Reviews

Directed by Newfoundland's own Christian Sparkes, Cast No Shadow is an elegant looking film with definite roots in the province. Yet for all its beauty the story is mainly a gritty and honest family drama wrapped up in a coming-of-age tale. Written by Joel Thomas Hynes and adapted from his previous novella Say Nothing Saw Wood, this film tells the story of 13-year old Jude Traynor who tries to survive life caught between his abusive father Angus, being a local outcast, and the dark fantasies inside his own head.

One of the things which astounds me about Cast No Shadow is how great the film looks on a smaller budget. The cinematography by Scott McClellan shows off Newfoundland in all its glory, but also there are scenes of almost terrifying beauty. For instance, young Jude believes there is a troll hiding in a cave near the sea; while the troll is never fully shown, McClellan's camera-work glides around the edges and only suggests its true horror. Even further, the subtle score from Jeff Morrow adds to the visuals in every moment whether it be a quieter scene or one of raw intensity.

It's hard to walk away from the film and not revel in one of the best performances by a young actor you are likely to ever see. Percy Hynes White plays Jude to near perfection. There are some genuinely difficult scenes in Cast No Shadow: from moments between Angus and Jude where violence erupts out of nowhere, to a romantic scene or two between Jude and an older girl named Nancy. However, no matter what the context, Hynes White proves his maturity as an actor and reels us into every bit of his emotional journey.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film, though, is the way Sparkes turned a very real family drama into something that is wholly based in reality, and also finds its place in the fantastic. While Cast No Shadow feels completely real, the segues into Jude's imagination and his visions of the troll break in and transport us to a realm of fantasy. There are other films where dreams and reality become blurred to the point where, as a viewer, we become just as disoriented as the characters. Through Sparkes' vision, we are able to experience the imagination of Jude while also maintaining the distance required to feel the impact of the whole story. For his first feature film, Sparkes certainly displays the confidence of a seasoned director, and crafts a darkly beautiful piece of work.

I can't recommend Cast No Shadow enough. There is a moment at the end of the film where the title's significance truly comes across, and as it cut to black at the theatre I sat a moment in silence to take it in. Only for moment, however, as a hearty round of applause came up from the audience. Even though, as a Newfoundlander, I'm liable to watch Cast No Shadow with the rosy-coloured glasses of pride for my home province, it does not change the fact this is a gorgeous film full of gritty, magic realism, and powerful performances. If you don't get out to see it in theatre, you might just miss something truly special.

I just love the premise of this movie. Kevin Smith is not particularly one of my favourites, though, I really love Clerks, Mallrats, Dogma, and Red State a lot. I think his move into a bit of horror while still holding onto the comedy roots he works so well with really is spectacular. Red State was a lot of fun, and I've re- watched it a bunch of times since the first; for me, it holds up time after time.

The story of Tusk follows Wallace Bryton, a rising podcast star, who interviews weird and wild people everywhere; he travels to different locations, interviews different characters, and then retells his experiences for Teddy Craft who never travels. There emerges a side story involving Wallace's girlfriend Ally; the two share a bit of a rocky relationship, as we see both Wallace's infidelity, as well as Ally's eventual, secret at first, indiscretions, too. Wallace goes up to Canada to interview the Kill Bill Kid - a young man who chopped off his own leg with a sword accidentally - but once he arrives in Winnipeg, he discovers the kid has taken his own life, and the story is quite literally now dead. Unfairly angry, Wallace heads to a bar before moving on home. In the bathroom he discovers a wanted ad: an old man, once an adventurer at sea, has a room for rent, and stories to tell. Out in the woods of Manitoba, Wallace finds Howard Howe in a beautiful, sprawling estate type home. Howe seems just a little eccentric at first telling stories of being at sea, meeting Ernest Hemingway, however, soon enough it's really damn clear the old man doesn't just want company. He misses an old friend, and Howe is determined to bring him back by any means necessary.

Once Wallace goes missing, Ally and Teddy wake up to a frantic message he left them both; he claims Howe has kidnapped him, and wants to turn him into a walrus. Worried, they seek out the police, who are of course sceptical. They then meet a man named Guy Lapointe. He has been hunting a serial killer across Canada, and it turns out this is most likely Howe. They join together hoping to track down and save Wallace.

I think a lot of people have trouble with the way Tusk shifts gears between horror to drama to comedy, and back, and forth. I don't necessarily see the problem. If either of these genres were being inappropriately served up, then I would understand, but to my mind it's all carried out pretty well. The horror works. Some may say the "transformation" is silly. I understand. I mean, the comedy of Long's "transformation" is not lost on Smith - he knows it looks a bit funny. Aside from the initial laugh it might get, I think the "transformation" is pretty disturbing. Especially when you couple Long's appearance with the shrieking and moaning he does after being transformed.

The bits of drama worked into the storyline served things well. I think once you get to the end and look back at the drama Smith infused into the screenplay, they really add to one another. The ending sort of makes you look at how both Ally and Teddy feel about Wallace, deep down, regardless of everything which came before. It's how Smith closes out the emotional angle he'd been playing at with the Wallace/Ally/Teddy story. I thought it was probably the best way for Tusk to end. In a way, it's sentimental, yet still a bit horrifying.

