is at least entertaining with never a dull moment. I never felt bored at all. Never did I feel compelled to continually check my watch. This is the beauty of such fine filmmaking.

Spielberg is a fine director, now with an able new cinematographer who manages to recapture the wonderful cinematography of the previous films.

Harrison Ford will always be Indiana Jones. It's the part he was born to play! He's much older and he looks much older, but he is still energetic and fit for someone in their late 60s! Cate Blanchett is a formidable villain. Blanchett is one of the best working actresses of the current generation. She succeeds in playing a nefarious Russian villain. It's fantastic to see Karen Allen reprising the role of Marion Ravenwood. I have no complaints about the rest of the fantastic cast.

John Williams excels himself once again. No-one else can possibly compose the score for an Indiana Jones movie.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is definitely worth the wait! After years of scrapping ideas and scripts, I'm happy they finally settled on a screenplay and went ahead with the film. It's a vastly different Indiana Jones film of course. Because of advancing technology it looks and feels different. But the film is fun, filled with action and provides an extremely fitting conclusion for everyone's favourite adventurer. I was just disappointed that it had to end. Beware: this Indy movie is more of a 1950s alien B-Movie.

8.8/10