Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

A terrific opening credit sequence easily sets up the audacity and chagrin of the film for an appreciative audience. In essence, these are the reasons why you need to see this movie: the razor sharp wit, shockingly fast-paced and hysterical dialogue, pulp-fiction-esquire vibe.
It begins with a ridiculously funny set up resulting in Downey's character being paired up with Kilmer to observe the latter in his job as a private detective. They hook up with a down-on-her luck actress who brings a case for the sleuths. This synopsis constitutes gross misrepresentation on my part as things get remarkably complex. How so? Well, even the lead the character (who also is purposefully pathetic as narrator) takes time out within the movie to remember where he is in telling the story. There are even snippets of dialogue where the characters attempt to fill in the gaps or actually remind themselves of what has happened thus far in the movie.
As a first time director, Shane Black does well keeping the frenetic pace and allowing the audience to catch up only to get lost time and time again. The style is disarmingly effective.
All the ingredients of a pulp-noir novella can be found, even employing a structure of chapter-type headings within the movie. Parallel story lines unfold and given plot assumptions are turned over, always with achingly funny results. Even the clichés are clever e.g. a tough guy predictably crashes through a glass table, or body after body turns up, to haunt the characters.
Downey's performance is remarkable (neurotic, comic, vulnerable and charming). I have never seen Kilmer in such a well-defined, uproarious piece of work. Monaghan is also integral to the trio and shines exuding a brash, fighting and sexy appeal.
3.5/5

Saw V (2008)

this latest installation suffers from the same detrimental qualities that made number four slightly disappointing for fans and casual audiences alike. Making his directorial debut here, all eyes are cast upon David Hackl to see if he can either bring something new, or at least keep the momentum going for the popular franchise. The good news for some is that Saw V feels natural and consistent to its recent predecessors helmed by Bousman, yet for many others this won't be something to get excited about. Insofar as the movie itself goes; this is mostly typical Saw material throughout, going through the motions almost. This of course will please those looking for a continuation of the previous instalments, but it will undoubtedly feel too stagnant and jaded to interest anyone else. Nevertheless, for his first feature film at the reins, Hackl proves he can live up to Bousman's style that has been engrained in the series thus far, creating yet another engaging and loyal sequel that will be sure to cater to those craving more twisted games.
For many fans and casual watchers of the series, Saw figuratively died when lead character and focus for the film Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) eventually succumbed to his cancer in film number three. Yet just as instalment IV managed to incorporate the mastermind into its story, as does V in the same manner; through flashbacks. Playing a game of two sides and narratives that eventually collide, Saw V first and foremost continues on where we left from IV, detailing the continuation of Jigsaw's work through forensics expert Hoffman and how he eventually has to tie up all loose ends regarding the deaths of those in III and IV. This narrative, although a little tiresome in its approach of filling in every detail and hole in previous features, nevertheless provides as the real meat of the script. Characters are again rather shallow, and motives are less than clear, yet much of this goes out the window when Mr. Bell graces the screen with his presence. As he has proved time and time again, it is within the character of Jigsaw that Saw's real heart lays, and with plenty of reminiscing going on here in regards to numbers I-IV, there's enough material and characterisation work here to satisfy hardcore fans of the series.
On the other side of the pitch however is a much less character/dialogue driven narrative which focuses solely on another unlucky five as they work their way through the latest of Jigsaws traps, this time set up by successor Hoffman.
Sure enough, Saw wouldn't be Saw without its morally challenging undercurrent squirming underneath all the corpses and violence, and in this regard V does well to incorporate the same subtext. Of course as has been the case with all the sequels thus far, the message isn't quite as clear here as it was in the original, and the ideas always seem to be justifying the gore rather than the other -more appropriate- way around, but there's enough here to stop the whole ordeal boiling down to a silly slasher flick with no fibre to it at all.
I can safely say that while Saw V is by no means a masterpiece nor as significant as its first production, it still beats out most of the competition by quite some distance.
3/5

Sophie Scholl - Die letzten Tage (2005)

