Daniel's Reviews
 

Introduction

I started writing reviews earlier in the year, mainly film but some TV shows as well, I've got my own blog that I do with another person but I want to share my reviews with more people who'll hopefully enjoy them. You'll notice that at the moment the first reviews being posted will mainly be positive reviews of good films, as I go further they'll begin to vary as I watch more films, I started off reviewing the films I like, naturally.

I'll be using this post as an index as I have quite a few reviews to roll out very soon, cheers guys.

Some individual reviews may have different ratings (or use a different system) to what I have listed on this index page, that's probably down to switching systems or slightly amended ratings upon further consideration/viewings.

Film Reviews (In release order, then alphabetically)

Total Film Count: 50

1954

Dial M for Murder
Rear Window

1955

To Catch a Thief

1956

The Killing

1957

Paths of Glory
12 Angry Men

1959

North by Northwest

1960

Psycho .

1964

A Fistful of Dollars

1966

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Persona

1968

Rosemary's Baby
2001: A Space Odyssey

1969

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

1973

The Day of the Jackal
Live and Let Die

1976

Taxi Driver

1979

Apocalypse Now

1986

Blue Velvet
Platoon

1990

Edward Scissorhands

1991

Boyz n the Hood

1993

True Romance

1994

Pulp Fiction
The Shawshank Redemption

1995

The Usual Suspects

1997

Jackie Brown

1998

The Big Lebowski

1999

American Beauty

2000

Memento
Snatch.

2001

Mulholland Drive

2002

Road to Perdition

2003

Oldboy

2004

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

2006

Borat: Cultural Leanings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

2007

Lars and the Real Girl
There Will Be Blood
3:10 to Yuma
Wild Hogs

2010

Submarine

2011

Drive
The Grey
Horrible Bosses
Moneyball
Rango: Original Review / Extended Review
Red Riding Hood
Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2012

The Dark Knight Rises
Django Unchained
Killing Them Softly
Looper
Moonrise Kingdom +
Skyfall +

Film Review #1

http://curatorialcuriosities.files.w...ia-wallace.jpg

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Based around the lives of several ‘gangsters’, Pulp Fiction is a unique film, following the lives of various characters who are seemingly unlinked yet often cross each others’ paths, viewing their similar lifestyles through each of their own perspectives. The non-linear storyline, pop music and large use of violence are three traits often associated with Quentin Tarantino and the three certainly serve up a creative and extremely enjoyable film in Pulp Fiction.

*Review contains spoilers*

After watching Pulp Fiction it might leave you confused at a bizarre story containing what may seem filled with unneeded sub-plots , but it’s the bizarre and unusual way in which the story is constructed that makes for such an interesting storyline and makes Pulp Fiction the great film that it is. One way of looking at the plot is that of luck, a factor that appears to largely affect the lives of the characters involved such as Vincent’s death and Marsellus and Butch’s fight/rape, not only bad luck but also good luck such as Vincent’s and Jules lucky escape from six bullets and Jules’ decision not to kill Pumpkin and Honey Bunny. It’s this luck however and the events of the film that allows us to see each characters way of thinking, how they see their lifestyles as acceptable when living as criminals.

The star actor is John Travolta as Vincent Vega in a role that revitalised his career, he plays a man who despite being the ‘main character’ gets killed off seemingly early on in the film (although appears in the final scenes that took place prior to his death due to the on-linear story) showing Tarantino’s willingness to kill off key characters as seen before in Reservoir Dogs, this uncertainty that comes with many twists throughout attributes to an unpredictable story.

The film has a number of important themes that are maintained in many of its chapters, on the way tackling a number of personal issues and moral decisions made by the characters such as Vincent’s decision whether to sleep with Mia Wallace, questioning his loyalty to his boss Marsellus Wallace. The ‘Gold Watch’ chapter features another key theme of the movie, pride as well honour which can be seen mainly through the character Butch, portrayed by Bruce Willis. When Butch is asked to lose his final fight he refuses, unwilling to sacrifice his pride at the request of his ruthless boss, killing a man in the process. This pride for Butch can be seen in the way he holds his father’s gold watch in high regard with him willing to take extreme risks to rescue this item as he attempts to avoid his former colleagues. Despite being perfectly fine with killing a man Butch shows just how much he values a man’s pride and dignity when he decides to eventually rescue his boss Marsellus Wallace (a man who tried to kill him) from being raped after a series of rather unfortunate events.

The films main focus is on the duo of Vincent and Jules who is portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson, a man who takes the decision to retire from the criminal lifestyle following an act of ‘God’s divine intervention’, this is when we begin to see the characters personality and personal beliefs. At the start of the film we see the cold-hearted Jules, killing two men whilst reading out a revised chapter from the bible, Ezekiel 25:17 (Probably the second best Jackson quote behind ‘Snakes on a Plane’, of course), he reveals later that this reading had no meaning to it originally and it is not until after somehow surviving being shot that Jules appreciates his life differently, he sits in the restaurant explaining his views on the eating of Bacon before events lead to him considering a different version of his bible passage that he now realises may have a more important meaning to it. Vince Vega on the other hand seems very ignorant of the way he lives his life, murdering people and taking drugs with him calling for the death of the ‘criminal who keyed his car’, a somewhat ironic and hypocritical quote.

Mia Wallace, portrayed by Uma Thurman is the wife of Marsellus and her main role in the film brings a mysterious feel, the film begins with a discussion between Vincent and Jules about her husband who had allegedly pushed a man off a building for giving her a foot massage but we begin to get a better perspective of her character as she acts as the centre point of the majority of the first half of the film when we see her spend time with Vincent Vega who ends up being tested morally as we see him thinking over whether he should sleep with Mia Wallace and betray his boss or not.

Pulp Fiction wouldn’t be what it is without its ‘meaningless’ scenes such as Jules and Vincent’s discussion regarding ‘The Royale with Cheese’, although these conversations do not serve much purpose and don’t act as a way to advance the plot they are what make Tarantino’s films so enjoyable, the superb dialogue makes Pulp Fiction what it is as we seeh umorous yet perfectly normal conversations betweens the films characters who are ‘normal’ people. Another much talked about plot device is the ‘MacGuffin’ created by Tarantino’s decision to leave the briefcase’s contents unknown, allowing it’s contents to be ‘whatever the viewer wants them to be’. The film uses a whole host of unique creative techniques to achieve a masterpiece instead of following a standard style story filled with clichéd and predictable plot devices and twists that we have come to expect from many films. Tarantino is widely regarded as one of the best film modern film directors. Pulp Fiction is in my (and the majority of other people’s) opinion his best film so far, it is a combination of everything I love about the director, a film created that combines many traits that we now associate with him, Pulp Fiction is perhaps one of the most enjoyable films I have ever seen and although their may be films that better it, if I had to pick one film to watch at any time then this would be it.

RATING:

Film Review #2

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/.../Rango-004.jpg

Rango (2011)

Rango was awarded the Best Animated Feature Film of the Year at the 2012 Academy Awards , and for good reason. A brilliant animated adventure film in stunning 2D (Yes, 2D, proving that films don’t have to jump on the 3D bandwagon to be successful). Rango is a film based around the main character of that name, a chameleon voiced by Johnny Depp who stumbles upon the town of ‘Dirt’.

Dirt, set in the wild west has two problems, it’s in need of a new sheriff and it’s in desperately low supply of water, in order to tackle both Rango puts himself forward as the town sheriff and hero as he attempts to impress his new friends with his great tales despite being nothing more than just an ordinary chameleon, one tale in particular gains him the respect of the local people as he explains how he defeated 7 men with one bullet.

The film is filled with references to many classic Westerns, in particular the great ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’ with the visual appearance of the man with no name himself, Clint Eastwood and the villainous snake also appears to be the animal form of Lee Van Cleef. Rango is an animated and more modern take on the classic genre, it takes the parts of Westerns we are familiar with, the aesthetics and overall feel as well as other aspects such as the sound, it then combines these with the modern approach that comes with an animal made Western.

Rango takes on the traditional role of a new Sherriff in town, acting as a hero to solve the town’s problems whilst confronting the local villain in a classic Western-style plot. Every aspect of the film that is made in such stunning detail, ranging from the grungy Western colours used to the small yet great sound effects such as those on the weapons attribute to create a great mix of new and old.

Whilst Rango can be categorised as both a comedy and kids film but I feel that these aren’t it’s two strongest areas, whilst funny in parts (and I feel it achieves what it wants through this) I don’t feel this film particular focuses on the humour side and is mainly concerned with the adventure and emotional side of Rango, a character who looks to prove himself and fit in with the rest of the town. Rango also uses a lot of more mature humour and references that most kids will not get as well as having its fair use of violence, the fact it is an animation that uses animals will mean kids will probably love it but the content of the film itself is probably suited to an older audience. Perhaps another negative is that there are certain parts of the film seems to drag on over a number of scenes and take a while to get going before reaching their climax, meaning that the film is less intense and exciting as it maybe could be.

Overall I feel that Rango is a brilliant modern take on a classic Western style plot, it is constructed extremely well that it feels we are watching a classic Western even though this is an animated animal film, this is achieved with stunning visual effects to create a great aesthetic feel as well as though great use of sounds and also some greatly fitting voices for many characters. In terms of animations, Rango may not be held in the same bracket as the likes of Toy Story and Up in terms of the plot and the connection to the viewers, but it is certainly one of my favourites for its overall feel and story, and how well the it has translated a Western in to an Animation. For Gore Verbinski who has Depp on three Pirates of the Caribbean films before this it seems slightly strange seeing the best combination work with Depp as what is an ugly animal in Rango, the pair are set to work together again in the 2013 film ​Lone Ranger, another Western that Verbinski looks set to take a unique and modern approach and it's certainly a film I'll be looking forward to seeing.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Hey nice reviews :yup:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Yes Daniel, good reviews. I'm just wondering if you really think that Pulp Fiction and Rango deserve the same rating or do you maybe need more ratings? Welcome!

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

1. Great reviews

2. Kinda bouncing off what Mark said, how often do you give 4/4?

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Pulp Fiction is good? Who knew.

The rating system is pretty much taken from Ebert, what you've highlighted is perhaps a criticism of it but I feel it works well enough to help me categorise films.

When giving a rating I am not solely rating it on how good overall it is as a film for example if The Godfather is 10/10 I'd give Rango a 7 or 8, the rating I try to give relative to other films in the genre its based in and also what it's set out to try and achieve as a film. When I'm judging Rango I'm giving it a 4 based on the fact that it is one of my favourite modern animations and I love Westerns so I love how it's gave a unique approach to a classic genre, maybe I'm being a bit generous.

Film Review #3

http://images.picturesdepot.com/phot...rown-25168.jpg

Jackie Brown (1997)

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were my first two Quentin Tarantino films that I watched and I instantly fell in love with him, I watched Jackie Brown with high hopes and I wasn’t disappointed. If you are going to compare the Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction to Jackie Brown then they are totally different films and unlike Tarantino's first two films that are filled with fast-paced, bizarre and 'cool' scenes filled with pop culture references and flashy violence, Jackie Brown appears to be a more mature effort from the director with focuses more on the story's substance as he gives us a well-paced tale filled some brilliant performances from the likes of Samuel L. Jackson, Pam Grier and Robert Forster. For Jackie Brown the characters within the film are key as they each devise their own plans in order to benefit themselves, the story of the film revolves around criminal boss Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson) who uses Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) in order to smuggle a large amount of money in to the country, as we watch the film we eventually see the individual plans from each character combine as the film reaches its climax.

Although different in style, Jackie Brown has some similarities to Tarantino’s other films, first of all it has a crime based plot and we are familiar with the lifestyles of some of the characters. The film also uses chapters to clearly distinguish between parts of the film but unlike Pulp Fiction the story is showed in a linear way which is more suited to the story and the unfolding plans of the characters. The main character of the film is of course Jackie Brown who is portrayed by the brilliantly Pam Grier who is able to hold her own up against ruthless criminals, one of the best scenes that shows her strong character takes place in a bar when she has a discussion with Ordell over the percentage of money she should get from the deal. Ordell Robbie is portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson and he provides another memorable performance a clever guns dealer following his famous performance in Pulp Fiction.

The film lasts almost two hours and a half and this can certainly be felt, some will complain this is too long however I fell that it works well as the story slowly unfolds and the plan becomes more complex as more layers are added by each individual character, I enjoyed the way the film was set out and felt the time allowed the extremely interesting characters to develop, in Jackie Brown there are only a handful of key characters in which we see their own angles, a good decision by Tarantino as he allows them to develop their own personalities and clever ideas unlike Pulp Fiction in which we see double the characters and less character focus. As mentioned earlier the interlinking plots from different perspectives come in to play during the money exchange chapter as each character plays a different role in Jackie Brown’s plan to fool the police and also capitalise on the money available for her own benefit, the majority of the film (at least the first half) is spent building up to this chapter, when we finally reach it the film ups it pace, giving us an exciting and dramatic finale with sudden and unpredictable plot twists resulting in the consequences of each characters' actions being felt. Much like the rest of Tarantino’s films, Jackie Brown has a distinctive soundtrack, this time instead of focusing on a mixture of classic pop we hear a mixture of Soul and R&B that has been chosen to suit the feel of the film and atmosphere, we also see Tarantino work his magic in terms of dialogue, although perhaps more normal he allows the characters to interact naturally and spontaneously based on their own personalities that we have seen developed.

Aside from Jackson and Grier the film sees a number of other great roles played out throughout the film, one of the best performances is Robert Forster as a bail bonds seller Max Cherry who becomes involved in an unlikely relationship with Jackie Brown. Pulp Fiction is famous for reviving the career of John Travolta and Tarantino has seemingly had the same affect on Forster who's career improved after a great performance in Jackie Brown. One man who's career didn't need reviving was Robert De Niro who brilliantly plays the role of one of Ordell’s friends, an ex-convict stoner with a short temper, he becomes mixed up in the money exchange events and becomes increasingly key to the film as it progresses.