The comedy really works. I'm Canadian, and I thought a lot of the Canada jokes were hilarious. I still think the 'aboot' thing is a bit overworked, but other than that it's really funny. Also, near the opening Long's character goes through the airport, and one of the Canadian guys working there is just so ridiculously funny it makes me tear up - plus, his beard is gnarly as all hell - played by the dude from Epic Meal Time.

I loved the performances - Depp especially had me rolling in laughter - and the script itself is gold. I can't wait for this to get out on Blu ray. Hilarious and horrific little film on Smith's behalf.

I liked Toad Road. It's probably one of those films people are really divided on, but I think for a film that isn't perfect, it still does a pretty good job.

The whole film has a very documentary style feel. For people who've never experienced drugs or the people who have while managing to never really slip into the whole lifestyle, the characters in Toad Road may seem unrealistic, maybe even foolish. Yes, they're definitely a bunch of druggies, fairly ridiculous crowd, but for those like myself, luckily I turned my life around – that's a whole other tale unto itself, who've been into that lifestyle, these characters are all too painfully real.

The acting is fairly good. One of my favourite bits concerning the acting was Jones' voice-over as Sara. It played over various portions of the film. Most effectively, Banker used the voice-over narration to really drive home the points where James is really going insane, straight off the deep end, near the film's finale. She narrates his spiral downward, as he essentially is recalling her tell him about what happens as you pass through each gate on the way to Hell. Some really chilling moments, which I enjoyed a lot. Spooky stuff.

Though there are some good moments, and certainly scenes which add to characters of both James and Sara, the pacing starts to really drag in several spots.

The finale of the film is a bit hindered by the fact there's no real huge climax. It almost feels as if there should've been more additional scenes involving the aftershock of Sara's disappearance – it seems like the police went really soft on James. Although we see a few scenes where James is being interrogated, I feel like those were the scenes which ultimately lacked sincerity. We get a lot of reality, documentary style moments in the early half of Toad Road, but once it starts to shift into a more mystery/thriller genre for the last half, it lacks the composition of a real drama. The switch from the reality-based portion of the beginning to a forced dramatic and thrilling angle didn't work. I didn't particularly think the cop interrogating James was really great either. Not terrible, just not great. It didn't feel as if those bits matched up to the rest of the film. Even the closing moments of the finale, those worked very well with the atmosphere and tone built up by the first half of the film. I just think they would've benefited by either giving the cops more screen time and making it feel as reality driven as the earlier scenes, or just cut out those parts. The last quarter of the film comes off a bit sloppy.

Though there are some flaws here, I think Toad Road is a pretty decent horror outing. Certainly for an independent horror film. There's a lot of visual flair here, and you can tell Banker has an eye for beauty in horror. That being said, I did have a problem with some pacing issues here, and if they could be ironed out I think this would be an even better film. I still loved it. While there were small bits I felt held it back, overall Toad Road is good, and definitely a lot better than the hordes of low budget horror out there tackling the same zombies and vampires and masked killers as the hundreds which came before them. Even if you're divided after watching, it's hard not to admit the film has a certain charm to it, and a creepy, haunting quality.

Canadian director Atom Egoyan is no stranger to telling stories in unique ways, often fragmenting plots into non-linear narrative. His style comes through no different, although never so full of twists and turns, in his latest film The Captive – a dark thriller starring Canadian actor Ryan Reynold, featuring other homegrown talents such as Scott Speedman and The Strain's Kevin Durand, Egoyan's film treads through uncomfortable and treacherous territory to tell the story of a little girl named Cassandra who is kidnapped from a roadside diner right under her father's nose.

After eight years traces of the girl surface online in cryptic bits and pieces. By this time, her parents have all but gone crazy, divorced, and the father (played by Reynolds) takes things into his own hands while the police seem focused on treating him as a suspect. However, from the beginning of the film Egoyan clearly gives up the kidnapper's identity, and for good reason.

Egoyan likes to play with the depiction of past and present in many of his films. In The Captive, he takes the story from one point to another, leaping from the day of the kidnapping to eight years later, all without ever directly communicating a time shift. The film plays with its audience, putting us directly in the shoes of those whose lives have been shaken by the kidnapping of Cassandra; for the people who loved her, each day is the day she was taken, each day it gets tougher to move on because they live in the past.

This is a film concerned with real life exploitation of children as much as it with examining how innovative technology allows predators into peoples homes. Still, there are times the plot requires a little suspension of disbelief. For instance, in one scene an elaborate "trail" is created to lead the father out onto a deserted road for a surprise meeting. If Egoyan had chosen a different route to reach the same point it may have played out well. Instead it may lead certain people to deem it unbelievable. However, this scene almost plays out in a surreal way. Many of Egoyan's films take on fairy tale-like qualities; this moment being one of those.