This film details the last six days of the primary members of a resistance group called the White Rose. The White Rose was an organization of students, mainly around Munich, during the years 1942-1943.
not only the filming took place at the original locations that are still there, but the crew went at great length doing things 'right', including getting the weather reports for February 1943. Yes, there is this strange feeling of looking at the film's title, which sounds like the title for a documentary. But then I didn't gather the impression that Rothemund's goal was to poeticise the story of Sophie Scholl. I think it is quite enough that in Germany she is perceived as a martyr. What Sophie Scholl - Die Letzten Tage does successfully is it shows a person behind the image, a young girl (younger than myself), who was prepared to die for her idea, but desperately loved life.
The film is shot in color, but the color is heavily muted and it looks almost black and white. That is appropriate because the film plays as much as a documentary and as it does as a fictional drama.
The moral and dramatic heart of this absorbing film is in Sophie's extended interrogation by Mohr (Gerald Held), one time rural policeman now grateful to the Reich for his elevation to interrogator with the power of life or death over his prisoners.A father himself, he clearly finds Sophie's moral conviction and stubborn resistance disturbing. He can relate to her intelligence, her attractiveness, determination and self-destructive honesty. Everything except her moral condemnation of Hitler and the Reich. Mohr is like someone who knows the emperor is naked but is shocked when someone says it out loud. The acting in these scenes is simply superb, we see Sophie's sheer naked courage and idealistic conviction shake Mohr's blind unquestioning conformity. Only to be retrenched behind blank, dead, unthinking eyes.
The excellent Julia Jentsch plays brilliantly the intelligent, idealistic Sophie with her absolute commitment to justice and freedom. She moves towards her death through a system reminiscent of a strictly run, aseptic hospital. And at every step of the way, we see ordinary people, trapped in a nightmare they can see but not change. Each finds a way to show Sophie their empathy; from the communist prisoner staying alive by working for her jailors to the warderess who bends the rules to allow the three condemned young people a final cigarette and hug of comfort before their execution
This film is as unsettling as it is moving. It makes one ask - how many of us in similar circumstances, would have the courage to stand against the sheer weight of social conformity reinforced by an atmosphere of fear and an implacable application of lethal power? Heroism indeed, serving a belief in the ultimate right to personal conscience and the indestructibility of the idea of freedom in justice. The intensely moving photographs of the real Sophie Scholl and White Rose group that close the film give them a final victory over their oppressors. Sixty years after their deaths, their story is told and their memory cherished. It is fitting that such heroism be recognised. If you can seek this one out don't miss it. Inspirational.
4/5

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

To Kill a Mockingbird is the movie based on the Harper Lee novel of the same name about Scout, Jem and their father, Atticus Finch who is an attorney in a small southern town. It is both a coming of age story about the children as well as a hard-hitting drama, as Atticus defends a black man who is on trial for the rape of a white woman.
the defense of a man wrongly accused of a crime is a common story line, but To Kill a Mockingbird stands out as an exceptional example for several reasons. Among them, the date that the film was released: 1962, on the cusp of the civil rights movement in America, and the fact that it takes place in the south in the 1930's. It is also far from the first film to explore the experiences of children and their own personal growth, but To Kill a Mockingbird stands out because of its sheer honesty and natural performances by the child actors portraying these rich characters.
But most of all, this film is special because of Gregory Peck's portrayal of Atticus Finch, a true hero. At the risk of sounding histrionic, my heart aches when I watch him on screen because he is such an incredible man, and is so inherently good.
I smile when I see his interaction with his children, and I well with tears when I see his incredible strength of character. (No easy feat to break through the armor of this cynical film geek who, if given the chance would remake at least a few dozen films with tragic endings.)
Although it had a short time on screen, Robert Duvall's portrayal of "Boo" Radley was one of his very first roles on screen and what better movie than "To Kill a Mockingbird" to kick off your acting career.Mary Badham and Philip Alford are excellent as Jem and Scout. Mary Badham became the youngest girl to receive an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actress for her role as Scout.
Don't be scared off by it being over forty years old, or it being black and white; it's an excellent film, and just about anyone would enjoy it. Don't miss this perfect film.
4.5/5

The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)

Comparisons of The Assassination of Richard Nixon to Taxi Driver (1976) are justified and inevitable. Both concern a man who is a bit of an outcast, both with an acute awareness of politics and the persons whom they consider fellow outcasts, both trying to make their place in the world, both continually being knocked down from the attempt, and both eventually cracking and taking similarly drastic measures against an abstraction of those they feel have wronged them. There are also equally fine performances from great actors, there is equally unique artistry in the technical elements, and both successfully stress an atmosphere of "low class grit".But while Taxi Driver is also a masterpiece and will long be one of the cinematic benchmarks of its era, The Assassination of Richard Nixon has a number of important differences that make it clear that it's not a "rip-off". For one, it is based on a thinly veiled true story, where the major "plot" events are very close to the film.More importantly, Bicke, although he has problems, does not see himself initially as belonging to or being obsessed with a subculture. He's relatively normal, and his desires in the film are all about correcting his "forced" deviations from normality. In a nutshell, Bicke is a guy with low self-esteem/a lack of self-confidence who keeps getting the raw end of the deal (at least in his mind)
Sean Penn is probably one of the highest praised and consistently well-reviewed actors of his generation, and his performance in this film illustrates why. Penn's elegiac performance is delicately nuanced and precisely wrought. He's a man I'm used to seeing as well, a man's man, and to see him timid and frustrated, swallowing so much emotion in ever bigger chunks...it was remarkable to watch, his performance a credit to director Niels Mueller as well.
The intelligent writing, well-timed and rich score, and supportive performances by Naomi Watts, Jack Thompson and Don Cheadle blend perfectly in this marvelously crafted feature transporting the viewer into the lives and era of the exquisitely human characters who are so elegantly portrayed.
First-time feature director Niels Mueller achieves a subtle unbalancing through the artful, regular use of hand-held cameras. The hand-held work doesn't dominate so much as to become distracting, but it's just "shaky" enough to add to the sense of unease. Also unusual is Mueller's approach to montages. There are a number of sequences with increasingly fast cuts that are perfectly constructed to suggest time passing, monotony, frustration, impatience and so on. Mueller always gives us just the right amount of information, always leaves each shot on screen for the exact right length of time.
3.5/5