After the initial success of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, Tarantino was not always praised for his style, often being criticised for his use of violence and lack of substance, instead focussing on style. Jackie Brown completes a trio of great films and a great decade for Tarantino who has proven his maturity and ability as a director with the film.

RATING:

Indeed. A little too nice for my liking though. You're new here so I'll cut you some slack but you can't be stealing my thunder; I'm the main and best reviewer around these parts. :yup: Exluding Sexy Celebrity of course. And Used Future. Oh and Rodent. And that guy Justin. And.....

:D

Anyway what I'm trying to say is welcome. :) I'm actually in the opposite boat as you, I'm thinking of starting up a blog to try and get my reviews to more people. Although a large degree of that is just having a second source for my reviews in case the board crashed and I lost all my work.

Haha I'll take the first paragraph as a compliment, so cheers :D When I started a blog was meant to be me and another guy but he hardly posts anything so I just use it myself at the moment, started writing reviews as I have loads of free time and watch too many films, decided to join forums as I decided I wanted more interaction with others who enjoyed films like me.

Was looking through your DVD collection as well, it's brilliant and lets just say if I ever end up having watched or collected that many films I'll be very happy, I'm only 17 at the moment so got loads of time ahead of me :D

Btw now that I'm posting up reviews I've done before do people mind about the pace I roll them out, will probably try and post a few a day to catch up to where I am now if people don't mind :)

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Nice reviews matey.

I'd have to agree with what the others have said, try adjusting your ratings system. 4 stars gives little Leeway.

I use the basic % system.

Screenplay marks out of 20
Writing (inc Dialogue writing) out of 20
Acting marks (inc dialogue delivery) out of 20
Action (inc choreography) marks out of 20
FX (CGI, Practical etc) marks out of 20

Add up the scores at the end and it should give a relatively close % rating.
I find it's more precise. Just my two-pence worth.


Doing a good job on the overall reviews though matey, have enjoyed reading... keep it up! :)

Thanks for the comment, in future I'll give a four star rating then also try to translate it in to a more precise rating using that system and see how it works, I agree it would be better to give an overall score rather than one that's more relative to the film and it's genre/target.

Edit: Tried implementing the system, seems good only one I'm unsure on is FX as it's hard to judge when not a lot is always needed/used but it should be fine :)

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Good work. I'll be waiting for a negative review though. Those are more interesting, in my opinion.

Thank you very much. :up: And feel free to drop by my reviews thread as well, size up your competition. :D

Film Review #4

http://www.pr.com/upload/article_image_1155656564.jpg

The Usual Suspects (1995)

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

The Usual Suspects is a film that will leave you thinking long after its ending and one which will become all the more clearer after a second watch. The film follows a group of criminals, lined up together following the hijacking of a truck, they are nicknamed 'The Usual Suspects', a name which is taken from the classic film Casablanca. When lined up all five men protest their innocence, setting out on a revenge mission 'to salvage a little dignity' as put by McManus.

The initial events surrounding the lineup seem irrelevant come the film's ending with the film largely focussing around the plot of criminal boss Keyser Soze, a mysterious character often referred to as 'the devil himself' who sets the men the task of destroying 91 million dollars worth of dope, why has he gave them this task? As they have all stolen from him in the past, although not intentionally/directly, hence they are still alive. The aftermath of the job that is set out to the team is displayed immediately at the start of the film, with it's main star 'Verbal' Kint, portrayed by the brilliant Kevin Spacey reciting the events that have lead to 27 deaths on a large boat. The story is told through a series of flashbacks as Dave Kujan, a tough and intimidating US customs officer portrayed by Chazz Palminteri is determined to get to the bottom of the mysterious case.

*If you have not watched the film then I urge you to stop reading from now on, spoilers below.*

Following the film's end you'll be left kicking yourself in frustration yet amazed at perhaps one of the most famous twists ever in this fantastic thriller hence my recommendation of a second watch where everything should become so much clearer in terms of the plot including subtle clues and the film's great attempts to divert (successfully, at least in my case) you from the truth.

Upon initially thinking over the film I was immediately impressed by what I had seen, when writing a review I like to research and read over reviews to ensure I understand what I am writing and I have noticed that The Usual Suspects comes with mixed reviews. Many have criticised the ending and the film itself, I remember reading a piece of work from Roger Ebert that talked about the idea of the film having 'a lot of icing but not enough cake' and that the idea of the plot itself is implausible, why would a man like Keyser Soze feel the need to reveal all this information to the police before getting away? Whilst such arguments are valid I feel that in order to watch a film like this you just have to accept the circumstances created as the truth and go along with them, some are able to do that but some find them too implausible and hence dislike the film, my theory is that Keyser Soze had finally had finally got rid of the one last person who could testify against him, he didn't have to tell the made up story tto the police but he wanted to, one last 'f**k you' to the men who had come so close but never caught him.

The five 'suspects' are a mix of personalities, one of the film's main strengths is its acting and each character and their different styles are portrayed brilliantly, complimenting each other greatly. Aside from Kevin Spacey, who is undoubtedly the star of the film, there is ex-criminal turned straight Dean Keaton portrayed by Gabriel Byrne who pulls of the role of a cold-hearted murderer turned businessman and husband extremely well, one criticism of his story is that I felt his relationship with criminal lawyer Edie Finneran is left under-explored, with his wife only appearing a few times throughout the film, leaving the emotional side of a man with two sides being left used not as well as it potentially could of in a film like this. One particular scene with Keaton and Finneran in which he is seen overlooking her before leaving seemed particularly odd and out of place. Stephen Baldwin plays the role of the loud-mouth and extremely cool McManus, probably the biggest 'criminal' of the five and the original creator of the plan for revenge on the police. Baldwin who I have admittedly not seen that often as an actor plays this role to perfection, achieving a great look for a cool and relaxed criminal. Benicio Del Toro then plays the role of Fenster, McManus' criminal partner and does very well in his role although he is not as prominent as the others, then finally there's Kevin Pollak as Todd Hockney, who manages to pull of his role of a dramatic criminal extremely well, another strange yet rather funny reveal later in the film is that he did actually hijack the truck from the beginning.

Aside from the five usual suspects, one of the best roles portrayed in the film is Pete Postlethwaite as Kobayashi, the famous actor is exceptional in his role as an extremely calm and well spoken lawyer with a strange accent, he does a great job in portraying both his cool and composed side as well as his criminal side with the character showing his vicious side on a number of occasions, one particular scene when this can be seen hears him threaten to 'only castrate' McManus' young nephew.

As well as the fantastic acting throughout credit has to go to both Christopher McQuarrie who's plot will be remembered for it's dramatic twist, as mentioned earlier some will criticise the films plausibility but for most viewers the film has seemed to having a lasting and enjoyable impact. If you can criticise the actual plot then you'll find it difficult to criticise Bryan Singer who directs the film brilliantly, telling the story fantastically through the use of two interlinking perspectives, the flashbacks of the five men and the interrogation of Kint which reaches its climax in the film's famous ending.

The film has a combination of all the ingredients needed for a successful and enjoyable film, the plot is very interesting and directed as well as it could be, the use of subtle details that become evident with multiple viewings are very good, and then there's of course the dramatic ending which makes for a must watch for any mystery/thriller fan.

RATING:

Do you know we have the popcorn box rating here?













You can also add + or - to the end of your popcorn ratings. It's kinda nice and fun and gives one a few more ratings than Ebert :cool:. Personally, I use a 1-10 rating scale, but technically it's broken down by tenths (0.1), but I don't use that around here because my personal reasons for breaking down ratings that precisely would mean absolutely nothing to almost anyone else. I think Rodent's percent scale works well for him, but I also think there are more than five ways to rate or interpret a film and that you cannot possibly approach every film with the same scale. I mean, I try to do it, but it's impossible when films come at you from so many different perspectives. Shut up, mark!

Sorry I hijacked your thread, but I was mostly trying to tell you about our rating system here and how to use it if you'd like. Just quote my post here and it will show you how I made all the popcorn ratings.

Keep up the good work.

Film Review #5

http://burksta.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/taxi09.jpg

Taxi Driver (1976)

“Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets”

Taxi Driver, in not only my opinion, is one of the best films ever made. A masterpiece in directing from Martin Scorsese and memorable acting including a fantastic performance from Robert De Niro make Taxi Driver a great film and Travis Bickle one of the greatest characters in film history.

Despite the films popularity and largely positive reviews I have heard many criticise the film, in fact whilst watching it with my younger brother, he himself felt disappointed at what he saw. Whilst not agreeing with him and others, I can understand why people may see the film in that light. Unlike a lot of films Taxi Driver isn’t your usual violent filled action/thriller, instead Taxi Driver is a more drawn-out, psychological study of a man the majority of people can connect with in some way or another, a story of rage building up inside a man.

Travis Bickle is a war veteran and suffers from insomnia, this leads him to taking a job as a taxi driver to keep him occupied at night. Whilst watching my brother commented that the scenes were ‘boring and long, with nothing of interest happening, that the storytelling provided little entertainment or excitement, with no significant or exciting twists’, but this should not be viewed as a negative, instead the film is showing us an accurate portrayal how the empty and lonely Travis feels, a nobody who wants to be somebody, who is fed up and wants to take action against ‘the scum of the streets’.

This film may not appeal to some people who view Bickle’s life and behaviour as unacceptable and disturbing but although you may not be able to reason with his actions, you can definitely understand why he chooses them. The dark atmosphere, complimented by a deep and chilling score by Bernard Herrmann that only further adds to what is a living hell for Travis as we view his is spiral in to madness.
I think everyone has a bit of Travis Bickle inside them to some degree, rage against things we see as unacceptable in modern society which makes the film so brilliant, resulting in it having such a deep impact on the viewer. But it’s not just Robert De Niro who performs so brilliantly in the leading role, with the young Jodie Foster giving a performance well beyond her age as a young prostitute named Iris. The film also sees the now more well-known young duo of Albert Brooks and Harvey Keitel as well as a delightful cameo by the director himself, a young Martin Scorsese.

Cybill Shepherd plays Betsy, a key figure in the life of Travis, a young woman whom Travis is in attracted to. His awkward social skills are shown with the way he acts around woman, part of his lonely and isolated life. In one of the film's scenes of the film he takes Betsy to a porn cinema, unaware that this may be viewed as an unusual thing for a woman. Travis’ ignorance is also shown through his lack of knowledge for politics and it is this ignorance that leaves him later angered and confused, left unable to comprehend why he has faced rejection from Betsy who is so willing to show loyalty to Palantine, a local senator. There appears to be a general anger towards women from Travis who is unable to understand why they are willing to remain loyal to others, this is also shown later in an equally great scene in a café with Iris where she chooses to stay loyal to her pimp Sport despite clearly being angered by her lifestyle as a prostitute.

​*Spoilers in the next three paragraphs, skip if not seen film*

This personal anger leads Travis to self-destruct, taking action in to his own hands, creating one of the greatest film endings as he goes on a violent rampage. It’s the final scene’s irony and message that are left long-lasting in the minds of the viewer. Seemingly seconds away from killing the senator Palantine (likely due to Betsy’s rejection of him), Travis gets a ‘lucky’ escape before going on to kill ‘the scum’ including Sport, before saving Iris, completing an ironic turnaround.

Scorsese has said that the Mohawk hair style that Travis appears with in the final scenes is a sign used by soldiers who knew they were going in to certain death. But things do not turned out as planned by Travis who comes out of the killing spree as a hero after returning Iris to her parents. From possibly assassinating a senator and being known as a psychopathic murderer, Travis is now a hero of society, hailed for his actions of saving Iris.

This ending is followed by a scene where Travis gives Betsy a lift in his taxi, a woman he had formerly loved before being rejected, this time he rejects her. This seems to complete Travis' turnaround showing that the events may have had a positive affect on Travis who is now respected and not seen as a disturbed psychopath. However this feeling is short-lived in the final moments and one of the best in the film as Travis looks at ‘his own eyeballs in the mirror’ before being disgusted by what he can see in himself, suggesting that Travis is indeed not a changed man and this glory and respect he has achieved was purely through luck and is not deserving, these actions were not those of a hero doing the right thing, but a very dangerous psychopath, reminding us that the events could have lead to a completely different fate for the taxi driver and that Travis may attempt such dangerous actions again in the future where he may not turn out so lucky.

A combination of a brilliantly directed story, fantastic acting in which a variety of psychologically interesting characters are portrayed, mixed with a brilliantly chilling soundtrack makes Taxi Driver one of the most deeply affecting and emotionally thrilling films of all time. A masterpiece from Scorsese that is still seen as relevant and as breathtaking many years after its creation.

RATING:

Film Review #6

http://www.filmenator.com/images/memento12.jpg

Memento (2000)

Christopher Nolan is largely regarded as one of the most talented modern directors for his work during the 21st century particularly with both The Dark Knight and Inception, two of the most popular and highly acclaimed films in recent times. Perhaps less well known than those two films, ‘Memento’ is a film many people will rate equally as good if not better than them with the film providing a mind-boggling and extremely interesting plot.

Memento follows the story of Leonard Shelby, a young man who suffers from short term memory loss following an ‘incident’ in which his wife was viciously attacked and killed. The story is shown in an interesting way, one which keeps you thinking as two stories unfold in opposite directions as we delve deeper in to Leonard’s live, finding out more clues as we put together the Memento puzzle. The film is not shown in a non-linear way not directly because of Leonard’s condition as you may have expected but instead to keep us thinking and confused, we truly have no idea of what has happened (or happening), in a way it forces us to think like Leonard, we are trying to piece together little bits of information we remember from scenes to get us to the current situation whilst he tries to look at his polaroid photohraphs to understand his current situation and what he is doing.