I can't say The Captive is my favourite entry into this great Canadian director's filmography, preferring his work in Exotica or the devastatingly emotional The Sweet Hereafter. That being said, I think this is a great watch. Reynolds especially puts in a wonderful performance; the "tortured dad in search of his daughter" is a character often used in film yet he feels fresh here, balancing calmness and chaos. The mood's dark tones are set in contrast to the bleak, snowy landscape. Literary and musical allusions crop up everywhere. Egoyan is more interested by atmosphere and character than his with plot; he is an auteur, there is a style found in his films that is all his own. Here, beautiful Canadian settings combined with a haunting musical score help the story come to life while the characters carry most of this film. Not perfect, but worth the price of admission, and an affirmation Canadian filmmakers can make big, exciting films without crossing the border or catering to the latest box office trends.

The Drop is Michaël R. Roskam's first American film, coming on the heels of his Oscar nominated Belgian crime thriller Bullhead. This film is a slow burn thriller. It moves quietly from one moment to the next to the pace of a brooding score by Marco Beltrami. Roskam sets up several plot points across an interesting set of characters in Brooklyn, New York, which eventually all lead back into one another.

The film stars Tom Hardy as Bob, a bartender who works for his cousin Marv (Gandolfini in his final screen performance). The bar, aptly titled Cousin Marv's, runs under supervision of the mob, and at times is the drop point for all of Brooklyn's dirty money; a time they never know until just before the titular drop. The Drop's story commences once the bar is robbed by masked assailants. Both Bob and Marv now find themselves worrying about where they'll come up with the mob's stolen money, or if they can track down the thieves. However, not all is as it seems.

Roskam has a unique ability where he navigates an assortment of characters, often with their own little stories aside from the plot's focus, and ties everything back together seamlessly. The film could simply be about mobsters and robbers. Instead it transcends the typical generic plot of such movies. For instance, Bob becomes involved with a woman after finding a badly injured pitbull puppy in her trash, which at first seems unrelated to the film's main focus, but later serves as a way of tying together multiple story lines. It doesn't hurt that this film is also based on the novel Animal Rescue by writer Dennis Lehane, author of such other novels-turned-films as Mystic River, Gone, Baby, Gone, and Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island. Often, as it does in this movie, it helps when the script adaptation of a novel is also penned by the author of said novel. With Lehane's tight storytelling and the way in which Roskam presents and navigates the material, the film is incredibly tense. On top of all that the acting, specifically from James Gandolfini, Tom Hardy, and Matthias Schoenaerts who each gives a wonderfully subtle performance, makes everything work so well.

Though a little less dark than Lehane's other stories, The Drop is more character study than anything else. Hardy's character is a mumbling bartender who turns out to be more than meets the eye. Gandolfini gives a powerful performance to counterbalance his most well- known character Tony Soprano; here he is a broken man, once respected and now looked at as a joke. Schoenaerts, who previously starred in Roskam's Bullhead, in particular becomes his character, a lowlife thug who is mostly talk, and sucks you into believing he is tough as he acts until the final few scenes.

I highly recommend The Drop. Regardless if you enjoyed any of the other films adapted from Lehane's work, this one stands on its own. There are equal amounts of drama and crime thriller mixed together here, enough to please anybody particular to either genre over the other. What makes this worth seeing is the acting and writing, and how Roskam, a European director, weaves the two together in a fascinating way not often presented in American crime thrillers.

Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler is a bit of an unusual film. First off, Gilroy has never directed a feature film, or anything else to my knowledge. His start came with screen writing. The only particularly worthy bit of writing Gilroy has the credit for would be an interesting 2006 film called The Fall. Other than that his screenplays have mostly been for box office fodder like Real Steel or more recently The Bourne Legacy. Yet out of nowhere Gilroy both writes and directs a small film called Nightcrawler with not only Jake Gyllenhaal but also veterans such as Rene Russo and Bill Paxton. I say small because this film only had a budget of $8-million. Believe it or not that is actually small compared to most movies you see at the theatre. Compared with the $125-million budget of Gilroy's previous screen writing venture The Bourne Legacy an $8-million film is an indie. However, what Nightcrawler lacks in budget it makes up for in heart and storytelling.

Gyllenhaal is a tour-de-force in Nightcrawler. His character, Lou Bloom, is a wayward young man. The first time we see Lou it is in the early dark of night. He has a trunk full of stripper copper wire, and is in the process of cutting out a section of chain link fence. After decking a security guard, and stealing his watch, Lou visits a construction site where he proceeds to auction off the fence and wire. Right away the message is clear: Lou is a scavenger. Through mere coincidence he ends up witnessing a brutal car crash. As two police officers try rescuing the injured driver, Lou watches a guerilla television crew trying to get exclusive, gruesome footage of the accident. Lou asks a member of the crew (Paxton) if he could get a job, but is shooed away. On the morning news Lou sees the same footage he witnessed being taped the night before. This chance encounter leads to a new obsession Lou sets his sights on.

Essentially the film is a look at our modern society. Gyllenhaal plays a seriously motivated and possibly very unstable young go-getter who only wants to find something at which he can be successful. I believe Gilroy is attempting to present a look at not only how the media is a cutthroat and vicious business, but how we as modern viewers are also demanding more and more of this extreme footage. No longer are news channels simply a NASDAQ scroll on the bottom of the screen while reporters talk about elections and local events. Today the news is almost like a horror film reel at times from images of war to school shootings. Lou Bloom represents the younger generations today, and how we widely hold the view that anything can be a career. Even in this case, where Lou risks his own safety and the safety of those around him to get even 60-seconds of footage to auction off for television networks. In a day and age where the grotesqueness of reality television dominates ratings it isn't hard to imagine there are already plenty of Lou Blooms already out there exploiting car crashes and victims of gun violence for money.