Låt Den Rätte Komma In AKA let the right one in (2008)

12-year-olds Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) and Eli (Lina Leandersson) meet one snowy afternoon at a jungle gym in the courtyard of Oskar's housing complex outside Stockholm. Their young, tender attraction for each other is apparent right from the start and we think we know where their relationship is headed. But there is a deep dark secret to be discovered here and when it's revealed the audience is both repulsed and curiously fascinated at the same time, in a similar fashion as when yellow crime scene tape brings us closer rather than warning us away.
The film is no doubt not for the squeamish as even with the abundance of tender scenes between Oskar and Eli, violence is still undeniably present which is depicted in either a repulsive or comedic light.In Tomas Alfredson's modern twist, Eli's fangs are treated as if it were of biological origins, which need a treatment that may pose morality questions. Her paternal figure becomes the film's tragic core as he emphasizes the depressing lengths he would go through to sustain Eli's thirst for blood. Although played as if he was paternal, further reveals later would show his function was to foreshadow the main protagonist's future removed from this micro cosmos.
Eli is perfectly portrayed by Lina Leandersson as she not so much carry the entire film, but devours the role. she gains easy support from audiences just from her look alone. Perfectly matched with Kåre Hedebrant, leads instantly become characters worth caring about, that even the murders that conspire become a necessity.
Set in Scandinavia, film reminds of "30 Days of Night" as it's filmed as if it never sees the sun and is forever winter. Of course, this works well with the illusion of having the main character as someone who would burst into flames if UV rays touches her skin. This, among others are the film's small touches that further cement the mythology on vampires and adds some more, even.
"Låt Den Rätte Komma In" is indeed an enjoyable intimate celebration of loneliness and the things that transpire from it. Setting it with a vamp angle further uplifts the thematical significance of the film, although even if they exist, picture doesn't pretend to be more than it actually is. Conceived with a specific audience in mind, the curious would also be rewarded. Film often reaches subliminal moments that will live long in the memory.
4/5

WALL·E (2008)

WALL·E is adorable, and as much credit as the animators get for that, this film would be nothing without Stanton's screenplay, which features very little dialogue but is still notably intelligent and surprisingly subtle.
The social commentary in "WALL·E" is sobering because it's never overbearing and most importantly because we see the world through machines, machines who feel more about Earth and life than the humans do. The depiction of humans on the ship could have been incredibly offensive, cheap, and tasteless in concept but the execution here is absolutely perfect.
The early portion of the film evokes a striking and powerful feeling of loneliness. It's a brilliant introduction to WALL·E, given that the rest of the film is too wacky to bother with long scenes focused entirely on character, and works beautifully with the ugly yet beautifully-rendered future Earth, a barren wasteland filled with nothing but garbage, a seriously resilient cockroach being WALL·E's only companion before EVE shows up.
There are human characters in this movie too, quite a few. I think that's necessary because if humans aren't shown in a robot world, you have to wonder what purpose were the robots designed to serve? That was a curiosity of the earlier CGI movie, Robots. Most of the humans in Wall-E aren't as developed as the robots, but I think that's because they exist more to represent the whole of humanity rather than particular individuals. We're asked to ponder the consequences of the choices they make as though the whole society was moving in that direction, not just one person. Wall-E and Eve are the heart of this movie but the humans are used to add some intellectual gravity for the audience to chew on.
3.5/5

Salaire de la peur, Le AKA The Wages of Fear(1953)

This is an extraordinary movie. From the opening scene showing the squalor of a Latin American town with filth and vultures in the street and naked children begging for food amid the oppressive, fly-stirred heat, to the finale on a winding mountain road, it is just plain fascinating.
Yves Montand has the lead as Mario, a Frenchman stranded in this god-forsaken town with only one way out: get enough money to pay for airfare. Charles Vanel is the older, tin-horn dandy who ends up with a case of the shakes. Peter Van Eyck is the man with the nerves of steel who finds this little adventure a piece of cake after forced labor in the salt mines for the Nazis. And Folco Lulli is Luigi, the happy, singing baker who hopes to return to Italy with the two thousand dollars they are paying him to drive the nitro-loaded truck.Vera Clouzet, plays Linda who first appears scrubbing the floor in an open-air bistro. She is rather extraordinary herself, finely made up and creamy white like a star of the silent film era. She grovels a lot, especially for Mario. She provides the counter-point, the contrast for the testosterone action of the movie.
Henri-Georges Clouzet directs and somehow manages to come up with a work of genius. One wonders how. The story, on the face of it, would seem to belong in the slush pile of a ten-cent pulp fiction mag from the 1930's. The acting is good, very good in places, but not great. The cinematography is straightforward, but nonetheless very effective. It is lean and focused always, showing us what needs to be seen without drawing attention to itself: the invisible style, which is the best. Clouzet's direction is characterized by a vivid depiction of things that we can feel: the mud and filth in the streets, the desperation and the boredom, the cruelty and meanness of men, the oil on their bodies, the singular fact of a ton of nitro in the back seat so that every move is a neuron-exposing adventure. I think that the visceral experience from beginning to end and the fine pacing are the essence of what makes this a great film.
4.5/5