Leonard is portrayed by Guy Pearce as a strange and curious man who uses a series of notes (on Polaroids) and tattoos to help him deal with his condition and track down his wife’s killer, Pearce is excellent in his role here giving us a startling performance as a mysterious and damaged character. His tattoos include a series of clues or ‘facts’ revealing information about his wife’s killer and his notes are attached to images of various common characters and places to help him remember them.

The film explores a number of complex and equally as mysterious characters such as Natalie portrayed by Carrie-Anne Moss, she according to Leonard’s note will ‘help him out of pity’ and although she originally takes advantage of his condition, manipulating him for her own amusement, she then seemingly develops a genuine want to help him on his quest to track down his wife’s killer.

Teddy Gammell is another key character and possibly the most mysterious in the film, even after the film has finished you’ll be thinking long after just what Teddy’s motives were and what of what he says is actually true? He is portrayed by Joe Pantoliano (he had also worked with Carrie-Anne Moss the previous year in The Matrix) who gives a great performance as a character that is constantly involved as the mystery unfolds, we are constantly changing our thoughts and opinions of the character who shares an important relationship with Leonard, we know that the more we find out regarding the identity of Teddy and what are his intentions then the closer we get to uncovering the truth regarding Leonard.

*Possible ending spoilers in next paragraph*

The ending leaves the absorbing mystery is seemingly unsolved and its lasting affect on the viewer will almost definitely be felt after viewing as you try yourself to put together the pieces of the puzzle you’ve just watched, to attempt to work out the truth. Are Leonard’s versions of the past to be trusted? Is Sammy Jankis really who Leonard says he is? Or is Leonard simply creating his own puzzle to keep his mind occupied, destroying information that he wants to forget and creating his own clues to work with.

Memento is an enthralling and absorbing tale, a mysterious world filled with a mixture of mysterious characters, a puzzle displayed to us by Nolan, made in such a way that you’ll be both fascinated and confused by what you’ve just seen come the film’s end. Whilst some may find it uninteresting and confusing but the film is meant to be confusing and you must focus and take in every detail of the puzzle, you have to sit back and appreciate Nolan’s work, he’s been creative in his idea for the film, it’s unique, fresh and above all engaging. A must watch for any mystery fans.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

I am a big fan of Guy Pearce :yup:

Film Review #7

http://www.moviemoviesite.com/Films/...edemption1.jpg

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Everyone has those ‘great films’ that everyone seems to love and go on about yet they have not seen them themselves, top of the IMDB ratings list and talked about by many of my friends – for me ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ was one of those films. The film follows the tale of two men together in Shawshank Prison, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) and ‘Red’ (Morgan Freeman). The film is a narrative of Andy’s life in prison, told through the eyes of Red, a man who has spent almost his whole life there.

The tale that is told is as the film’s title suggests, one of redemption as well as the development of friendship between Andy and Red. The film’s tale of redemption is a relatively simple one to follow although it is how this tale is told that makes the film so powerful to the viewer. Each scene feels compelling and powerful, each treated with the same respect, with great detail and emotional depth with almost every sub-plot explored, the acting is brilliant and the viewer feels exactly what Andy has to suffer.


Throughout the film we become accustomed to prison life, the brutal treatment from the warden and the officers, the harsh life that becomes inevitable to Andy who accepts he will be beaten and taken advantage of. Despite the harsh realities of prison life Andy seems to take battle on, living a happy life at terms with what he now accepts despite insisting his innocence, he makes the most of life happily helping out those around him and willingly taking on board huge projects for himself such as the warden’s (Bob Gunton) financial work, the prison library and the education of a young prisoner Tommy (Gil Bellows).


The film is shown powerfully through emotional development through the characters and the great attention paid to its scenes, and unlike others which you see filled with fast-paced scenes and computer effects, the focus is not on that but instead the message that is displayed through the great work of Frank Darabont. It’s the touching effect that the film has on the viewer that sees it held in such high regard by the majority and see it top film lists such as ‘IMDB’s Top 250’. The adaptation is brilliant and Darabont gives us a great portrayal of the harsh prison life that is shown accurately through well-paced scenes and perfect acting.


The film’s ‘twist’ is great, and acts as an explanation as to Andy’s behaviour inside the prison, how he has come to accept and is willing to live the harsh prison life despite protesting his innocence knowing that he’ll have to endure the torture if he wants to come out as planned. But the film is not just your typical fairytale or happy prison escape, although redemptions are completed it is shown that life outside is not everything you may expect and that itself can be harsh, uncertain and challenging. This is shown through James Whitmore’s fantastic performance as Brooks Hatlen, a man who has become so accustomed to prison life that he finds himself unable to cope with the outside world.


The Shawshank Redemption failed to win a single Oscar after being nominated for seven, with it being in competition to other great films such as Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump. I personally regard Pulp Fiction as one of my favourite films and almost everyone loves Forest Gump like many others but The Shawshank Redemption is different, it has been more successful after release following initial failure at box office and I think that’s because the story appeals to everyone, like I’ve said it’s powerful, compelling and it has seems to effect everyone with its warm and heart-touching story, it has grown based on its affect on people who will discuss and recommend it to others.


Is The Shawshank Redemption the best film of all time? Probably not, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s undeserving of the high praise it receives. A masterpiece for what it intends to be, an emotional and compelling tale that is told in a beautiful way that you’ll struggle to find in many other films. This film is one that appeals to many for good reason and if you’re one of those people who haven’t seen the film yet, then I certainly recommend you do.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Nice review of a great movie :yup:

Film Review #8 (got a few more reviews to get to current time but thought I'd post this anyway as I've just seen it)

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content...ta-570x271.jpghttp://cdn.crushable.com/files/2012/...back-scar2.jpg

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The Dark Knight Rises is a solid ending to a great trilogy from Christopher Nolan. Whilst by no means bad, I just didn’t feel the film was a strong as its predecessors for a number of reasons, in this film Nolan has stretched out a story in to almost three hours, the first is largely focussed on getting us up to speed after an eight year jump, looking at the hurt of such characters as Bruce Wayne, the second is largely one of pain as we as the viewers feel through Bane’s success and Wayne’s exile, the final part of the film is its strongest and brings a fitting end to one of the best trilogies there has been.

Starting with the films’ positives I feel that we saw a much better performance from Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne as the film focussed much more on the emotional side of the character than it had in The Dark Knight. If you watch Batman Begins and miss out the second part of the trilogy then the two seem more of a pair in my opinion in terms of the development of Batman himself.

The film also saw a very strong supporting cast as Michael Caine gave another great performance as Wayne’s butler Alfred with many emotional scenes shared with the actor. We also saw Anne Hathaway silence her critics with a good performance as Catwoman, I was initially concerned with how this character would work in conjunction with the main plot and thankfully I feel Nolan got this character spot on like he has with many others. The star of the show for me though was Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a very strong performance as the young police officer Blake, his character becomes increasingly involved as the film progresses.

Following the Oscar winning performance by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight people were always going to pay close attention to the villain in this film. Tom Hardy plays the brutal Bane, a character whose figure is similar to that portrayed by Hardy in Bronson. Bane is what you’d expect from a scary looking masked villain, his character is cold-hearted and pure evil. Although the character’s past is explained his emotional side seems to be left largely unexplored, he brings little character or personality, his motives are also somewhat odd – he targets the upper classes of society with attacks on a football game as well as the stock market but then he also claims that his goal is to complete the work of Ra’s Al Ghul from Batman Begins which seems strange considering that his plan was to destroy a city he saw was beyond saving yet Gotham City has seen 8 years of peace.

Elaborating on some of my original points, I think Nolan’s tried to too hard with his final piece, he’s tried to make it a well-paced emotional study of Batman, he’s tried to focus on his suffering and then on his rise using almost three hours of screen time to create a epic conclusion. The length of the film means it takes a while to get in to the action (although it is probably worth it) and that when we are watching scenes of suffering we feel the pain as viewers, although this is probably the idea. I won’t speak about the ending at all, that’s not fair for those who haven’t seen it.

RATING:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...-drive-007.jpg

Drive (2011)

Drive is one of my favourite films post-2000, a film that in my opinion was definitely worthy of more than 1 Oscar nomination. The film is focussed around the mysterious life of a Hollywood stuntman who is also a getaway driver as he gets mixed up in the brutal criminal world. The feel of the film is brilliant with Nicolas Widning Refn’s cinematography creating a wonderful neo-noir style film with a fantastic 80’s atmosphere that is aided by Frank Martinez’ wonderful score.

The plot revolves around the life of Ryan Gosling who is excellent in his mysterious role; he befriends a young mother Irene (Carey Mulligan) whose husband returns home from jail. After watching the first part of the film you’ll probably have expected it to pan out as a romance story between the Driver and Irene as he saves her from her abusive husband Standard (Oscar Isaac), instead we get something quite different with Standard proving a rather charming and likeable father who seriously looks to have left his criminal lifestyle, the Driver agrees to help him carry out one final task for men he owes money – but not everything goes to plan.

A line I often see mentioned with the film is its tag line ‘There are no clean getaways’ and that is certainly the most appropriate description of what unfolds as the Driver sees himself become head-hunted by criminal bosses Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) and Nino (Ron Perlman), the film is ultra-violent and very brutal so it is understandable why some may be uncomfortable watching it.

Elaborating on an earlier point about Ryan Gosling’s excellent performance, some may criticise the character’s lack of emotion because he rarely speaks but this only adds to the mystery of just who he is. Gosling creates a calm and charismatic character whose past we know nothing of and he simply does what he needs to now, what we see are strong outbursts of violence from the character as a result of the plot that unfolds with him trying to protect his friend Irene, he carries the burden of her husband’s death with him throughout the film and feels he has a degree of responsibility to protect her.

Nicolas Winding Refn is one of my favourite directors and one that should certainly be watched in the future, in Drive he has taken classic neo-noir style and has put his own print on it, he reminds me of Quentin Tarantino whose works are often inspired by classic films/styles (Samurai, Westerns etc.) yet he finds a way to make them his own.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Great review,
I agree, this was a fantastic film and really kept you thinking as the story unfolded. Ryan Gosling did a good job. To be honest, he frustrated me a little at the beginning of the film because I like to get to know my characters but he wasn't giving anything away. However, as the film progresses I think we do get to know him as we see his good nature shine through.

I highly recommend this one.

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Quite like this one :yup: have purchased it :)

http://stephanieharrietwhalley.files....jpg%3Fw%3D545

Rear Window (1954)

Considered one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best films, ‘Rear Window’ follows the life L. B. Jeffries, portrayed brilliantly by James Stewart as a man trapped inside his own apartment following a leg injury. Temporarily in a wheelchair, the frustrated photographer spends his days staring outside of his rear window, observing the events of those around him, finding himself the witness of what he believes to be a murder.

Grace Kelly plays the part of Jeffries’ partner, Lisa Fremont as Hitchcock introduces us initially to the lives of the film’s main characters for which we spend the majority of the first part of the film getting to know. It’s through an incredibly detailed set, natural sound and great, natural shots that the viewer becomes involved in the film. Disabled, unable to move and only being able to see, from a distance, the actions of his neighbours, Jeffries’ feels trapped and frustrated and his emotions can be felt in the way the film is displayed.

Hitchcock, known as the master of suspense certainly lives up to this title in the film. Throughout we see the characters left in worrying and potentially dangerous situations, the viewer feels exactly like Jeffries on looking from a distance at situations developing beyond any type of control, wanting to intervene but ultimately being prevented to do so, frustratingly.

The set and camera-work is utilised to the best it can be by Hitchcock who uses Jeffries’ position ‘spying’ on others to explore a number of interesting sub-plots such as Miss Lonelyhearts lonely life, in one great scene she is scene acting out a dinner with herself, raising a glass to herself, an action mirrored by Jeffries who is watching.

‘Rear Window’ combines a mysterious thriller with romance, with a slight humorous and ironic feel as well. But the film is far from being violent; it’s not a film in which the crime is a spectacle for the viewer but instead one that crime creates an eerie and worrying atmosphere through the mysterious and unknown possibilities. Raymond Burr as Lars Thorwald gives a chilling performance, he is not needed to display himself emotionally for the majority which only builds up our expectations of the mysterious character before the film’s final scenes occur, and the truth is revealed.

Hitchcock’s ‘Rear Window’ is a great film and an extremely entertaining one to watch for so many reasons with great acting, brilliantly efficient use of a seemingly limiting set/location through excellent camera work and shots which help generate a mysterious and worrying atmosphere, creating suspense that builds up for the film’s final scenes.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

One of my favourites :yup:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_exPqUW8jlu...20/TucoGBU.jpg

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Part of the ‘Man with no name’ Trilogy, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ is the third film produced by Sergio Leone in which Blondie (The Good, portrayed by Clint Eastwood) and Tuco (The Ugly, portrayed by Eli Wallach) form an uncomfortable alliance in the hunt for gold in a race against Sentenza/Angel Eyes (The Bad, portrayed by Lee Van Cleef).

The film is set around the time of the American Civil war, and despite being the third instalment of what has become known as a trilogy, it is the first chronologically. The three films are not connected in any way other than the mysterious man with no name and can be watched in any order without spoiling each other although many will recommend them in the order of ‘Fistful of Dollars’, ‘For a Few Dollars more’ and then finally ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ simply for the reason that we can view Sergio Leone’s progression as a director, each film arguably outdoing each other, with ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ often regarded as his best ever film.

Throughout the film such an atmosphere is created that the viewer can feel the uncomfortable tension generated from the uneasy relationship of the characters, although some scenes feel tough and possibly slow, Leone uses his environment to maximise such feelings such as the scene where Tuco drags Blondie through the desert, close to death.