Most reviews of Nightcrawler have been positive and I can't disagree: it is a cracking good film. Technology aside, it reminds me of a movie we could very well have seen in the 1960s. Gyllenhaal himself is worth the price of admission. He physically embodies the character of Lou; the way he walks and talks all frame him as a ghoul, out in the night to find dead bodies and other nasty business. It's really remarkable to see the young kid from Donnie Darko continually choose challenging, unique roles. Another thing I particularly liked about this film is the lack of a forced love story. Gilroy utilizes Rene Russo, playing a television a television network executive, here as a strong female character who is both complicated and flawed. He does not write her as a typical love interest so common in a lot of other mainstream films. Although there are a few sexually charged moments between Gyllenhaal and Russo, the film never falls prey to pushing anything in our faces, and stops very short; the plot never gets bogged down with unnecessary love scenes of any kind.

I can't help giving this a full ten star recommendation. Though I often try to avoid nitpicking a film to death because it ruins the fun, I'm definitely capable of admitting when a movie is not the greatest. Even if it's one I personally enjoy. But there is nothing about Nightcrawler I can pick apart. It's a refreshing film with a tight script, beautiful camera-work, and a genuinely starmaker performance from Jake Gyllenhaal. Get out and see this. Now.

Horror can often look like a tired genre. The heyday of 1970s psychological horror and 1980s slashers passed quickly while birthing some extremely talented artists. This period gave way to a fairly unoriginal decade throughout the 90s. However, since the year 2000 there have been some new horror directors stepping out of the shadows to reclaim the genre. One in particular is French director Alexandre Aja. He got his first big break with his French horror Haute Tension (English title: High Tension, which brought him to the attention of American horror master Wes Craven. Aja was given the privilege of remaking Craven's own The Hills Have Eyes; one the only worth horror remakes in recent memory. Horns, based on the best-selling novel by author Joe Hill whose famous father happens to be Stephen King, is Aja's newest film, and for the most part it is a very fun, very wild ride.

Horns is about a man named Ig Perrish (Radcliffe) who recently lost his girlfriend Merrin (Temple). She was brutally murdered, and everyone thinks Ig did the deed. After some time Ig caves and sleeps with an old friend of his while drinking heavily. The next morning, to his horror, Ig discovers two horns have started to sprout out of his temples, and all of a sudden people start telling him things he never asked to hear. From one person to the next, Ig hears everyone's dark, dirty secrets. At first it seems more of a burden, but soon he decides to use his newly discovered persuasiveness to root out his girlfriend's murderer and prove his innocence.

The story itself is wonderfully weird. Myself, I'm a fan of Stephen King, and knowing now Hill shares his father's predilection for the macabre I will most certainly be picking up a copy of Horns to read. There's just enough horror to keep it scary, but this story really works because of its humour. Ig hears his share of disturbing tales and sadness due to the horns. It's the comedy that comes out of a few conversations (one of the best includes Ig's doctor who does a lot of things except provide help) which really got to me. I'm not a huge horror- comedy fan, though I love horror on its own, but this script worked well enough with both elements. Though Hill did not write the screenplay, it's easy to see he and his father are drawn to similar stories; the flashbacks to Ig's childhood are reminiscent of some scenes from King's novel It, both in setting and tone. For fans of horror you certainly get some great bits, particularly near the end, and for everyone else there is plenty to dig into and enjoy.

My personal favourite part of Horns is Daniel Radcliffe. Truthfully, I've liked Radcliffe since the Harry Potter films, which I also loved, and I think he's turning into a fine actor. For one, the guy does a near flawless American accent. A lot of British actors play Americans on film, but Radcliffe is one of the few who can slip into the accent and never waver. Juno Temple does a fine job as well. This film, though, is all Radcliffe. His performance is incredible. Always determined to shed the image he will forever be young Potter the boy wizard, here he hurls curse words, strips down to nothing, and conveys every shade of emotion on the spectrum. Not just that. He's natural. Nothing about his performance feels forced. I was always a fan, but after Horns I can definitively say I think Radcliffe is one of the best young actors out there. In the final act of the film he acts circles around everyone else on screen.

I would highly recommend this film to anybody. If you're a horror fan, Aja provides a few creepy little bits to really satisfy true genre lovers. The end specifically gets a little messy at one point. Literally. For those who aren't so inclined, Hill's story is actually a beautiful romance disguised as a horror-comedy. If you let it Horns will grab hold of you. My only complaint about the film is its use of CGI. Though there are a few really graphic bits where Aja sticks to practical effects, a lot of the film's finale was very plastic looking. I don't think there was any other way to really do it, but that doesn't change the fact it doesn't look all that good. Unfortunately these few effects near the end really take away from some of the film's emotional weight. I found myself not caring as much about what happened in the last five minutes as I did about just making it to the end credits. That being said, it did not ruin the film. Not one bit. I still love it, and I think it's another great step in Alexandre Aja's career as an interesting and important director of modern horror.