King Kong (1933)

the original 1933 version of King Kong is certainly a definite work.For its time, every aspect is innovative. First-of-their-kind special effects, first-of-its-kind plot, famous performances and a final sequence that remains unequaled as an eye-popping cinematic experience. The quality of cinematography and visual trickery has progressed a long way since 1933 - so the special effects obviously look rather primitive to 21st Century eyes - but anyone with a shred of common sense will still be astounded by what they see. This is movie history in the making.
Ace film director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) hires an unemployed, attractive New York woman Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to star in his new picture. He takes her by boat to remote Skull Island where, according to legend, there lives an awesome god-like beast named Kong. Denham's plan is to shoot a variation of the Beauty and the Beast story, using Ann as his beauty and Kong as his beast. Everyone involved gets more than they bargained for when Ann is kidnapped by the island natives and offered as a sacrifice to Kong. She is kidnapped by a gigantic prehistoric ape and saved only by the courage of ship's mate Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot). But Denham has one more trick up his sleeve when he captures Kong and takes the beast back to New York. You don't really think those chains will hold him, do you?
The acting is swell. Robert Armstrong is perfect as the over enthusiastic director who is completely responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people but has absolutely no scruples about it. He provides the silent chuckles of the movie e.g my one line summary is actually what denham says when he sees the savages and their dancing. And Bruce Cabot to Fay Wray: ' hey, i guess i love you!' in a moment of clarity. Overall a smashing film with a great climax.
4/5

Frenzy (1972)

The story is about a killer who strangles women with a necktie, after raping them. After a bunch of unfortunate(but not unlikely) situations the police suspect the wrong man, and we follow his actions as he tries to evade the police. Like all the Hitchcock greats, it features great characterizations, dialog and situations. Not to mention those little details that lift him above the level that most other directors are at. The plot is very good, and well-paced. The acting is very good; I was particularly impressed at how 'British' they managed to be, considering how many of the actors are Americans. I suspect Hitchcock played a big part in making the film so authentic and true to life. The characters are well-written, credible and interesting. The suspense and tension is extreme at points of the movie, and Hitchcock (once again) proves his perfect understanding of the film-making elements and his ability to put them to good use. I found it interesting to see so much nudity, in a Hitchcock film. Of course, it wasn't just graphic and pointless, like it is in most films(not just from that period); it's there for a purpose.
Hitchcock is known for his innovative shots, angles and pans, and this is no exception to the greatness of his cinematography. I doubt that we have seen a much more innovative or intelligent film-maker since him. It's nice to be able to see that even such a short time before his death(about 8 years, I suppose), Hitchcock delivered something so great. Much better than the dime-a-dozen flicks that most films released consist of today. A great film for any fan of Hitchcock, or even of thrillers in general. I recommend this film to any fan of thrillers or Hitchcock. Great film.
4.5/5

Get Smart (2008)

Over-analyzing analyst Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) dreams of becoming an official Agent for the top secret government organization CONTROL, and longs to execute action-packed spy missions like his idol, the charismatic Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson). When CONTROL headquarters is attacked by longtime nemesis group KAOS and many of the Agents' identities are compromised, Smart is promoted to Agent 86 and partners with the unwilling Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) to thwart the villainous group's latest plan for world domination.
Steve Carell certainly knows how to handle his comedy. Excelling at both physical and verbal-stemmed laughs, Carell makes the tumbles look as easy as his notable style of quick quips and clever observations, and the funnyman seems to garner chortles even when the rest of the crew can't quite muster an equal energy. Anne Hathaway provides the good looks and serious attitude to counter Agent 86's incessant jokes, and the pair's on screen chemistry gels nicely throughout the majority of the film. A few slips and failed retorts interrupt the flow of their characters' progressions, but are quickly forgotten in the grand scheme. Alan Arkin furnishes several of the funniest moments in the movie.Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson again confirms his status as a reliable comedic presence and laudably supports the leads. Many interesting cameos perforate the film, and while they're amusingly recognizable, they're also regrettably wasted. Few draw laughs with clever dialogue or comedic prowess, but rather produce a quick smile for those that get the reference or enjoy the recognition.
The humor throughout Get Smart always orbits around Carell and his singular style of comedy.While Carell's lines are rarely delivered without a magnetic humor, many of the conversations lose their luster midway, due to faltering dialogue and a lack of focus on creating the biggest laughs. Several of the extravagant set-pieces end with many a missed opportunity to supply more hilarity, and lots of little laughs spread the truly uproarious moments too thin. While a healthy dose of romance, drama, and some truly spectacular action scenes appears commendable, the devotion to these components often shortchanges the comedy.From exotic locales to storm drains, and Moscow to Disney Hall, the action and humor follows Maxwell Smart at breakneck speed. A few feeble gags and missed chances at grand hilarity can't ruin the fun; and while they might have "missed it by just that much," it's not enough to detract from Carell's dynamic performance and the inspired comedy that trails closely behind.
3.5/5

laura(1944)