Having viewed the extended version of the film, I am yet to view the cut version and with some great scenes being cut such as the alcoholic union officer I find it hard to understand why such scenes would be. The film can possibly be divided in to two halves; the first is a more longwinded insight in to each three of the characters as Leone introduces us in to the lives of each, the second sees more fast paced action as the chase for gold accelerates, with the unpredictable characters competing against each other for a $200,000 dollar reward.

Although Clint Eastwood is often regarded as the main character and the face of the film, Tuco finds himself having far more dialogue than his partner in what is a fantastic performance by a criminal who as the film title suggests, shows many ugly characteristics, however we perhaps find ourselves feeling sorry for a man who seems to show genuine emotions in certain scenes such as when he meets his brother, the head of a church.

No review of ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ would be complete without a mention for Ennio Morricone who adds magical and often haunting music that creates some fantastic and dramatic scenes. The film features probably one of the best musical scores ever for a film and Morricone’s music is regarded as one of best features of Sergio Leone’s Westerns.

The final, inevitable scene emerges as the result of all these fantastic ingredients, fantastic acting and each character’s attitude can be seen, Leone uses his close-up and dramatic style and Morricone compliments it brilliantly with his fantastic music. The film is in my opinion Leone’s greatest ever film and possibly the greatest Western created.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Great movie :up:

^^ Loved this movie, great review.

http://cinemasights.files.wordpress....n-position.jpg

12 Angry Men (1957)

“12 Angry Men” follows the trail of a young man whose life lies in the hands of the jury, 12 men who each have their own prejudices and preconceptions that influence their voting throughout the process.

Directed by Sidney Lumet and set in his favourite New York City, the film takes place entirely in the court room on what is the hottest day of the year. We do not see the trial take place but it soon becomes clear how the earlier events unfolded.

At the start of the film it appears that from the trial and the facts given the young man is almost certainly guilty. With 11 men willing to immediately vote guilty it is Henry Fonda who goes against the majority, voting not guilty as he is not willing to accept the verdict so easily, convinced that a much better job could have been done by the incompetent lawyer, with many questions that he wants answered.

When questioned over his decision to vote not guilty and whether he actually thinks that the young man did not kill his father, Fonda explains how although it is very likely he did kill his father it is also possible that he did not as he attempts to change the votes of his fellow jurors, explaining that the decision should not be taken lightly and that to vote guilty they must have no reasonable doubt.

Each Juror takes their turn to explain their own view of what happened as it soon becomes clear that the evidence provided in the trial has left many holes, resulting in many questions being asked and causing doubt over the plausibility of much of it.

After watching the film by brother said to me how he would have preferred to know what actually happened and whether or not the young man did murder his father. I disagreed with him, this film is not a murder mystery where there is a given conclusion gained from piecing together pieces of the puzzle. Guilty or Not Guilty, it is still incredibly likely that the young boy did kill his father however this is not the point, as Fonda reiterates throughout the film ‘it is possible‘ that he did not and due to the poor work of the young man’s lawyer there is enough room for reasonable doubt.

Although Fonda is the only ‘big name’ star to appear in the film, each juror is portrayed superbly, all as very different characters. We see the very brave old man, Juror #9 who is willing to support Fonda in the possibility of the young man being not guilty. We see Juror #3 who is adamant of the young man’s guilt throughout with is own personal relationship with his son resulting in an emotional scene towards the film’s end. Then we have Juror #7, a man whom from the start of the film is more concerned over a baseball game than the case itself and is willing to switch his vote that could result in the life and death of a man simply because he wants to speed up the process. A lot of the opinions throughout are based on racist preconceptions as the young man is constantly referred to as ‘one of them’ as his tough upbringing is criticised, we see Juror #10 unleash a racist attack as he votes guilty towards the end of the film, this is to the disgust to the rest of the table who leave the table and turn their backs on the man.

As the film is set entirely in one room, it relies heavily on the visual work of Lumet who uses a variety of camera and lens techniques to attribute to the feel and increase the tension in the room. We see the camera close in on the Jurors as the film goes on, and different level shots used effectively such as the close up view of Juror #9 at the beginning of the film as he tries to express his point to the other men. The film continues many memorable scenes in addition to the breakdown of Juror #3 and the racist rant of Juror #10, perhaps my favourite of the film is the switch-knife scene with Henry Fonda.

The film is unlike many modern films that rely on fast paced, action filled scenes. An extremely intelligent plot with great use of various shooting techniques makes this a very clever and enjoyable film – a masterpiece that is seen by many as one of the best of all time.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

I just want to say I have read through this thread and I really enjoyed it. The reviews are all great, and it helps that I love most of the movies you have reviewed, apart from Drive, which I really want to see, may buy it when I get paid. Your review has definately swung me to buying it actually.

In regards to keeping blogs I have all my reviews backed up on a site called Movie-Blogger.com, this site allows you to post all your reviews, if you looking to back up your reviews or get them to a wider audience it may be worth checking out. Here is my profile

http://www.movie-blogger.com/users/grahamb

Thanks for the kind words and will give that site a look at :)

http://www.eventnews.se/Bilder/Bio/3...0SF%20Film.jpg

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

“3:10 to Yuma” follows the story of a rancher Dan Evans, portrayed by Christian Bale who agrees to escort a brutal wanted criminal Ben Wade, portrayed Russell Crowe to the Contention train station so he can board the 3:10 train to Yuma, to be trialled for his multiple murders and other crimes in court.

Being a big fan of classic Westerns, particularly those of Sergio Leone, I was eagerly looking forward to seeing James Mangold’s more modern effort at a Western film. Unlike the classics, this film is generally set as a faster pace as the group of men who agree to escort Ben Wade find themselves facing many obstacles on their way to Contention, more specifically the threat from Wade’s men who he himself describes as ‘animals’ as they attempt to rescue their leader.

Key to the film are the performances by its actors. Christian Bale performs extremely well in his role as a small-time rancher, a man who lost his leg in the civil war and is trying is best, although struggling, to support his family. The film starts by making these difficulties clear with Evans’ barn being burnt down following a missed payment to the local landowner. Although Wade is seen as a brutal criminal he appears to respect Dan whom he even corporate with at times as he attempts to gain a reward that would result in financial security for his family who appear to be losing faith with him.

Wade’s character is certainly the most interesting in the film; he attempts to psych out the rest of the group, having seemingly normal conversations with them at times such as his discussion with Evans’ wife Alice. Although Wade is supposed to be a monster, at times he seems far from it. Unlike the rest of his group he is organised and intelligent; he is willing to spare the life of Dan Evans on many occasions and even appears to have his own set of principles that become apparent throughout the film.

Minor spoilers in upcoming paragraph

The final scenes between the two main characters in which Evans and Wade are the last two men left as Evans attempts to complete his journey to the train station sees a fantastic ending to the film. We see the contrast between the cold-hearted animals that work under Wade, and Ben Wade himself who’s respect for Evans reaches its highest point as the two share conversation and Wade allows Evans to complete his task.

For a film like this to be successful, along with its leading roles it also needs equally good supporting roles. The supporting actors in this film are superb with one of the best performances coming from Ben Foster as Charlie Prince, Ben Wade’s right hand man who fulfils the role of pack leader in Wade’s absence. There are strong suggestions throughout the film that Charlie Prince, or Charlie ‘Princess’ as McElroy refers to him, may be gay. His passion towards saving Wade is extremely strong as he convinces the group to rescue him after ‘all he’s done for them’, his role in the final scene is extremely powerful as we once again see the divide between in character of Wade and the rest of his gang. Peter Fonda (whose father starred in the great Western “Once Upon a Time in the West”) is also brilliant in his portrayal of the greedy Byron McElroy, a man who seems to have no problem with the killing of innocent people, as long as he receives his pay.

The film is a fantastic effort at a modern Western with superb performances from both its leading and supporting actors. The psychological study of Ben Wade, a character who although is a brutal murder can connect on a normal level with many and holds Evans in high respect is particularly interesting – I wont spoil the ending but I find it fitting following the relationship and portrayal of the individual characters throughout as the paths of Wade, Evans and Prince inevitably cross.

Note: At time of writing, I had not seen the original film hence no comparisons

RATING:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M6leBclyyC...hhheenshot.jpg

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

To start I should say that I haven’t seen the Japanese film “Yojimbo”, the film that Sergio Leone has transformed in to a Western with this film so this review is based solely on this film and not the comparisons and parallels to it’s ‘original’.

“A Fistful of Dollars” is the first film in the now famous dollars trilogy of Sergio Leone. The film sees the introduction of the famous ‘Man with No Name” portrayed by Clint Eastwood as he stumbles upon a town that appears to be constantly in a power struggle between two rival families.

Acting as the opportunist, ‘Joe’ (as he is referred to by the undertaker, although this is due to it being a common name) decides to cleverly pit the two families against each other. Upon entering the town he quickly shows the rest of the town, and us viewers what he is all about, unhappy at the actions of one of the families who shot at to scare his Mule he responds by using his gun shooting skills to kill those responsible. It becomes clear that he is to become a hero and end the feud between the families.

Although Leone’s trilogy can be viewed in any order the viewer wishes to it is almost always suggested by film fans that they be watched in the order they were created for the purpose of seeing Leone’s improvement as a director. Although this film is not held in such high regard as Leone’s more recent works such as “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” and “Once Upon a Time in the West” it is a fantastic Western in which we are introduced to what we now know as some of Leone’s famous techniques, style and themes that can be seen throughout his works. The film is referred to as the beginning of the ‘Spaghetti Westerns’, a nickname given to mock the attempts of a low budget director who attempted to enter the American Western Genre with low budget films shot in the Italian and Spanish deserts.

This film sees the introduction of many Leone Trademarks that have made him one of the most celebrated directors and synonymous with the ‘Spaghetti Western’ genre. We see the trademark long shots and close up of the character’s faces. We get to hear the sound of Ennio Morricone’s wonderful music that he has become famous for in Leone’s films. Like it’s sequel “For a few Dollars more” we also see a similar style plot in which the story is not so straightforward and the hero runs in to many obstacles along the way with the situation constantly changing for him.

The main focus of the film is undoubtedly the character of Clint Eastwood who works well as the hero, with the film inevitably ending in confrontation between him and the infamous local leader Ramón Rojo as we get our first taste of Leone’s widescreen duels between the hero and his enemy. Ramón is portrayed by Gian Maria Volonté, an Italian actor who also portrays the main villain in “For a Few Dollars More”. Aside from Eastwood and Volonté the film sees little of any other characters in what is quite a simple plot, the introduction of Lee Van Cleef for the final two films of the trilogy shows improvement from Leone as a director as he offers stronger support to the leading actor Clint Eastwood.

For any fans of Westerns, I am guessing you have already seen “A Fistful of Dollars”, if you haven’t then I strongly recommend you do, followed by the other two films in Leone’s fantastic trilogy. Although not remembered as a masterpiece, the film is remembered as the beginning of Sergio Leone who is now often labelled as not only the pioneer of ‘Spaghetti Westerns’, but one of the best directors of all time.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

http://static.moviefanatic.com/image...mr-smileys.jpg

American Beauty (1999)

Released in 1999, “American Beauty” was the winner of 5 Oscars including ‘Best Picture’. One of the awards that most will associate with the film is the ‘Best Actor in a Leading Role’ that was won by Kevin Spacey for his portrayal of Lester Burnham.

Lester Burnham is a man whose life is riddled with problems. Married for many years, he is constantly arguing with his wife who has grown tired of her husband and his attitude, he is unloved by his rebellious daughter and he is fed up with his job. He fears the rest of his miserable life.

After seeing his daughter perform as a cheerleader, Burnham finally finds something to be happy about in his life as he becomes infatuated by his daughter’s beautiful teenage friend. Although this may sound wrong, the film is not about a perverted man in his 40s who is attempting to sleep with a young teenage girl; it is about the beauty that he sees in her, something that he has not been able to experience recently in his life. This results in a change in lifestyle for Burnham who decides to on a careless search for happiness and freedom that involves quitting his job, working out, and splashing out on luxuries such as a brand new car.

Many scenes involving Burnham are very funny, although ultimately we are laughing at the life of this sad man who faces many problems in a crisis period of his life. In particular the “Smile! You’re at Mr. Smiley’s” is a great scene that shows the problems Burnham is facing and how they have created a new, crazy character who seeks a new life.

Lester Burnham is not the only character that appears to be suffering in their life. Ricky Fitts, portrayed by Wes Bentley is a character that is laughed at in school and bullied at home by his strict and homophobic father, a war colonel who has implemented his strict disciplinary techniques at home for his son. Ricky is incredible lonely and leads a depressing life, like Lester he seeks his own freedom, gaining happiness from his video recordings of the world’s beauty that many overlook.

The film cleverly interlinks its plots, resulting in a final scene that occurs as a result of the lives of all its characters. The ending is perhaps inevitable from the start, we begin find out the truth about many of the characters, Angela (Mena Suvari), the teenage girl that Lester has fallen for is not who she seems, hiding behind an alter ego she has created to fit in with society. The same hidden character is shown by Col. Frank Fitts (Chris Cooper) who reveals his true self after misinterpreting the relationship of Lester Burnham and his son Ricky Fitts.

American Beauty is a powerful film that takes a realistic look at the lives of people who are sad, lonely and not what they appear on the outside. All round there are many great performances in the film but none better than Kevin Spacey in perhaps his best performance as an actor who portrays Lester Burnham perfectly as a man who seeks happiness once again in his life.

RATING:

http://www.thefilmyap.com/wp-content...ds-inside2.jpghttp://images.fanpop.com/images/imag...90_400_300.jpg

Edward Scissorhands (1990)

The last time I had seen a film starring Johnny Depp before this one I was watching “Donnie Brasco” where the young actor portrays an informant within the Italian-American mafia, “Edward Scissorhands” sees him in a role he has become more famous for portraying, an eccentric and strange character like many of his other works with Tim Burton.