The found footage sub-genre of horror is an underrated form for several reasons. First, due to the amount and rate of such films coming out, and second being their quality. As Above, So Below works off interesting concepts, drawing from a little history, mostly historical fiction, to raise it above most of the found footage out there.

Not only is the look of the film executed well, most if not all shots done hand-held style, but the subject matter is what really makes it a worthwhile horror. As Above, So Below is about a young doctor trying to carry on the work of her father, who took his own life after wasting it searching for the supposed Philosopher's Stone. The journey leads her, along with a man documenting her search and others, beneath the streets in the Catacombs of Paris.

Of course everyone knows a film like this only ends one way. To an extent with this one it holds true; there is a body count, there are jump scares, even a creepy kid. However, it's how the filmmakers choose to get where they're going which is interesting. The ending is not one a lot of people see coming. I can almost guarantee a few people in the theatre left after the credits rolled wondering why they just invested an hour and a half of their time into a film like this solely because of the final few moments.

Yet again though I say it's worth it because the visuals, in my opinion, were incredible. One of the elements of this story is alchemy, the title of the movie coming directly from a philosophical theory adopted by occultists and magicians, and the filmmakers use every chance they get to try and deepen some of the horror. The movie doesn't reinvent the wheel, it just spins a little better than most. There are some truly horrifying moments without being particularly gory, or relying on cheap scare tactics; though expect one or two. At times the claustrophobia will grab you by the throat and refuse to let go. Other times the tension of a psychological breakdown among a group of people burrowing further and further underground hoping to find a way out will make you squirm in your seat.

In the minority judging by other reviews so far, I found As Above, So Below to be crafted well as a found footage film and also to be a genuinely creepy horror. For a horror movie to surpass a lot of the generic fodder being fed into theatres there has to be something unique; this one has got that special something. The filmmakers could have had these people camping in the woods, subtracted the strong female lead, killed more people, plus add a whole lot more screaming and unwatchable camera-work, but instead they chose to explore some interesting and intelligent characters in a way that will both scare you and surprise you.

David Ayer's new thriller Fury is by far one of the most brutal and honest films set during the Second World War ever made. Not only does it present the agony of war, it also works as a great character piece. Brad Pitt leads the cast as Don 'Wardaddy' Collier, a sergeant who rides aboard the titular tank, Fury. Alongside him are his three most trusted men. However, after one of those men dies the crew is saddled with a fresh young army recruit (Lerman) hauled from desk duty to fight in the second Battalion. The five men continue through Germany together, killing every Nazi they find, and try to hold onto their humanity in the face of war and death.

The film looks beautiful and everything feels very real (this also marks the first time an actual Tiger tank has been used on a movie set). Ayer shot with film instead of digitally, which gives Fury a very bleak, grim feeling as the tanks and the troops behind them trek through miles of mud. The way it's filmed gives an almost nostalgic feel reminiscent of other great war pictures. No doubt there will be more than a few comparisons to the blockbuster Steven Spielberg film, Saving Private Ryan. Regardless of its predecessors, however, this film holds its own as one of the best World War II films out there.

Fury is not delegated solely to bombs, bullets, and the horrific images of war. Ayer wonderfully crafts the film from its opening with a blurry shot of a figure on horseback. It moves slowly through an area where a fight has recently occurred. Bodies lay everywhere. Ashes and fire are all around. The figure, a German, comes into view riding a pale white horse: one of the Four Horsemen, symbolizing death. Wardaddy ambushes the man, killing him, and sends the horse on its way. For a moment he has driven death out. Later, we see the white horse again galloping away once more. When the film nears a close you begin to understand Ayer's use of symbolism.

Fury is mainly about what war does to those who engage in and are surrounded by it. It is a film about men trying to hold onto their humanity under the most gruelling conditions. One of the central struggles of the characters is their justification of death as preventing worse deaths for others. How does a man keep on being human even after holding a gun to another man's head and pulling the trigger? And what if a man is forced to do that is worse? Ayer explores these dilemmas throughout the film with help of some stellar acting on all parts.

Pitt earns his keep as a continually interesting actor. His portrayal of Wardaddy is fairly subtle and restrained. He looks and acts the part of a haunted war veteran. In solitary moments where the camera sticks on him Pitt conveys a side of war not often seen, as he fights with the emotion inside him trying to escape. The supporting cast is just as top notch. Shia LaBeouf proves capable of playing a quiet character instead of the usual loud cockiness he displays. Joe Bernthal, best known from AMC's The Walking Dead and Michael Peňa who starred in Ayer's earlier film End of Watch, are both in fine form playing men who have seen and done too much to simply return to normal after the war is over. However, it is Logan Lerman that really shines. Playing the rookie soldier on the tank crew alongside Pitt, he displays great acting talent, and conveys the terror of many young men drafted and thrust into battle during World War II without ever having so much as fired a gun. Overall the main cast works together to depict the weary strain of war on those who've fought.