Gene Tierney stars as Laura Hunt, a beautiful career girl who, as the picture opens, has been murdered. (Shot in face with a double barreled shotgun, a point of information not dwelled on by director Otto Preminger. Today's directors, of course, would have begun with a full facial shot of the corpse.) Dana Andrews is the leading man, playing Mark McPherson, a hard-boiled police detective with a soft heart. Vincent Price, who before he became a maven of horror, was actually a soft-spoken, hunkish ladies man, plays Shelby Carpenter, who could afford to have his reputation blemished, but not his clothes.But the surprising star is Clifton Webb who plays Waldo Lydecker, venomous columnist and radio personality, who against his first impressions, falls madly (and of course hopelessly) in love with Laura and becomes her mentor.
First and foremost, the story of Laura impresses you bigtime. The script is extremely intelligent and it's always one step ahead of you.
The dialogues are superb. Every line that's being said in Laura is a highlight, every facial expression made is a stunning one.
Preminger saw his movie as less about heterosexual passion gone homicidal than about a superficial culture of celebrity and hype and image. Lydecker's obsession was not so much with Laura's flesh as with fantasy – a rising star to which he could he hitch his jaded wagon. He's a demented fan who fancies that only his own enthusiasm and puffery make her shine. It's the only version of reality that the narcissistic, grandiose Lydecker can accept, with himself as both creator and custodian of her legend. It was the world Laura, too, occupied and enjoyed, if fitfully, a world which she departed for meatier trysts, albeit with lovers who lived in the same fairyland of ritzy illusion. Until she met (and almost too late) MacPherson, a prole without affectation who came to love her as a physical organism rather than as a creature of publicity, a fabulous freak of the zeitgeist.
The atmosphere and design just sucks you in completely and you're overwhelmed by every surprising twist. I'm not telling anything about the plot or storyline here. It would be a shame to spoil something about this masterpiece. See it for yourself and be astonished!
3.5/5

p.s. was remade as "Rog (2005)" in india.

Blade Runner (1982)

This is truly one of the greatest science fiction films ever made, one that requires a thinking viewer in order to understand and appreciate it.
A true science fiction story or film is about ideas, not spaceship battles, futuristic gadgets, or weird creatures. "Blade Runner" fully qualifies as this in its examination of the impact of technology on human society, existence, and the very nature of humanity itself. These themes are set in a fairly basic detective story that moves slowly but gradually builds power as the viewer is immersed in a dystopian futuristic Los Angeles.
Harrison Ford portrays a seemingly lifeless lead character as the replicant-hunting detective known as a "blade runner".as the story unfolds, we see Ford's character, Rick Deckard, slowly come alive again and recover some humanity while pursing four escaped replicants.
The replicants, genetically-engineered human cyborgs, that Deckard must hunt down and kill are in many ways more alive than Deckard himself initially. Their escape from an off-world colony has an explicit self-directed purpose, whereas Deckard's life appears to have none other than his job, one that he has tried to give up. By some standards, Deckard and the replicants have thin character development. However, this is a deeply thematic and philosophical film, and as such the characters are the tools of the story's themes. Each character reflects some aspect of humanity or human existence, but they lack others, for each is broken in ways that reflect the broken society in which they live and were conceived/created.
There are several dramatic moments involving life-and-death struggles, but most of these are more subdued than in a normal detective story plot. The film's power is chiefly derived through its stunning visual imagery of a dark futuristic cityscape and its philosophical themes.
Among the themes explored are the following: - The dehumanization of people through a society shaped by technological and capitalistic excess. - The roles of creator and creation, their mutual enslavement, and their role reversal, i.e., the creation's triumph over its creator. - The nature of humanity itself: emotions, memory, purpose, desire, cruelty, technological mastery of environment and universe, mortality, death, and more. - Personal identity and self-awareness. - The meaning of existence.If you are not someone who naturally enjoys contemplating such themes, the film's brilliance may be lost on you. The climax involves a soliloquy that brings many of the themes together in a simple yet wonderfully poetic way. Anyone who "gets" the film should be moved by this; others will sadly miss the point and may prefer watching some mindless action flick instead.
4/5

Righteous Kill (2008)

Turk (Robert De Niro) and Rooster (Al Pacino) are longtime NYC police partners, in this Jon Avnet thriller that has them trying to stop an unknown serial killer, a person who leaves a poem at the scene of each crime. Victims are law-breakers who were freed on legal technicalities. Two other cops, played by John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahlberg, become suspicious of the investigation, and this hampers the efforts of Turk and Rooster.
The script on which the film is based is rather poor. The setup is muddled; none of the characters are especially sympathetic, and secondary characters are not well defined. Further, "Righteous Kill" is not that much different from other serial killer or urban crime films.The mood here is dark, and the tone is rather cynical. Characters go out of their way to telegraph their toughness by using lots of "hard" language. There's an edginess to the characters, and that's okay. But I could have wished for a character with some degree of softness. That would have provided much needed balance to the overall tonal savagery.
Without a doubt, the film's best element is the acting. There's not a weak performance in the bunch. Of course, the focus is on De Niro and Pacino. This is really their film. And it's their camaraderie, their back and forth playful banter, that makes the film worth watching.
for the script they were given, this was way too average and they are above it. I even hate to say it, this was very predictable if you've seen a lot of these thriller movies of today. Not to mention, I think Al Pacino, this must have been his third movie where he has worn that same leather jacket, I mean is it just me, or does anyone else notice this? Over all, it's not a bad movie, but it could have just been done with average actors, instead of all the hype that has been around it because of the actors. Just don't be fooled, it's a typical thriller, nothing special.
3/5