I was expecting something slightly different here, a plot that would involve the secretive discover of Edward by a young woman where he would have to eventually gain the acceptance of the local town that view him with disgust. The film’s plot is quite the opposite from my expectations, Burton starts the film by immediately throwing Edward in to an ordinary home where the locals happily accept him, there are no questions asked over his bizarre appearance such as why he doesn’t have hands, but this is okay for the purpose of the film.

The locals are initially curious and appreciative of Edward and they are more than happy to allow him to do jobs for them such as hedge cutting and hairdressing. The mood soon changes for the worse after Edward is involved in a robbery, then his character takes a turn for the worse as a downward spiral of events lead to the town turning against him.

Edward is an almost silent being, he rarely speaks, and he seems gentle and isolated, a strange character that doesn’t seem to have any emotional feelings towards the rest of the world. It is only towards the end of the film when Edward is treated as a monster that we start to sympathise with this ‘monster’ who has been unfairly made out to be the victim, only loved by one young girl, Kim (Winona Ryder).

The ending is inevitable, and to be honest it’s not that good. Despite the towns best efforts of accepting Edward, when things turn bad there is only one way things can end for Edward.

Edward Scissorhands is certainly not a bad film by Tim Burton, but in my opinion it could have been much better, once we begin with Edward’s easy acceptance from the locals we know things can only get worse and the ending is both inevitable and ‘easy’. Edward like many of Burton’s lead characters is an empty one, Depp plays the role well but there is little needed in terms of personality, and it is only at the end that we really feel sorry for him following the rapid change in opinion towards him.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Thats a great review of American Beauty. I havn't seen that in ages but I really enjoyed it. I really like the music on it. It is a unique twist on the typical teen movies of the time and a real breath of fresh of fresh air.

Keep up the reviews, they are great.

http://dvdspindoctor.typepad.com/dvd...load_movie.jpg

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

When watching “2001: A Space Odyssey” it is hard to imagine that the film was made in 1968. The film is incredibly scientifically accurate, and the sets and props used seem perfect, the world in which Stanley Kubrick has created for this film is simply brilliant.

Before watching the film I really didn’t know what to expect, everyone I had asked about the film had found it difficult to explain the basic plot. After watching the film I now understand why, the film itself is very ambiguous, something that Kubrick admits to, a film that is open to the individual theories of the viewers after watching.

The reason for the exploration first to the moon and then to Jupiter is the discovery of mysterious black ‘Monoliths’, objects which act as MacGuffins for the majority of the film. I have read that in the original book that the objects are explained more in detail and we know what they are, in the film we do not know what they are, how the exist and what they do, they are simply markers that appear at different points in the story of evolution.

The film begins with the dawn of man, a group of apes that discover the first Monolith, an object which they are fascinated by. However the most important discovery for them is that of the bone as a useful tool as one ape uses it as a weapon against each other. At the end of the ape scene we see the ape through his tool up in the air after using it to his advantage, we then cut to another scene of a gigantic spaceship floating in space that immediately shows the huge advance in evolution from the human race that started off at apes and now includes astronauts.

It is not until about the hour mark that the plot really kicks in, with the introduction of the human like “H. A. L. 9000” robotic system that controls the spaceship for the Jupiter mission. We see the introduction of this human-like system through an interview for a news broadcast when the real astronauts involved in the mission are asked whether the think that HAL has emotions or not, the answer is likely that it does not but it is programmed to seem like it does to improve interaction with humans. Immediately after this question we know that HAL will be more than a simple computer system.

The scenes involving HAL and the astronauts seem short in comparison with the rest of the film that focuses largely on the images we see rather than the characters involved. The films ending is quite bizarre as the Jupiter Monolith is approached and has provoked much controversy over the meaning of the entire film, I prefer the theory that the scene is showing the story of evolution. At the beginning of the film we saw the first Monolith at the same time Apes discovered the use of a bone as their tool as they began their evolution in to man, now we are seeing the old man of one generation become the infant of another, marked by yet another Monolith.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Nice reviews :yup: finally caught up :)

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

nice reviews. I love reading movie reviews though at times when i saw a perfect score i kind of doubt them as of course we do have different opinions on each things and preferences with movies.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3...z0ado1_500.jpg

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

After many recommendations from my friends I finally decided to watch Anchorman, a film which I had surprisingly failed to see before recently. Like “Step Brothers” the film is directed by Adam McKay and stars Will Ferrell in the lead role in another childish (not meant offensively, but the best description of the characters as the film) comedy style film.

Anchorman is also produced by Judd Apatow and features Steve Carell who worked together in The 40 Year Old Virgin, a comedy which I very much enjoyed. This film begins by introducing the legendary Ron Burgundy, the number one new anchor in the country, with his team that includes Carell as Brick Tamland. Life is good for Burgundy who enjoys being famous and well respected by everyone, in and out of the station before everything changes.

Veronica Corningstone, portrayed by Christina Applegate is a woman set to join the same network as Burgundy with very high ambitions, to become the first female anchor. As Ron’s news team take turns to flirt with their attractive new colleague it is Ron whom she falls in love with having previously met him one of his parties. All is going well with their new relationship until Ron is missing for a broadcast and Veronica steps in to his outrage.

For most of the time Anchorman is very funny, with the best moments normally coming from Ferrell such as his conversation with Veronica at a local bar, we also often find ourselves laughing at his companions, in particular Brick who describes himself as ‘mentally retarded’ and provides us with some stupid yet funny quotes such as “Where did you get those clothes? The toilet store?”. In some parts the comedy isn’t as funny as the film goes a bit over the top such as a massive fight scene that sees a cameo from Ben Stiller and a man losing his arm as violence ensues, although the film is meant to be stupid this does seem a bit too silly. Another cameo includes Jack Black as an angry biker who Burgundy manages to hit in the face with a burrito, before he proceeds with his revenge.

Anchorman is light-hearted fun for those with a particular comedy taste; if you enjoyed Ferrell in Step Brothers for his performance as an immature character then I’m guessing you’d enjoy this as well. Although Burgundy is stupid, he is also a hero with a cheesy and romantic plot at the heart of the film with him and Veronica. The film isn’t a comedy masterpiece but it’s a light-hearted film in which you’ll enjoy, one that’s also quoted often with immature style humour providing many laughs. It succeeds as what it tries to be though and I like many others will be looking forward to the film’s sequel.

RATING:

http://www.morethings.com/fan/borat/borat-rodeo-11.jpg

Borat: Cultural Leanings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)

Borat is a comedy that follows the journey of a Kazakh named Borat as he travels through the America, hoping to learn from the country and report his findings back to Kazakhstan, as the title suggests – for the country’s benefit.

At the time of watching Borat I thought it was definitely one of the funniest films that I had seen, I watched it again recently (probably a few years since my last viewing) and it still had me in stitches from laughing. Borat is filled with hilarious scenes throughout, most of them are intended to be offensive and/or racist but are very cleverly done – if you are really easily offended then this film will not be for you, however the majority will find it hilarious.

Sacha Baron Cohen is Borat Sagdiyev from Kazakhstan; I don’t think the Kazakh people will be among the film’s biggest fans with the beginning of the film immediately showing the country as a very underdeveloped one, a literal dump filled with all sorts of strange people, and prostitutes.

On Borat’s journey he is accompanied by camera man Azamat, the two are given clear instructions of where to go in America, Borat diverts from the set plan and finds himself stumbling upon many unexpected places and having many disagreements with his partner. The film is shot documentary style as Borat narrates his journey, there are no special affects or anything like that, we are simply seeing Borat and his rather odd character interact with others in America which inevitably leads to more than one funny situation. Some of the scenes are meant to be staged whilst others are more obviously not.

Borat has a hatred for Uzbeks, Jews and Gypsies and his racial views provide many funny scenes throughout such as one involving cockroaches, I wont go in to too much detail about particular scenes at the risk of spoiling the film, if you have seen the film you’ll remember the best ones for sure including ones where Borat attempts to buy a new car, attempts to sing at a rodeo and having a dinner with upper-class Americans. We also get to see Borat’s ignorance throughout such as when he unknowingly attends a gay festival, this is largely down to the culture differences between Kazakhstan and the USA.

If you did not find the film funny then I guess the film’s style of humour is just not for you, in my opinion it’s one of the funniest comedy films made, an excellent film that since has seen Sacha Baron Cohen go on to star in Bruno and The Dictator, films that have arguably failed to reach the high standard set by Borat.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Borat is one of the funniest films I have ever seen. I have never seen anything like it at a cinema before, from start to finish everyone was laughing non stop, it was surreal.

By the way, as always, a great review!

Cheers, definitely one of my favourite comedies although I need to see some more, my favourite is probably The Big Lebowski which I'll also have a review of soon :)

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/images/2169.jpg

Boyz n the Hood (1991)

“Boyz n the Hood” is a brilliant story about a group of friends growing up in a Los Angeles ghetto, and that’s exactly what it is. There’s no dramatic plot twists, scenes filled with effects, special techniques used or anything like that. It’s a powerful and mature film that looks at the realistic lives of different friends with them growing up with themes such as violence and crime constantly in their lives, everything seems natural.

Starring Ice Cube as ‘Doughboy’ and Morris Chestnut as Ricky Baker, the half-brothers lead very different lives. Ricky is an athlete who has ambitions to win a football scholarship to USC where as Dough is less-ambitious, remaining involved in the ghetto lifestyle, hanging around with his friends in an environment surrounded by violence and crime.

The film is John Singleton’s first as a director and unlike many modern directors he doesn’t fall in to the trap of spoiling the film with needless effects, the story is a powerful one and the actors fulfil their roles brilliantly, everything seems real which is very important especially in such a powerful and emotional tale where the film’s environment is filled with so many social problems.

A friend of the two brothers is Tre Styles, portrayed by Cuba Gooding Jr., he is raised by his father Furious Styles, portrayed by Laurence Fishburne who does his best to raise his son in the best possible way, teaching him lessons to avoid his son getting involved in the problems that surround him.

The mother of Doughboy and Ricky clearly favours Ricky, but this is down to his athletic ability and ambitions to get in to college, unlike doughboy who spends his time on the streets, involved with drugs and alcohol. The relationship within the family, particularly between the two half-brothers is the main theme of the film with the two turning out completely different.

The final scenes are extremely powerful between the two brothers, if you’ve seen it you’ll know what I’m talking about, if not then I recommend that you watch the film now. A brilliant and emotional story that is brilliant for Singleton’s first ever film as a director, perhaps one of the most underrated films I have seen as I have rarely seen any others talk about it yet there aren’t many films that are as mature and emotionally powerful as it in recent years.

RATING:

The Big Lebowski (1998)

The Coen Brothers are perhaps better known for their work in colder films such as ‘Fargo’ and ‘No Country for Old Men’ but with ‘The Big Lebowski’ they manage to create a clever and highly enjoyable comedy.

I’ve seen the film a number of times now and on each viewing I have been more impressed by what I have seen. The movie combines a talented cast with each actor bringing their own unique character to the screen, humour that is intelligent and subtle in places, brilliant sets such as those used in the bowling alley, costumes and a soundtrack that brilliantly adds to the feel of film.

Although ‘The Big Lebowski’ is nothing like the films of ‘Fargo’ and ‘No Country for Old Men’, it contains many of the Coen Brothers usual plot devices and techniques that they used. The plot of the film is relatively straight forward, but is layered over with bizarre twists with nothing going as easy as planned. The film is focussed around a millionaire whose wife is kidnapped for a $1,000,000 ransom with Jeffrey Lebowski hiring a ‘bum’ of the same name to act as a middle man in a deal to get here back.

Immediately ‘Dude’ as he likes to be known suspects that the kidnapping is not as straightforward as outlined and that Lebowski’s wife Bunny has kidnapped herself in order to get rich from a man who would not normally allow her such money, sound a bit like ‘Fargo’?

Unlike Fargo which can be seen as a ‘dark comedy’, The Big Lebowski is more a feel-good film that’s style can probably be better compared to an earlier comedy of the Coen Brothers ‘Raising Arizona’, a film also which featured John Goodman (who also appeared in the Coen Brothers’ film ‘Barton Fink’).

I feel that John Goodman’s performance in this film is one worthy of a best supporting actor Oscar. Goodman portrays Walter; one of the Dude’s bowling buddies that becomes involved in the Dude’s task to transfer money between Lebowski and the kidnappers. Walter provides a lot of the film’s humour and best scenes; he is an aggressive war veteran who makes constant references to his fighting at Vietnam and is constantly arguing with fellow bowling buddy Donny.

Donny is portrayed by Steve Buscemi who is one of my favourite actors who seems to play a totally different character in every film he appears in. It seems strange that him and Goodman would go on to star together again in ‘Monsters Inc.’ but the two have great chemistry in this film, Donny is mocked throughout by Walter and the two provide some great scenes for us such as ‘I am the walrus?’.

John Turturro (who starred in ‘Barton Fink’ and later ‘O Brother, Where Art Thou?’) also features in a less prominent role as Jesus Quintana, a convicted paedophile that is set to facethe Dude’s bowling team in an upcoming tournament round. Although he doesn’t have much time on screen, when he does he provides us with some of the films most enjoyable scenes, in fact this is the case for nearly all the scenes that are set in the bowling alley. Sam Elliott is also used effectively in his role as the mysterious narrator.

There are other strong supporting performances such as those from Julianne Moore and Philip Seymour Hoffman but the star is undoubtedly Jeff Bridges as ‘the Dude’. Jeff Bridges brings character and style to the leading character who is ultimately a bum that spends his life getting high and bowling with his friends. It’s hard to imagine anybody else in such a role, the film acts an ode to the characters laid back, chilled lifestyle which makes the film so enjoyable.