I cannot recommend Fury enough. The cinematography is something to behold and really captures the grit of World War II's muddy trenches. There are fairly divided opinions on both Shia LaBeouf and Brad Pitt, and depending on which side you fall it could skew how the movie plays, but I believe they each put in a fantastic performance here. This is a tightly scripted film driven by the emotional force of the actors.

There are countless war movies out there. What sets one apart from the pack is its honesty. Ayer pulls no punches about the realities of war from the script to the action sequences. Many war veterans often say that the real heroes never came home, and Fury is a cinematic testament to this statement.

Hera, as a young girl on her family's farm, witnesses her older brother Baldur die in a freak accident while riding a tractor. Later, as a teenager, Hera gets into the heavy metal lifestyle and music Baldur enjoyed. She lives in a tiny community where her newfound choices don't exactly go over well. Her father and mother struggle with the motions she goes through. They attend church, while she only rebels against it. Hera not only picks up heavy metal, both listening to it and playing it, she also takes to more violent, destructive behaviour; this all culminates in a very serious act of vandalism and arson. She is at odds with the people and place where she lives. Everything feels too ordinary and small for Hera, and so her rebellion grows large.

The whole film is essentially about Hera's struggle, however, we also get an eye of what her parents go through in their own struggle to deal with death. Aside from the family there is also the great character of Janus, a new priest in the town. He is secretly a very cool guy underneath the black clothes and the collar; in a very suggestive scene, or at least it is at the start, Janus takes off his shirt to reveal to Hera a tattoo. He then proceeds to tell her he loves Iron Maiden, Venom, Celtic Frost, among others. His taste in music transcends the priestly garb, and he even gives a line similar to "don't judge a book by its cover", or maybe it was exactly that – I can't remember now. I really like that the film included Janus as a character because this shows the multiple lives a person can live; they are not defined by their occupation, nor are they defined by the music they listen to. However, Janus gives off signals Hera misinterprets. Their relationship isn't what she thought, and it sets her off further against God; this being one of the threads running through Metalhead.

I think any drama truly thrives on its performances. Above story, above mood or setting or plot, the actors and actresses of a film, or any performance truly whether it's on screen or onstage, really carry things; if they do a bad job, the film can fall flat. On the other hand, if they do even a mediocre job a film that might not have been any good without them becomes really worthwhile. In Metalhead, the performances give even more punch to a great story.

Thora Bjorg Helga, as Hera, really does a spectacular job portraying a young woman trying to find herself while also mourning the loss of someone whom she loved very much. Hera clings to music as a means of identifying herself. She also immerses herself into music because it helps her still keep Baldur with her in spirit. There are beautiful scenes where we get to watch Hera go through intense emotion while she puts the dark soul in her inside the music she plays.

There are some other solid performances in Metalhead to round the film out. Such as Sveinn Olafur Gunnarsson as Janus, the heavy metal rocker priest, and also Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson who portrays Hera's equally trouble father Karl.

The finale of the film is absolutely beautiful. There is a final moment of catharsis in the moments before credits roll on Metalhead which almost made me cry. I couldn't believe it. The whole time you watch the film there are moments where you actually hope for a good end to everything. Most times, even while watching a terrifying film like a horror or maybe a thriller, I find myself looking for a grim ending because honestly, in my opinion, those are more interesting film-wise. Happy endings don't usually jive with me because they are too heavy handed, too smug. On the contrary, I think the moments closing out this film are absolutely perfect, not only for the plot, but also tonally. It just, simply put, works – damn well. The tragic and heavy tone throughout much of Metalhead, including what I feel are some excellent moments of dark comedy, all play well with the end. Some endings can take the tone and throw it out, however, this one hits its mark, and strikes a fair balance where everything comes out slick.

I have to give the movie a 9 out of 10 star rating. I have one small problem with Metalhead. I felt they could have used a little more time on female relationships. They explored the mother slightly because there were some fascinating shots and bits of scenes where we really got to see her almost in the same light as Hera. But I don't think they really got enough of it in there. With the inclusion of Janus and Hera's father Karl, it felt as if there was a lack of more female presence in movie. It isn't necessarily something that detracts from how beautiful or successful in its goal Metalhead is in the end. Personally, I feel it's just something that would've made this a little stronger overall.

There are some big, great aspirations here concerning faith, music, forgiveness, and other themes. I think Metalhead delivers on most levels. It is worth the money and time to see something not typical of most dramas: a middle-ground view of ideas about death, love, heavy metal, and religion.

What's not to love? Steven Soderbergh at the helm, who I've been a fan of for years, with music by Cliff Martinez, of whom I'm also a fan, and a great cast of actors lead by the fabulous Clive Owen. The story is set in the early days of the 20th century at the Knickerbocker Hospital in New York where we see the doctors struggle with the needs of modern medicine, and their failure to be able to meet them fully. We start off immediately with surgery on a pregnant woman, which does not go well at all, followed by the suicide of a well-known surgeon. From here we watch Owen's character delve deeper into the problems facing the doctors at the Knick. Not to mention in the opening minutes we also watch him take a cab, remove a sock, and shoot up some drugs before the first surgery; later, we discover he's become highly addicted to cocaine. Set to an amazing electronic-sounding score by Martinez, the stage has been set for an interesting, intricate, and flawed look at American doctors in the beginning of the 1900s.