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Inherit the Wind is a dramatization of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 when a biology teacher was arrested and challenged a law passed by the Tennessee State legislature making it a crime to teach anything other than the account of creation as set down in the Book of Genesis.
Although few actual facts from the trial are used in the film, the stifling, courtroom drama itself, re-creates the volatile life, times and mood of the era. Bringing the sensational atmosphere to life are a treasury of excellent actors which offer some of the finest moments in cinematic history. Henry Drummond the defense attorney is superbly played by Spenser Tracy. His eloquent and formidable adversary is none other than Fredric March who plays, religiously infallible Matthew Harrison Brady.Their clash on screen is well worth seeing. So is Gene Kelly as Hornbeck/Mencken - a man in love with the language ("Ah, Heavenly Hillborough" he intones about the play's location), and with his anti-democratic cynicism that turns off Tracy at the end. Dick York as Cates/Scopes is properly stoic until he prevents Tracy from putting his girlfriend through a cross-examination after March tears her apart on the stand. Florence Eldritch (as Mrs. Brady) gives a fine performance as his most loyal and loving supporter (and one whose fears for him come true). Harry Morgan as the Judge, Claude Atkins as a rabid fundamentalist minister, and Noah Beery Jr. as a farmer who helps Tracy out for personal reasons are all fine too.
Overall, I thought that Inherit the Wind is a very valuable film. It is not the most entertaining film for modern audiences but if you enjoy classic acting and a classic plot this film is definitely for you.This trial raised for the first time in people's mind the question of academic freedom of speech and may do the same for modern viewers facing similar problems with the educational system that conflict with their own personal beliefs.
4/5

before the devil knows you're dead(2007)

two brothers, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, are planning to rob a jewelery store in Westchester, New York. The film bounces back and forth in time over approximately a two week period of time (before, during and after the robbery), and one key scene is repeated at least three times. Ordinarily, that could disrupt the momentum of a film but that never happens during this masterpiece. The excitement, the tension, and even the quality of the acting only seemed to get better as the film progressed. By the end, I was on the edge of my seat breathlessly waiting to see how it would all wrap up.
The acting is absolutely brilliant all-around, and I doubt I would have the same admiration for the film if the casting hadn't been so perfect. A tiny complaint is that Hoffman and Hawke don't look like brothers, but that's a minor quibble that I can easily overlook. Philip Seymour Hoffman has never been, and most likely never will be, better than he is here. Albert Finney's quietly searing portrayal of a father betrayed and at the end of his rope is a masterpiece to watch unfold. Ethan Hawke, normally a nondescript pretty boy, is perfect as the emotionally crippled younger brother who has skated by far too long on his charms and looks. The coup-de-grace, however, is the series of scenes between Hoffman and Marisa Tomei, eerily on point as his flighty trophy wife.
This film isn't revolutionary. These themes and this style have already been explored by the likes of The Coen Brothers, and it's very easy to imagine them directing this film. But for a film that treads familiar ground, it simply excels. Lumet employs his own immense directorial talent and employs his unique and very subtle sense of irony and style to Masterson's brilliantly vivid, intense, and morbidly depressing first-time screenplay.Three years after he won a Lifetime Achievement Oscar, much revered as the ultimate sign of retirement in the film business, Sidney Lumet proves that he still has the immense talent to deliver a truly wonderful, resonant, intense piece of cinema reminiscent of his golden years.
3.5/5

Taken (2008/I)

there is little to be said about the plot. Liam Neeson's 17 year old daughter, in Paris on vacation, is kidnapped by Albanian sex-slave traders. Unfortunately for them, Neeson is a retired US government covert operative of some kind, with skills and resources which enable him to pursue the kidnappers, extract information, and exact retribution.
There are some plot threads left untied (literally in the case of a thread which he finds at the kidnap scene but then never pursues, as far as I could see), and there is some pretty wild variance in how easily he takes out the kidnappers.
You need to get past some poor direlogue and cheesy moments/acting in the first half of this film, as the moment the daughter is "Taken" is the moment this film will start to knock your socks off.Liam Neeson makes for a very good 70's style hero, although the accent waivers. Cant believe he passed himself off as a french policeman speaking in English in a Irish/American accent when he goes undercover in a scene, but that's the scripts fault not his.
Other actors range from competent to annoying (Daughter...) but nevertheless, this film has fight scenes that are sharp, realistic, nasty and well edited.
3/5

Hancock (2008)