As it is with other Coen Brothers’ films, the cinematography is superb and the duo have created a fantastic setting for a film. In ‘Fargo’ we saw the gritty and dark atmosphere reflected in the cold setting of North Dakota, in ‘The Big Lebowski’ the Coen Brothers’ use Los Angeles as their location, at times the film can feel dark but at others we get light, as already said the bowling alley provides an excellent setting for many of the films’ scenes. The Coen Brothers’ also use a number of bizarre yet enjoyable dream sequences to give their film another dimension.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

I don't know what it is about this film. I just watched it for the 2nd time and I want to like it so much more. I like everything about it but I don't love it like everyone else seems to. I'm going to watch it a 3rd time and see if I feel differently.

Fair enough, the first time I watched it I though it was a good film, I've watched it a few times since and I've come to love it. I suppose it's because I know exactly what the characters are going to say and fully understand what they mean and the context of each line/conversation which just gets funnier each time, particularly with Walter.

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

I :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: the Dude :yup:

To Catch a Thief (1955)

In some of Alfred Hitchcock’s most famous films he uses fantastic scenery and backdrops to create a superb visual setting for his films such as the San Francisco backdrop in Vertigo which produced some of the most iconic images in film history with the famous Golden Gate Bridge.

“To Catch a Thief” is one of Hitchcock’s most superb visual efforts with the film taking place along the French Riviera which allows for some glamorous scenes filled with life and colour, with the film winning an Oscar award for “Best Color Cinematography”.

The plot is centred on a famous retired jewel thief the ‘Cat’ who after a series of robberies is wrongly accused and chased by the police. Cary Grant is brilliant as John Robie (the Cat) who - like in Hitchcock’s more famous “North by Northwest” – finds himself on the run despite being an innocent man. Grant is brilliant in his role as the calm and cool Robie who attempts to track down the real thief and prove his innocence.

Grace Kelly stars as Frances Stevens, a young woman who Robie gets close to as he believes her mother may be the thief’s next target and her performance is superb. Some of the most enjoyable scenes in the film come in the middle where we see the two interact with each other; the chemistry is superb with both smart and humorous dialogue between the pair.

Hitchcock is known as the ‘master of suspense’ having created some of the most superb psychological thrillers there is. Although this film may be a thriller it is far from what you may expect from Hitchcock who instead focuses on creating a lighter, more pleasant and beautiful story filled with an enjoyable romance. That’s not to say that the film does not have any elements of a usual Hitchcock thriller, after all the film is centred around uncovering the mystery that it the new ‘Cat thief’ and it’s the mystery that makes for some great final scenes along the rooftops of Cannes.

I highly recommend “To Catch a Thief”, a film that are you are very much likely to enjoy. It’s certainly not a Hitchcock classic that is spoke about in the same ilk as the likes of “Vertigo”, “Psycho” and others but for what it is, it is a highly likeable film that combines great acting, beautiful scenery and a highly enjoyable plot.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

I can't say I particularly like or dislike this one. Visually gorgeous, as you say, and Grant and Kelly are great but the story is too scattershot and unfocused for me to give it any more than .

Love the new layout, by the way. :)

Fair enough mate can't disagree with your reasoning because in terms of story it's definitely not as strong as it could be (and other Hitchcock) films. Fortunately that didn't both me much and I still found it an enjoyable lighter film, think my quite high rating might be down to my love for Hitchcock and his films, speaking of which whilst I'm in the mood I might write up a few more of his I've seen :)

North by Northwest (1959)

1958 to 1963 saw the production of four Alfred Hitchcock films. In 1958 there was “Vertigo”, followed the next year by “North by Northwest” and the next by “Psycho”, then three years later “The Birds”. These are four of the most famous films from Hitchcock and it is incredible to think he was able to create four fantastic films consecutively.

“North by Northwest” is probably my favourite Hitchcock film that I have seen so far. I love them all but this film in particular stands out for me, it was one of the first Hitchcock films I had seen and it was one that immediately attracted me to the work of the director.

The plot is one that Hitchcock loved to use, an innocent man that becomes the victim of mistaken identity. Cary Grant stars as Roger Thornhill in the lead role and does a fantastic job as a man running to escape from foreign spies attempting to kill him.

Grant was actually wanted to star in a James Bond film in his career however he turned down the opportunity, only willing to participate in one film where as the producers wanted to tie him down to a franchise. If you’ve seen “North by Northwest” then you’ll know why Grant was wanted for the role with his cool and confident personality and physical appearance seemingly perfect for the role.

“North by Northwest” is everything you could want for an adventurous thriller and makes for an extremely enjoyable and fun movie. Hitchcock uses his famous style to create a suspenseful escapist film as Grant is chased across America with some fantastic scenes displaying this such as the famous Plane scene in the middle of nowhere.

As usual Hitchcock casts a beautiful young woman to support the main star, in this film it is Eva Marie Saint who works perfectly alongside Grant, and thanks to her we can see the full capabilities of Grant’s acting as his character shows his different reactions to different situations. Throughout the film the character is put in a variety of different scenarios where we see different sides of him such as his conversations and sexual awkwardness with Eve Kendall (E. M. Saint), his calmness in dangerous situations and also his humour such as the great auction scene and some of the opening scenes with his mother.

The film is not without its flaws however and watching it over 50 years since its creation we certainly see some of the elements differently now, some of the screens and backdrops used are less than convincing and the editing of the final scene has been criticised by some but this is not enough to detract from what is an exhilarating and exciting film that is filled with everything you could want for a film of its kind.

Another thing that is great is Hitchcock’s use of famous scenery to create iconic images as mentioned in my review of “How to Catch a Thief” where I talked about those created by the Golden Gate Bridge in “Vertigo”. In this film the setting is Mount Rushmore which he uses to create a terrific chase scene.

In terms of filmmaking perfection, frame by frame you will not get the quality achieved in a film by “Vertigo” but I love this film because of its plot which allows us to sit back and enjoy this incredibly fun thriller.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Great review :yup: Great movie :yup:

Thanks Nebbit, great to see you're a fan of The Big Lebowski and North by Northwest, two of my favourite and most enjoyable films :)

We have drawn him in people, welcome to the dark side! :D Although I'd have to agree with Skepsis, I couldn't give that any higher than a 3. Amongst my least favourite Hitchcock films so far.

I really need to try and catch up on all your past reviews mate.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

When the film came out I wasn’t expecting as much positive reviews as this film has received, probably due to how much I dislike Tim Burton’s remake of the 1968 original. Unlike Burton’s remake, “Rise” is an almost completely new film, not a remake but a reboot for the franchise with the film leaving the door open for further sequels.

Overall I enjoyed watching this film, it was far from bad but I must admit I felt it could have been improved even more to make it a ‘great’ film. For those who don’t know, the story is set prior to the events of the original film with the main character Will Rodman (A lab worker portrayed by James Franco) adopting a baby ape after a experiment gone wrong, the story follows the apes progression in to adulthood and inevitably comes to explain the ‘rise’ of the apes.


The biggest positive of the film is the special effects on display, particularly those used for the film’s main character, the ape Caesar who is magnificently crafted as a result of a motion capture performance from the ever brilliant Andy Serkis and the work of the CGI team.

Unfortunately the same praise can not be applied to the other actors involved in the film. Caesar ultimately is the film; everything else is just there to allow the story to develop. The film wants to show the ape’s emotions, his life and his intelligence, and it certainly does that with some powerful scenes involving Caesar. Unfortunately this focus on the apes comes at a cost to the rest of the film that seemingly sacrifices the development of its other characters.

James Franco, whilst putting in a decent performance, fails to go beyond the expected and give us something to remember. The same can be said for John Lithgow (an actor who was brilliant in one of my favourite TV shows Dexter) who plays the part of Will’s dad, an Alzheimer’s sufferer, once again his character is only used simply to advance the plot, to show the affects of the drug and not much more in terms of the actual character. Will’s girlfriend who is portrayed by Freida Pinto is simply there and does absolutely nothing to contribute to the story; their relationship not really looked at all despite the film being set over a number of years.

Another criticism that goes in hand with the limited characters is a poor script, some of the dialogue just comes across as a little weak and strange, such as the unnatural change in attitudes when Will is trying to persuade his boss to develop the Alzheimer’s drug once again. The film is lacking in realism, overall you can only be so realistic with a bunch of super-intelligent apes taking over the world, but like I said some of the conversations and things that happen are a bit strange and unnatural.

The ending is good, and because of heavy focuses Caesars development it means we get what we want and expect. I also enjoyed the little touches such as the rocket getting lost in space shown throughout the film that leave the ending open nicely for possible sequels and show exactly how it all fits in with the original.

Perhaps I’m being too generous with my rating although I feel that “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” succeeds at what it attempts to be and because of that I found myself enjoying the story which is important in a film that focuses on our emotions with the apes throughout. It’ll be interesting to see what will happen now with a potential sequel in the pipeline, at least I think.

RATING:

Platoon (1986)

Oliver Stone participated as an infantry soldier in the Vietnam War so what we see get in “Platoon” is a breathtaking look on the life of a soldier, shown through the eyes of a soldier named Chris who is portrayed young Charlie Sheen.

Whilst the film largely showcases the negatives of war, the horrors that came with being a soldier and ultimately the mistake America made by fighting in Vietnam its primary agenda is not to be an anti-war film. In fact, the conflict between the Americans and the Vietnamese army is not the main focus of the film at all, instead it acts as a great backdrop to create a variety of situations that challenge the films characters in a number of different ways, and it is the actions and different attitudes of the characters that are important.

Instead the film’s conflict is between two camps that emerge as the American’s divide over split attitudes. On one side we have Sgt. Barnes portrayed by Tom Berenger and on the other Sgt. Elias portrayed by Willem Dafoe. These two actors provide us with two fantastic performances and make the film what is it is. Elias can be viewed as the ‘good’ soldier, a kind, lesser-spoken sergeant who goes by the book and serves his country how he should. On the contrary we have Barnes, a man with a completely different set of morals, a loudmouthed soldier who will take action in to his own hands to do what he thinks is right. The divide occurs when Barnes becomes responsible for the massacre of a Vietnamese village, whilst others are willing to accept his actions and choose to protect him there are others who are not so willing to go along with a cover up including Elias.

“Day by day, I struggle to maintain not only my strength but my sanity. It's all a blur. I have no energy to write. I don't know what's right and what's wrong anymore. The morale of the men is low. A civil war in the platoon. Half the men with Elias, half with Barnes. There's a lot of suspicion and hate. I can't believe we're fighting each other when we should be fighting them.”

That quote is from Chris, the young soldier who narrates the film for us through a series of letters sent back to his grandmother. He dropped out of college to join the army through choice and immediately struggles to fit in with the others, however throughout the film he progresses in to a more respected and adequate soldier. His progression is important to the film as he adapts to the harsh life and is influenced by others.

The film’s cinematography and editing is superb, most of the films scene take place in the thick forest, with extremely heavy rain painting a dark image for us that helps show the grim conditions the soldier’s were really in. The film does not glorify war at all, there is no unnecessary action or over the top heroic scenes and instead everything seems real and sometimes it really is not pretty. Some scenes are really uncomfortable, especially those that involve the inhuman actions of Barnes that really do a good job of amplifying our disgust towards his character which is important as we side with Elias and Chris.

Dafoe, Berenger and Sheen make this film what it is and ultimately the final scenes that involve them are the most iconic and memorable. Dafoe provides an unforgettable scene which I will not spoil. And one of the final scenes that Chris and Barnes share gives us satisfaction despite being brutal and far from a happy ending.

I can not recommend this film enough; it is one of my favourite war films and a fantastic and emotional tale. Unlike other glorified films this one does not sacrifice its brutal and deeply affective centre for cheap affects and fake scenes. The heart of the film lies with its trio of star actors who are each brilliant as we see the real conflict that arises from the war and its affect within the platoon.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Love Platoon. Similar to Apocalypse Now, it focuses more on the people involved and downplays the scope of events they're caught in, making it a personal struggle between good and evil.

I've yet to see Apocalypse Now although it's extremely high up my watchlist - don't now how I haven't yet seeing how much I love the Godfather. In fact the same can be said for The Godfather Part II, I have no idea how I haven't got round to it.

Got a couple more wars recorded on sky, Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down. Looking forward to watching both to see the contrasting (I assume) approaches on war, after I've watched those two (for convenience) I think I'll finally watch Apocalypse Now :D

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

You MUST see Apocalypse Now asap! It's one of the greatest films of all time.

Personally, I thought Godfather 2 was better than The Godfather. :)

You've convinced me, gonna try and watch it tonight, I'll let you know who I find it although I'm 99% sure I'll love it :P

:cool::up:

Apocalypse Now (1979)

After I had watched "Psycho" I decided to watch "Apocalypse Now" for similar reasons. Both were two of the highest films on my watch list and recent posts by a member on here persuaded me not to delay my viewings and finally watch them. The work of Hitchcock made me want to see Psycho after immediately falling in love with some of his films, the same can be said of Coppola although I had only seen "The Godfather" it was a film that afterwards I knew I had just watched a masterpiece.

“Apocalypse Now” is a film of three thirds (I decided to watch the Redux version, perhaps two halves is more applicable to the original) and it's no surprise that Quentin Tarantino rates this film as one of his favourites of all time with the first third something you'd expect to see from the director himself.

In the first third, Coppola manages to create one of (if not) the greatest battle scenes in film history. We see the Americans lead by Capt. Kilgore destroy an entire Vietnamese village. Although some may see this seen as maleficent and uneasy due to the sheer amount of bloodshed, the superb performance of Kilgore turns it in to an extremely enjoyable, bizarre and fun scene. We see him turn on music and joking around before killing hundreds of people, then once the men land on ground we see him getting ready to search the waves amidst all the chaos as he produces one of the film's most memorable lines, "I love the spell of napalm in the morning". Robert Duvall creates one of the most memorable and fun characters in film history, someone who flourishes in the setting of war and someone whose insane behaviour will stay in our minds long after viewing.