Of course I've only seen the pilot, the rest of the series could go anywhere from here. However, it's safe to say with all involved it could definitely turn into one of the better one- hour dramas currently airing on television. Personally, the subject interests me, so it may be why I'm taking so quickly to it, but I think it's good enough to stand on its own without viewers needing a prior interest.

The acting is pretty wonderful. Along with the period costumes and sets, it really makes things incredible to watch. I felt as if I were in New York, a hundred or more years ago, watching these people go through the terrible motions of history. Clive Owen, though in many movies and certainly not considered a bad actor by any means, does not get all the credit he deserves. The Knick may change that. His portrayal of Dr. John Thackery is something to see. Even in the first few moments of the pilot as we watch Thackery stumble out of a building, most likely an opium den from the images we see right away, you can see Owen falling into the character, bringing him to life. The rest of the cast fills out the show perfectly, and with a few surprises to me as far as acting talent goes, specifically Michael Angarano.

There are great moments touching on subjects from medicine to the racism prevalent at the time, making the pilot something very intriguing. We even get a glimpse of three-phase power being introduced into the United States. This series is something special. There's one great scene when Thackery is greeted by a man named Dr. Algernon Edwards, who happens to be a black man; not only do we get a look at the racial tension in New York during that day and age, we also see Thackery, a surgeon, making instruments, and improvements on them, himself. It's incredible to imagine how much harder a doctor's job had to be back then. Nowadays it's tough enough for doctors, but to see a glimpse of their early days in the 1900s struggling to try and lower the death count racked up by inferior medical technologies is absolutely stunning. I can't wait to watch the rest of the season. I have to give it 10 out of 10 so far. Maybe this will change as the episodes go by. For now? I highly recommend everybody checks this out.

I hope Soderbergh keeps making films and also this series because he is truly a talent not to be passed up. Some aren't a fan, but I find all his work very engaging, whether you love it or hate it.

2nd episode was still just as wonderful. And for those who incessantly nitpick- Thackery is an opium addict who uses cocaine also to help curb the symptoms of his addiction. No goofs there, they aren't claiming his symptoms are because of cocaine- he uses it to get himself back on the level. Great characterization of a man who is both a doctor and a junkie in a very turbulent, deadly time for his profession.

There are several reasons why I really enjoyed Shan Khan's Honour. First, I really enjoy Paddy Considine. He is a fine actor, as well as director, but here it's really put to the test. He plays a highly unlikable man for most of the feel, though we do see him become someone else through the process. Second, the script is really fantastic; it's edgy, raw, there is grit to the themes within. Essentially, the story is about a young British Muslim girl who is targeted for honour killing after her brothers discover she plans to run off with a young Punjabi man. After their attempts to reel her in slowly come to a drastic and failed end, the family, along with the mother, hire a bounty hunter in London to track her down, and it just so happens he is a racist; though for a racist, he certainly knows the culture, even their language, well.

In a day and age where there is a lot of conflict over extremists and fundamentalists in various religions around the world, I can imagine it was tough to make a film about Muslims and honour killing. The film is a tough one. At times it is brutal, violent, messy. Other times it comes across as a great crime thriller. The script is tense. The story is told on film in a non-linear fashion, giving us a look at what led to the family's decision to kill the daughter. I think Khan did a great job with the script, and it translated well to screen.

The acting came top notch here. I was very impressed with Aiysha Hart who played Mona, the young girl on the run from her own family, as well as Faraz Ayub and Shubham Saraf who played her brothers. Considine was absolutely incredible though, and it's his performance which truly shines above all else. The look and feel of the film was gritty, something I always enjoy. How everything looked, dark and sort of grim, really fit the subject matter and the tone of the film.

All in all I have to give the film a 9 out of 10. Everything worked together to create a really wonderful film.

I think the message here is presented through Considine's character. In the beginning, he is truly racist; he hates Muslims, any person of colour. Even though he deals with Muslims, he seems to have a disdain for them. He has white supremacist ink on his body, including an Aryan tattoo, which he later tries to singe off. By the end, after he has come to see the inner workings of the extremist Muslim circles and he sees his own behaviour mirrored in their fundamentalist, violent beliefs. Through others and their hatred, the character understands his own, or better yet he comes to reject it, understanding it is only hate, it is nothing but thoughts and misconceptions and foolish notions.

This is a must-see film. I highly recommend it. I don't give it a full 10 stars, only because I felt there was something missing. Perhaps a little more of the past behind Considine's character, though we get bits and pieces, would have made it a perfect film. Though it's still an incredible movie. It inspires hope, that people who hate can turn around, somehow, some way.

Given that the horror genre is flooded with movies, and has been since the days of the first horror films, about haunted houses, there are plenty of awful films out there. At the Devil's Door is not one of them. Though it touches on much of the familiar ground we're used to, this film is something more, something better. It all centers around a house, of course, being sold by a real estate agent. Right away we know there's something not quite right; the people who own just want to be rid of it, no matter what. Throw in some family relationship between the real estate agent and her sister, one of which doesn't want to have children while the other can't have any and wishes one of them could. Plus the runaway girl, who we gradually learn has had to deal with the house and all its darkness before.