"Hancock" starts on the right track, only to go wayward soon enough. The main problem is that, although the subject is original and clever,the story-line is messy and linear, and the intended twists, forced and predictable.Maybe the worst mistake is that of approaching AGAIN the old trick of the "historic perspective": the super-heroes belong to an immortal and all-powerful race, the so-called "Gods" in mythology, bla-bla! We already saw it in so many movies - and, as a rule, totally compromised! As if this wasn't enough, they add up another time-spoiled motive: "love with the price of immortality".
These poor attempts to give "depth" to the story simply don't add-up with the starting context, which is very snappy and funny indeed: the "disabused" hero, fallen into alcoholism and neglect, and his love-hatred relationship with society. If I'd been the writers, I'd have stuck with the first option, which had many unexplored opportunities for comedy. Instead they try to make Hancock more 'meaningful' by introducing Charlize Theron as his female opposite number, and then explore a 'can't live with her, can't live without her' theme which seems to suggest that our superheroes are some kind of fundamental particles of opposite charge which cancel each other out and die when they are in close proximity.
Theron's super heroine has dealt with the loneliness of the long distance super hero by doing what any good girly does in the circumstances; finding a nice safe man (Ray) and helping him chose diapers. A so much more valuable use of her time than, say, rounding up drug cartels or refreezing the melting polar ice caps. Ahhhh! The satisfaction of domestic bliss! All humour is gone by the end and for the finale there's a spectacular and bloody gun battle in a hospital before the baddies get their come-uppance which I guess is what we really need from a super hero movie.
2.5/5

Burn After Reading (2008)

This is most certainly an acquired taste. It is not going to go down well with people who can't laugh at murder, things going terribly wrong for innocent people."Burn After Reading" was seemingly tailor-made for my cruel sense of humor It's a conspiracy espionage thriller with no stakes, nothing to fight over, a bunch of complete fools and idiots caught in the middle of it ("a league of morons" if you listen to John Malkovich's character), and disastrous consequences for just about everyone. Take out the jokes and you could have a tragedy but as it stands this is the funniest movie the Coens have made since "The Big Lebowski".
The basic concept is that Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt's characters come across a disc they think contains top secret intelligence. What follows is, as described above, a thriller with no stakes and a bunch of idiots. It's one of those movies where you really shouldn't be laughing (for ethical reasons) but are, and it will have you laughing through your disapproval for basically the entirety of the film after the opening fifteen minutes or so, which are rough in comparison to the rest of the film.
The movie may not start brilliantly (not that it isn't good even early on), but once the Coens start firing on all cylinders they never stop, and the dream cast certainly doesn't either (Brad Pitt has a smaller role than most cast members here, but he is absolutely brilliant in the role), showing tremendous comic skill that few would have guessed most of them had. In the end, as J.K. Simmons character sums it up himself, nothing really happens, but while watching it all unfold, you can't help but laugh at the absurdity.
3.5/5

Near Dark (1987)

Near Dark is the definitive vampire road movie. It's the most realistic and non-traditional portrayal of vampires in my mind. They're cruising the country...you know, just bored. And wouldn't they be bored? I mean if you live forever, wouldn't you run out of things to do? They spend their time getting in and out of trouble. And that's all they do.
Caleb, a young cowboy out for a night of fun, meets Mae, a beautiful and mysterious young girl with whom he becomes instantly besotted. Mae is a strange young woman who runs off at the first sign of daylight...but not before biting Caleb on the throat. As the sun rises higher and Caleb finds himself suddenly sick and getting steadily worse, a van load of drifters stop and all but kidnap him within sight of his father and younger sister. In the van is Mae and her "family" - a group of outlaw vampires who are not too thrilled with the addition of Caleb to their group. Led by 300+ year old Jesse, his woman Diamondback and the brutal Severen, the vampires reluctantly show Caleb the ropes as they drift across the Midwest. But Caleb's father and sister are looking for him, and soon Caleb will have to choose between his old family and his new one.
What follows in the film are continual contrasts between both worlds, the one whose people live at night, and the other whose people live during the day. The only bridge or connection between the two is during the sunsets and the sunrises. There are numerous beautiful scenes where Caleb walks across the frame with a sunset in the background. Theoretically, this is the only place where the two worlds can co-exist.
The casting of the movie is its best point. The Aliens trio of Paxton, Goldstein and Henriksen were brilliant in this.I feel I must talk about the bar scene. As soon as that music kicks in, you know some on screen magic is about to happen. This is where the Aliens cast members really shine. Paxton is spitting out more clichés than he is blood.
Near Dark drips atmosphere, and sinks you into its world of shadows, passion and blood. It's actually more of a love story than a horror story, and gels both genres together well.
3/5

Scaphandre et le papillon, Le (2007)