In the middle the film tends to drag more than the other thirds, some of the scenes are justified as we learn more about Captain Kurtz, an ex soldier who has gone insane and set himself up as a God among the local people. At first it seems that we can attempt to justify some of Kurtz actions and can understand why he may have gone crazy, it is not until the finally scenes that the full extent of his command is revealed.

Martin Sheen portrays the film’s main character, Captain Willard, the narrator of the story and the man sent on the mission to assassinate Kurtz. His morals and attitude towards the various situations are important to the film, at first he feels reluctant to murder a US soldier, where as in the final scenes we see a much more different side to his character upon finally meeting Kurtz. At first we begin to understand why the war would turn someone crazy, after all surely Kilgore himself could be classified as such?

Watching the Redux version I can certainly understand the criticisms that people have for the film with two scenes, the second meeting with the playmates and the dinner conversation with the French family seeming odd and out of place as well as lengthening the film without little contribution however it certainly does not make the film worse in anyway and allows use to have a perhaps much needed retrieve from the action filled scenes that come both before and after it.

Slight Spoilers in paragraph - I won’t say much about the final third in case you have not seen the film (despite the spoiler warning), but once we finally get to the Kurtz compound the scenes that follow are brilliant and horrifying at the same time. Dead bodies dangling around everywhere and decapitated heads provide us with a horrifying setting and the scale of the size, the amount of men under Kurtz command is horrifying in itself. The final scene that involves the sacrifice of a buffalo (which was very much real, adding a shocking and brutal feel to amplify an already dark scene), the final scene in which we see Willard stand facing the entire tribe is brilliant and his pause for a split second is brilliantly captured as he reacts to the perhaps unexpected and once again sees the extent of command Kurtz has setup.

The film's sound is also like no other for which it deservedly won an Oscar for, going back to the battle scene the music played helps great a grand joyous feel to the whole situation despite hundreds of deaths, the sound throughout is superb, from the opening sequences to the final scene. Marlon Brando, the film’s main star has little time on screen and when he does we barely get to see his face, a deliberate and brave decision that helps build up the mystery and scary character that he is.

"Apocalypse Now" is a war film like no other and immediately finds itself as one of my favourites of all time. You may have recently seen by thoughts on "Kramer vs. Kramer" a film produced in the same year and even though I enjoyed it I immediately thought to myself ‘surely this wasn’t a better film than Apocalypse Now?’, like I expected it is in my opinion an injustice how such a film that although good could beat a masterpiece to win the Best Picture award for 1979.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Told ya so. :)

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Great movie :yup:

Submarine (2010)

I had been waiting to watching “Submarine” for a while before I eventually got round to it, for a number of reasons. First of all it’s filmed in Wales and I believe partly produced by a Welsh funding project so I was curious to see a film that had a kind of local connection to my country. The second reason, and main factor was Richard Ayoade, although I have not seen “The IT Crowd” or “The Watch” (which I am told is poor although Ayoade is a strong performer) I was interested to see the work of a young director who I had not heard much of before until I saw his published list in the recent Directors’ Sight and Sound Poll.

Although this sentence may sound rather odd you can tell a lot from a director from the films he lists as his favourites and influences, I knew Ayoade was involved in comedy but his list tells me this is a man who clearly has great knowledge in films and has been influenced by the fantastic work of others.

His influences are clear in “Submarine”, an extremely clever teen comedy. The film is about a boy who has to deal with two relationships; his own and his parents. Although it is a teen comedy it is far from an immature or silly film that you may have expected instead is very intelligent and neatly composed, perhaps too neat.

The film is carefully crafted, it is split by defined sections and you can see how each scene is carefully put together with great attention to detail. In a way this film reminds me of the works of Wes Anderson in the way that the focus is on such a clear structure for the film to take place in. One of the criticisms of Anderson’s work is that although his filmmaking is superb that sometimes they are too neat and clever for themselves and that the actual story is missing that something. Submarine feels similar to that, although I admired the work of Ayoade and did enjoy the plot on the whole I did feel that in some parts the story was quite slow and not very progressive in the middle.

Craig Roberts gives us a great performance as the film’s character of focus, young Oliver Tate. He is a odd and troubled teen who can be seen as socially awkward, he has many thoughts and wants to be with Jordana who is portrayed by Yasmin Paige but their relationship has a number of problems. The chemistry between the two is very good and we sympathise with both of them, more Oliver who we feel frustrated at because of his strange actions in certain situations that he is not aware of himself, we sympathise him because we can understand and recognise his situation as a teenager, his performance seems real and the sweet relationship at the heart of the film works well overall.

RATING:

The Grey (2011)

2008 saw “Taken”, a film starring Liam Neeson that is now regarded as a modern cult favourite. Whilst it is not a particularly good film, and lacks in both plot and characters, it is the performance of Liam Neeson in the main role that makes the film what it is, 93 minutes of him entertaining the audience with his combat skills.

This film has a lower IMDB user score than “Taken” but a higher Metacritic score with a positive average. I expected something stronger has a whole than “Taken” and I was not disappointed with what I got and was impressed with “The Grey”, a thoroughly enjoyable film that makes for great viewing.

Neeson in this film plays the main character Ottway, he is the leader of a group of men attempting to navigate away from a vicious pack of wolves after an air crash in Alaska. Neeson’s performance doesn’t take complete control of the film though, his character instead acts in a way in which is can benefit it, his character and personal thoughts and morals lead to conflicts within the group as we see different characters that are very real and believable. The group needs to work together and survive yet is clearly suffering from an inner rift at the beginning, we see them join together in a battle for survival as they face many obstacles along the way that test them both physically and mentally.

“The Grey” is a brutal survival film, set in the harsh cold environment of Alaska where the group of many battle for their lives as they are chased by a pack of wolves. At times the film provides us with some gruesome scenes, if you’re expecting some happy story where Liam Neeson turns save the day with his shooting skills to kill the entire wolf camp then its fair to say you may be disappointed, this is far from some action flick and actually feels real as we see and feel the pain suffered by the group. Neeson’s job involves shooting with his sniper although after the craft he finds himself unable to use his weapon, this immediately sets a precedent for the events that come to unfold without the film, these men are put in uncomfortable situations and must somehow come together and battle their environment and enemies in unorthodox ways.

The film is visually superb with the shots really creating an extremely uncomfortable, dark and horrifying environment, particularly in the night. We are always on the edge of the seats, the film is a thriller with a number of brutal yet well worked shocks.

I didn’t really think the emotional scenes and flashbacks of Neeson were particularly beneficial to the film, I think others would have enjoyed these more than me. But “The Grey” is a film that I definitely recommend to any thriller fans. It is a gritty and at times brutal film that uses its environment and the wolves to create a thrilling horror aspect, the film has us gripped throughout and we can really feel the character’s dire situation in this film.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Another couple of great reviews Daniel. :yup: I have to say that I just adored Submarine, one of my favourite films of 2011. Perhaps not a surprise as I'm a big fan of Wes Anderson, and as you pointed out they are very similar, with Anderson's work a big influence for Ayoade.

Didn't see The Grey though I did quite fancy it, will get round to it some day.

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

^About the Grey above. It moved me when I saw the ending, others disagree. But peicing together other bits of the film, culminating with the end, sort of had to be that way, liked or disliked. I liked it.

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Sometimes much of 'the dudes' coolness takes multiple watchings to marinate, a second viewing in my case. * * * * :yup:

Need to check out Submarine.

Yeh Submarine is such a great little film, the influences are clear to see and I am certainly looking forward to more of Ayoade's work in the future, if he can combine his intelligent style with something a bit more interesting he could create something great.

And yeh I love Anderson, well I have only seen "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" but both were great and lovable films for me. I have "Rushmore" recorded and ready to watch sometime as well.

@Exist

Yeh the same with me for The Big Lebowski, took more than one viewing for me to appreciate the comedy as much as I do now. When I first watched it I enjoyed it, thought it was a good film with some funny parts. When I watched it the second and on further viewings I began to realise just how great it was, I think it is because I knew what lines were coming, I could understand the context better and truly appreciate the genius behind some of the dialogue.

Psycho (1960)

Being a massive fan of Alfred Hitchcock and his work in such films as "Vertigo" and "North by Northwest" it was only a matter of time before I finally got around to watching Psycho.

Unlike those two titles mentioned, "Psycho" was deliberately filmed in black and white to give a cheaper, less visually rich but more frightening feel to the whole thing. I've heard people say that "Psycho" may not be as 'scary' at present day and is more of a psychological thriller (the same argument applied to the likes of "The Shining" and "Silence of the Lambs" but I have to disagree, the master of suspense creates a gripping film and one that definitely has a great deal of shocks and scares. One particular scene I had my volume up to full watching it on my computer as not much had happened previously and sudden attack and screeching violins of the excellent Bernard Herrmann certainly gave me a shock.

The first third of the film creates an uneasy atmosphere as Marion Crane, portrayed by Marion Crane is followed by a policeman following her attempt to exit the town after she had stole $40,000 dollars from her boss. The film’s synopsis and first third points in one direction, Marion is attempting to flee town as she gets tailed by a suspicious police officer, she then stops at the Bates Motel where she meets a charming young man Norman Bates who has been too long under the domination of his mother.

We sympathise in a way with both of their situations. Marion’s act of stealing her boss’s money seems odd considering how long she has worked there but it is understandable. Bates’ situation is one we can perhaps sympathise more with. He has chosen to stay with his mother because she is ill, Detective Arbogast suggests in the middle of the film that he would understand Bates situation of being stuck in the failing Motel and why he would want to take the $40,000 to get away.

One of the best things about "Psycho" is the performance of Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, his character really his scary and creepy and it horrifies me to think of someone like Vince Vaughan playing this character. The final scene is one of the best, most memorable and one of the creepiest in the whole film, in fact film history.

Slight Spoilers in paragraph - Due to the film's synopsis and stars involved it was great for the film to take so many unexpected twists along the way that I was certainly not expecting. I had heard about the famous shower scene before watching the film but for it to come so early on was more than surprising.

Like when I had seen "Vertigo" and "North by Northwest", with "Psycho" I knew I had just seen a masterpiece. “Vertigo” is a visually brilliant and more enjoyable emotional based story was as “North by Northwest” is a fun action filled film that is very enjoyable. “Psycho” I think trumps both of them for me, Hitchcock does a brilliant job of using his directional talent to create a suspenseful and scary film like none other, it’s 52 years since it was made and it certainly had an impact on me, a fantastic horror that relies on great suspense instead of cheap and gory scenes we see in many modern horrors.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Psycho is the greatest Hitchcock film. I certainly think it is.

Yeh, out of the films of his I've seen I think I'd rate them in this order

Psycho
North by Northwest
Vertigo
Rear Window
Shadow of a Doubt
The Birds
To Catch a Thief
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Still got a few more I really want to see, Dial M for Murder, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, Rebecca etc.

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Psycho is also the best movie of Hitchcock I've seen so far.Notorious is a great movie,you should see it. :) I would place it next to Vertigo and Rear Window(didn't like Northwest a lot).

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

I'll never forget the first time I saw Psycho, I was about 10 years old... the scene where he walks out of the bedroom carrying his mother actually made me jump and seriously freaked me out.
Awesome scene technically too, the camera follows up the stairs then pans round for a birdseye view, all in one shot. Superb.

Nice review too mate :up:, makes me want to watch it but I haven't got it on home cinema :(

Live and Let Die (1973)

It's James Bond day in celebration of 50 years of 007 and Sky have launched a new channel on which they are show casing every Bond film ever made (at least I think) as we wait for the release of Skyfall.

As a kid the James Bond films were favourites of mine, I'm not exactly sure why because I didn't pay much attention to films back then although I recall collecting a video collection of all the films up to Brosnan.

One of my favourite films was always "Live and Let Die", certainly the most memorable, so when I saw I had the chance to give it another viewing today after many years I was happy to do so.

It is far from the perfect film, I understand that but watching it again gave me a lot of enjoyment and a lot of thoughts regarding my initial love for the film. What exactly did I think when I watched the film originally, it's filled with racial stereotypes (created at the height of the blaxploitation era), sexual innuendos and is centred around a druglord who is secretly farming heroin.

Whilst I can understand others may see this film as silly and stupid, it remains one of my favourite Bond films and I was able to recall just why the film left a bigger impact on me than other Bond films. Roger Moore makes his debut as Bond and brings a calm and likable character to the screen. The film is fun and action filled, with the fictional island bringing us tarot card readers and memorable villains such as Tee Hee Johnson and Baron Samedi.

Baron Samedi, portrayed by Geoffrey Holder, is one of my favourite Bond villains and his appearance is certainly one that you'll remember with the spooky character literally having the last laugh of the film, probably my favourite shot as we hear Paul McCartney’s famous title song that was always part of my memory and love for this film. The creepiness and eerie atmosphere generated by this character and the voodoo backdrop to the main plot will be remembered for giving us what is one of the most crazy and weird set of villains in Bond history.

The final half hour of the film is particularly memorable and is one of my favourite of all Bond films, unlike other efforts the film is a more enjoyable and fun effort which is aided by Moore as bond. People who dislike the film will argue that it’s unrealistic and filled with action movie clichés especially towards the end of the film as we see Bond face off against his villains. Perhaps Roger Moore is a bit to ‘camp’ and takes the seriousness of James Bond who had previously been portrayed by Sean Connery but it is these elements that other people dislike that make the film so enjoyable for me, you can sit back, relax and enjoy “Live and Let Die” without taking it too seriously.

With "Live and Let Die" we get a fun Bond played by new to the series Roger Moore. Is the film bizarre and stupid? Maybe it is, but when you sit back and enjoy the film for what is is you don't get many more enjoyable and memorable films than this one.


RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

That's one of my favourite Bonds. :up: Comfortably top 10, maybe top 5.

I haven't really watched most of the old Bonds recently, last time was when I was a much younger (17 now) but this has always been the one I've found most enjoyable and memorable, it's bizarre and strange at times but just so fun :D

The two others I think I enjoyed the most were Goldfinger, probably the best of the older ones and Casino Royale with Daniel Craig which I thought was excellent.

Goldfinger is my absolute favourite of the Bonds, and one of my favourite ever films period. Completing the top 3 would be Goldeneye and The Spy Who Loved Me. Not sure which other two would make up the top 5, really need to revisit them all again (something I've been planning on doing for ages). However it would probably be between the likes of Live and Let Die, Man With the Golden Gun and just about all the Connery flicks. And I think one of the Dalton films I really like but not sure which.

Goldeneye and TSWLM are good yeh, need to watch the other ones again to be honest I can't remember them all clearly.

Watched Casino Royale again today and whilsts it is a very good film and good seeing Craig create a new Bond I reckon it's about half an hour (at least) too long.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

This film is far from your usual Western, unlike the works of Leone and Ford this films takes a different approach to the genre under the direction of George Roy Hill, it is a feel good, enjoyable film made that way by focussing on the loveable relationship between its two lead stars Paul Newman and Robert Redford.

The two play a pair of infamous train robbers, the leading men of the ‘Hole in the Wall gang’ with the history of the duo shown in an enjoyable silent film as the film opens. In fact the duo have become so good at what they do that E. H. Harriman hires a ‘supper-posse’ to track them down due to the costs they are causing his rail company from their robberies.

The first half of the film focussed on introducing us to the two characters whose dialogue allows for some humorous and enjoyable moments, we see Paul Newman as Butch Cassidy ride around in his new bicycle to the tune of ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ in one of the film’s most memorable scenes.

From about the half way point the story completely changes, the plot that we have been given now becomes less focused on what is happening and more focused on the relationship setup between the three main characters (the third is Sundance’s lover Katherine Ross ) as we have to endure what feels like a never ending chase between the lead duo and the posse.

From a production viewpoint I can understand the complaints about the film, with the middle ending in particular seemed to be exaggerated as much as possible, the focus on this could have been used elsewhere with a stronger plot to make this film truly great.

The film’s downsides thankfully don’t decrease our enjoyment for our film that much, the relationship of Newman and Redford dominates the film, once they get hired to transport money working in Bolivia we once again get to see their chemistry and great dialogue at the strongest with some great scenes again.

The film won Academy Awards for its song and score but also for best original screenplay and cinematography, these are two of the film’s strengths – the screenplay has some of the most memorable and funniest quotes between Newman and Redford and the cinematography creates some beautiful landscapes for us to enjoy in the scenes such as the posse chase and the rural terrain in Bolivia. And although the ending has been criticised I feel it sums up the film perfectly, we see the duo in an extremely difficult situation and the two exchange conversation with such brilliant and humorous dialogue -“For a moment there I thought we were in trouble".

“Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” is one of the most unique Western films that there is, and it is one I would definitely recommend watching to fans both of the genre, it is definitely one of the most likeable and enjoyable films of its kind despite its flaws.

RATING:

Dial M for Murder (1954)

My last two viewings of Alfred Hitchcock’s work before this film were “Rope” and “Strangers on a Train”. What do all three films have in common? They are all based around the theory that one can commit the perfect murder and like “Rope” this film is once again an adaptation of a play.

In “Dial M for Murder” Tony Wendice discovers that his wife Margot has been having an affair and after stealing a letter sent from her secret lover he uses it to blackmail an old college friend of his Charles Swann. The perfect murder in this film sees Swann follow a precise set of instructions that are based around a phone call made by Tony who would himself have the perfect alibi.

When things do not go to plan, Tony Wendice improvises a brilliant plan B that would see his wife framed for the murder of Swann.

The screenplay is superb, the film is 105 minutes long and largely takes place in one room, yet our interest is engaged for the full 105 minutes as we listen carefully to every line that is spoken. Every line is greatly delivered by the cast and each character brings their own unique personality, the screenplay is so intelligent and tight that it plays like a classic Agatha Christie murder tale, we are engaged so closely to the tale as it keeps us thinking throughout. We listen to each line of dialogue, searching for clues as the landscape changes throughout, the characters know things we do not and we are scrambling to work out who knows what and what will be the end for each character.

The film’s lead stars Ray Milland and his wife Grace Kelly are both superb. Milland gives a performance you would expect from a Hitchcock lead man such as Grant or Stewart, he is calm, intelligent and ruthless, although what he is doing is wrong we do not really oppose his evil plan to start. But the beautiful Grace Kelly steals the show as we really sympathise with her following her wrongful verdict of guilty, she shows her talent in this film in what was a great year for her, also starring in Hitchcock’s more famous “Rear Window”.

I have to give a mention to another actor who I was very much impressed by. John Williams is superb as the detective who becomes involved in the case, his character combines the serious element of the crime with humour, he provides some great and memorable dialogue and is the character that engages our interest the most throughout the second half of the film.

“Dial M for Murder” is another excellent Hitchcock film that I have seen from the great director, certainly one of his stronger and more enjoyable efforts. It has the same elements of many of his other films but feels very much different, it is not a murder mystery as we no exactly who murdered who but it feels like one because of the way we are constantly engaged in the story and its dialogue as we eagerly wait for the film’s conclusion.

RATING:

Road to Perdition (2002)

So the inclusion of this film in the recent Top 100 films from 2000-2012 list compiled by the great Brodinski has certainly raised a few eyebrows, not because of the films’ lack of quality but many members have simply yet to have watched the film, some have not even heard of it and finally those who have seem to have completely forgotten about it.

“Road to Perdition” is a film by Sam Mendes, a director who is largely known for his film that picked up five academy awards – American Beauty. Road to Perdition is a crime film but unlike others in the genre it takes its own unique approach with the great Tom Hanks portraying the lead character Michael Sullivan.

The cast also includes a mixture of other famous names; we have the stellar Paul Newman portraying John Rooney, an old man who is the boss of the criminal organisation that Sullivan worked for. Then we have the opposite to Paul Newman, a star who is better known for his earlier works such as “Cool Hand Luke” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” with Daniel Craig (who will be teaming up with Mendes once again in the highly anticipated Bond film “Skyfall”) portraying John Rooney’s son Connor Rooney who hides behind the protection of his father as he attempts to murder Sullivan following the witness of a murder by his son Michael Sullivan Jr.

The main strength of “Road to Perdition” lies with its cinematography and beautifully artistic world it creates in which its violent characters interact in. It deservedly won an Academy Award for its cinematography and the film has everything you could want from this aspect of filmmaking; beautiful sets, costumes, colours etc. One scene in particular sums up the entire film, a visually superb scene that creates a dark, eerie atmosphere as we see a number of characters face off in a dark street filled with shadows, the rain is pouring down and we can see finely each drop as it soaks them and drips from their hats.

Another famous name that stars in the film is Jude Law. Whilst I am not a massive fan of the actor I felt his role in this film was great, providing us with an emotionally detached, strange and sick character, a manifestation of evil that can compared to that of Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men” – of course on a much lesser scale. His character represents the sad and depressing story at the heart of the film for Michael Sullivan and his son and although some criticise the predictability and relatively straightforward plot that the film follows it is this perhaps realistic path and realisation that such involvement in a world filled with crime will inevitably never have a happy ending that brings out the most of Tom Hanks and Tyler Hoechlin as father and son. Also we have the wonderful score of Thomas Newman that is used extremely well where it should be, to amplify the sad and emotional centre of the film.

You can not compare this film to any other films in the genre such as “The Godfather” or “Goodfellas”, to do so would be unfair and wrong. This film is a an absolute joy to watch for what it is, an emotional story shown through brilliant cinematography, individual performances and a fantastic score. As a piece of art, this film is definitely one of the best of the 21st century so far.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

^The liked the remake A Perfect Murder, sort of a sleek mod version, I also like Michael Douglas though.

Snatch. (2000)

As a big fan of Ritchie's "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" I was looking forward to watching Snatch, which is a similar film, taking place in London where various parties become involved in a series of intertwining events.

One difference in the films is the actors involved. Although stars such as Jason Statham and Vinnie Jones reappear after their first feature film performances in "Lock, Stock...”, Ritchie is able to add bigger stars to the cast, notably Brad Pitt and Benicio Del Toro.

If you’ve yet to see either “Snatch or “Lock, Stock…” then here is what to expect: a unique, high-paced film that is filled with a mixture of fun in the form of both comedy and violence, memorable characters and unpredictable and intertwining character stories. It is easy to compare his work to that of Quentin Tarantino, they are both able to achieve two of the most enjoyable crime films around so do not be surprised to here “Snatch” described as England’s very own “Pulp Fiction.

One of the main criticisms I have heard for this film is that it lacks in originality and ultimate relies on the same formula that made "Lock, Stock..." so good. Whilst I can understand why you may want to see something new from Ritchie I was still able to enjoy this film, if it was released as a one of its kind, say Ritchie's first feature film then I am sure it would have much more positive reviews.

again Ritchie gives us a variety of different characters, each one unique and memorable as they become involved in their own way, each having their own style and unique nicknames ranging from "Turkish" to "Brick Top". The cast is excellent, Del Toro and Pitt are great additions but possibly my favourite was Stephen Graham as Tommy, a slightly less intelligent character who is Turkish's partner throughout, a character who likes the criminal presence when compared to “Brick Top” but manages to hold his own as one of the funniest characters.

The plot and editing keep us on edge as the tales intertwine and take unexpected twists and turns throughout with some great editing work to create a whole host of different style scenes such as flight sequences from America to England, and fight scenes the viewers looking on in despair at the incapable Mickey (Brad Pitt) landing his friends in a whole lot of trouble.

It is this trouble that drives the plot at the centre of the film as Mickey, Turkish and Tommy find themselves deep in debt to the ruthless Brick Top, a criminal boss who feeds his victims his pigs. Of course nothing is straight forward as a series of other parties become involved in a chase for a missing diamond, originally belonging to Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro).

Snatch is a highly enjoyable and fun film, filled with an excellent cast and bizarre plot with many twists and turns. If you haven't seen "Lock, Stock..." then I think you'll enjoy it more as the plot twists and humour will seem more fresh. Snatch is an upgrade on "Lock, Stock..." where Ritchie gets to have fun upgrading each aspect of his films to get the most out of his extremely fun and extremely funny style. When you sit back, relax and watch this film then you don’t get much better for entertainment value.

RATING:

Yes it's interesting to further note that Jackie Brown brought a great character actor out of obscurity. In 1967, Robert Forster first appeared in a small role in Brando's
Reflections In A Golden Eye and since stayed busy in a variety of bit parts, small roles and B movies. Thirty years later comes Jackie Brown and opens all kinds of doors for him at really a later stage of the game. He's been very busy since. Some of the notable movies he's been in : Mullholand Drive (2001) and The Descendants ( 2011). In the mean time he intertained us with some interesting characters such as in American Perfect (1997), Psycho (1998), Diamond Men (2000), Lucky Number Slevin (2006), Kalamity (2010) and is rumored to be envolved in six major projects starting 2012.

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

Horrible Bosses

"Horrible Bosses" is as the title suggests, centred around three friends who find themselves complaining to each other as the victims of their bosses. Whilst drunk they discuss a hypothetical plan to end their problems by murdering their bosses, even referencing Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train" as we watch their pathetic and incompetent attempts to carry out their plan.

These men are Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman), Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) and Dale Arbus (Charlie Day). All three give decent enough performances, the strongest I would say is Charlie Day who is probably my favourite actor in the comedy TV show "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" so it was refreshing to see his highly enjoyable comedic style in the film.

The film works as a comedy because it is light hearted and although it is set around a dark action, it approaches it in a fun comedic manner where we can enjoy what can be scene as real idiotic friends. The three villains all give good performances too, Kevin Spacey is my favourite and pulls off his role of 'ass hole boss' to great effect, Jennifer Aniston gives us probably the most surprising performance in her role.

Whilst this film has its flaws, such as its predictable and pretty easy ending, you can forgive it because that is not the point of it. We are watching the film to watch the ridiculous attempts to murder their bosses of three friends. These ridiculous attempts include paying a shady character who they meet in a bar called 'Motherf*cker' Jones (Jamie Foxx), five thousand dollars just for advice over murder.

Most of the film's enjoyable scenes take place inside the houses of the bosses, my favourite being the recreation of the Pulp Fiction adrenaline shot scene which takes place between in my opinion the two strongest actors in the film.

A light hearted and enjoyable comedy, "Horrible Bosses" is a film I recommend if you are looking for something fun and not too serious.

RATING:

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

I didn't find this movie funny at all :nope:

I've tried to watch that a few times, but it just doesn't hook me in. Next time it's on Film4, I recommend Carlos. It's in three parts, but I think it's worth it, especially for the first two.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__N5hDcfFbv...los-poster.jpg
Carlos

Re: Daniel's Reviews
 

^ Great thriller. Reviewed it myself a while back as well, though I gave it a higher score ( + I think) than you did.

I really like all the attention to detail when it comes to detailing the Jackal's preparations. In particular I love the watermelon scene. Could easily come across as really silly but was perfectly filmed and results in quite a chilling moment when it explodes

Yeh I actually noticed your review before as I went back to read the No Country one, and seeing as it was literally the last film I watched I thought I might as well do a review :) I was going to give it a 4* but I just thought the ending was a bit to abrupt after all the build-up.

Well I was doing it way before Brodinski so I'll take the credit! :p And I don't even remember anyone else doing it so yay for me!

Although that being said, you buggered up your new system by trying to hotlink. Tut tut you naughty boy! :D

Haha I'm still unsure on what style I should go with, think I like doing it with two big posters though like the last one. Also yeh I know about hotlinking, I need to reupload them as much as I can, sometimes I forget :p