This is a true biographical sketch of a French Journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby (Mathieu Amalric) who was also the editor of magazine ELLE. In 1995, he had a heart stroke and that left him fully paralyzed with a rare condition – lock-in syndrome. This is his story from his eye view. Despite his condition, he authored a book by blinking his left eye-lid when a correct alphabet was uttered by a person. It is a painful process to write a book with such a pace. Not only for Jean but it requires enormous patience from the side of the one scripting the alphabet to form words and sentences.
Director Julian Schnabel has hit the right chords to draw the vast canvas. In the first couple of minutes we are all set for what is to follow. The fantastic capture of real eye angle camera movements from the vision of Jean is incredibly real. For first 20 minutes the audience only sees what Jean sees, but when the camera slowly comes out of Jean's eyes and sees Jean objectively – every time I felt like going back to the heart and soul of Jean's eye vision. It is so wonderful and sensitive.
Mathieu Amalric has played the character of Jean with so authentication that it is hard to believe and separate his self from the real character.
The most wonderful part that remains with you after the movie is the sense of humor with which Jean sees this world. He remains light hearted at times and thinks hilarious comments even in the most painful state of his being.
I would also like to mention the two supporting characters who render Jean's words on paper. It is the patience and sensitivity of characters that is touching and those roles are beautifully portrayed by two well known Canadian and French actresses – Marie Josee Croze (former writer) and Anne Consigny (latter writer) respectively.
The photography is superb. The camera angles as I mentioned are innovative and treat to watch. Hats off to Julian Schnabel in gifting the world of cinema a rare gem!
4/5

Serpico (1973)

Frank Serpico begins his career with the NYPD as an idealistic rookie who believes in the moral value of policing. He has a simple and old-fashioned ethical code, an outlook which used to be known as honesty. What he finds is a moral sewer, five boroughs wide, in which almost every cop is on the take. The police are just another gang of hoodlums, but with more guns than the bad guys. Even basically decent cops go along with the kickback culture, because a locker-room psychology prevails in which values have become perverted. Squad loyalty is now a criminal conspiracy of silence. Detectives do not hesitate to shake-down hoods who are slow to pay. To Frank Serpico, this is simply wrong. He wants no part of it. And so his long agony begins.
Pacino's earnest intensity fuses Frank Serpico's disparate qualities into a spellbinding performance. The guy is a bundle of contradictions, the kind of man who could charm you, move you, and drive you crazy at the same time: a nice Catholic boy who can't commit to any of the devoted women in his life; an honest, downright rigid moralist who's also a free spirit known as "Paco" to his friends and lovers; and an undercover cop with detective aspirations whose hippie-like appearance rankled his superiors and fellow officers even as it helped him blend in on assignments. Pacino's riveting performance carries the film, with fine support by Barbara Eda-Young as Laurie, the genuinely loving partner who is destroyed by her man's seeming eagerness for martyrdom in rejection of domestic happines
The sparing use of simple yet haunting music by Mikis Theodorakis sets the tone well.
Lumet's camera captures the grit of New York and the paranoia of being an undercover officer. It's truly one of the greatest pictures of all times, and arguably Al Pacino's best performances.
Serpico got a nomination for Best Screenplay adapted from another source, it was adapted from Peter Maas's biographical study. Al Pacino unfortunately lost the Best Actor Oscar that year to Jack Lemmon for Save the Tiger. Oddly enough Save the Tiger is about another man at a crossroads in his life and his choice is break the law.
4/5

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Starting with the best fake-trailers this side of Grindhouse, TROPIC THUNDER develops into the most uniquely wacky blend of satire/action/ and gross-out I've ever seen. At first it appears to be a straight-up spoof on popular war films, then it becomes a film within a film, then an attack on Hollywood and the film industry in general. Also present are some rather shocking (and hilarious) sight gags (exploding film-crew members, the brutal slaughter of an endangered species) that managed to catch everyone off guard (yet not offend them).
Besides a weakly written role for Black, the rest of the men are given enough to work with for some truly great moments. Stiller has a few instances where he returns to his over-long annoying routine—pouring "fake" blood into his mouth for one—but for the most part did a real good job, especially with his tough guy poses shooting off his gun. Jay Baruchel shines as the only non-celebrity involved, the guy who went to boot camp, read the novel and the script, and idolizes the men he is working with.And the back and forth between Downey Jr. and Brandon T. Jackson's Alpa never get old. The whole dynamic of real black man versus fake was unceasingly funny.
Downey Jr.'s facial expressions, voices, and presence may steal the show, but what really allowed me to forget my worries was an absolutely brilliant cameo from Tom Cruise. His studio executive, pompously crass, loud-mouth and his dance moves can not be equaled. Tropic Thunder is first and foremost a vehicle for a bunch of friends to have a blast poking fun at their craft and really at themselves.
It's fresh and that originality carries it somewhere great. There is a total lack of predictability and its shies away from the clichés and THAT is something I think a lot of films haven't been ballsy enough to do.
3.5/5

Deliverance (1972)

Deliverance shocks by its plausibility. Certainly, the buggery scene is pretty straightforward in its unpleasantness, but the film's effect derives far more from its slow build-up and the tangible sense of isolation surrounding the four leads, both before and after everything starts to go wrong. The moment when the canoes pass under the child on the bridge, who does not even acknowledge the men he had earlier played music with, let alone show any sign of human affection towards them, is among the most sinister in modern film. The tension increases steadily throughout the canoe trip, and perseveres even after the final credits - the ending makes the significance of the characters' ordeals horrifically real.
At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting.
Burt Reynolds is wonderful in this movie as the gung-ho and almost fatally over-confident Survivalist, Lewis.Trust me, if your are not a Reynolds fan, you WILL be impressed with his performance here. John Voight is his usual effortlessly accomplished self, and Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox both make significant contributions. This is simply a great quartet of actors.
"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.
Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film.
3.5/5