I really enjoyed Nicholas McCarthy's film The Pact when I first saw it. I've watched it several times. McCarthy is really good with tension. His writing is pretty good. Though both At the Devil's Door and The Pact seem similar to many other films in the horror genre, it's the way they're handled, how they're filmed, the look they have about them that puts them above the rest.

Though there are no big name actors in this film, it doesn't matter. Although many will recognize a cast member of Glee here. The actors all portray their characters fairly well. The actress who plays Leigh, Cataline Sandino Moreno, I remember her from The Bridge in Season 1, and she does a pretty decent job with the character. Naya Rivera was also good. I've personally never seen Glee, I can't speak to her acting talents other than in this film, and I think she played her character convincingly. The rest of the cast filled the movie out fine, in my opinion.

I would highly suggest anybody who enjoyed McCarthy's previous work in The Pact check this one out. I gave this an 8 out of 10 because even while treading really familiar ground (i.e haunted house, the devil, et cetera), it brings something new to the horror genre instead of the same old story. Many might disagree and say it's completely the same, but it's how things are presented here. There is no apocalyptic feel to the devil here- he is an evil, malevolent entity preying on those who enter the house. The devil in this film isn't looking to overthrow the world, he simply wants some souls to own, to play with, to with as he chooses. It's a more personal touch to the typical satanic-type horror film, in my mind, as we watch the devil prey on two sisters who inadvertently come into contact with the house's evil.

There are some really creepy scenes in this one, from glimpses of the devil in the darkness, lurking behind people, to tense moments where we don't know exactly what is happening or is going to happen. Check this one out instead of Devil's Due and those sorts- this film is much better.

I enjoyed some of Antisocial Behaviour, but unfortunately it couldn't get past the flaws holding it back.

The story- I found it a unique spin on something we've seen many times before. The effects during some of the "vomiting" sequences were enjoyable. I don't think they were particularly amazing, though they aren't bad either, and it helps lend something to the movie instead of taking away, as bad effects can often do. The cinematography was all right. I can't call it perfect, but for a smaller film it was better than a lot of what's out there.

What really did the movie in for me was the acting. The actors were not the worst I've seen. Some of the scenes just felt way too hammy. The script could have played out a lot better with some more experienced actors, but for what I assume to be an independent picture it came across better than some. The lead actor tried his best, and there were times when he did a decent job, it's just hard to really get into certain stories when they're highly based around one single performance and the person performing can't quite hit all the notes. I don't like rag on actors too hard, sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in their case, but unfortunately you can't ignore certain things while watching a film. Horror films suffer from terrible acting, there are plenty of films out there to prove that, so their success can often rely on the acting above all.

Antisocial Behaviour tried hard to be a nice little horror film. I give it a 6 out of 10. It wasn't horrible, nor was it one I'll probably watch again. I enjoyed some effects, and the story itself was interesting. It definitely isn't the same old tripe, but does not come across to be anything new or unique either. Perhaps if it had a bigger budget with some more experienced actors, et cetera, it may have turned out a more intriguing entry into the horror genre. Not overly recommended- though if you get the chance, check it out.

I was bullied at a young age, and like one of the young boys in this film I fought back- after that nobody ever picked on me again. However, it doesn't always work like that. Not when the kids being bullied are often significantly smaller or weaker than those who bully them. It's like the discussion of rape that often goes on in society- we shouldn't be focusing on what the victims can do to prevent it, we should be focusing on how to change the attitudes of those who victimize others.

Bully is a pretty great documentary. It's harrowing at times. Not only did I feel for the kids in this film because I myself went through much of the same and worse, it was just genuinely awful to see kids being so mean and hateful to one another. It's shocking to see how such nice kids like Alex, though strange in his own ways like many of us are, can be treated so callously and cruelly by other kids his age. Watching Alex on the bus really got to me and broke my heart.

Though the most emotional moments come from the family of a very young boy who killed himself due to being bullied. It wrenches the heart to watch them try and come to terms with what happened. Then seeing school officials, police officers, who just do not get what is happening juxtaposed with the family left behind in the tragic wake of their young boy's suicide, it's absolutely appalling. My heart goes out to them and anyone else who have lost a child because of bullying.

You can't paint all teachers, principals (et cetera) with the same brush, but the fact is many of them don't understand, or they refuse to give in to the idea that there are some really terrible young kids in schools who are the worst kind of bullies. Often, yes, the bullies are picking up bad habits from their own parents, but like the mother of the young boy who killed himself said- it doesn't matter who their parents are, how those parents raise the child, every child should be protected at school regardless. You can't just blame it on the parents, the schools need to be taken to task as well. One terribly frustrating moment has a boy named Cole, I believe, being questioned by his principal, who seems to think because the boy won't shake hands with his bully then he is the same as the kid victimizing him. It's shocking to see how misunderstood bullying is by some of the people supposedly put in place to protect the children and shepherd them safely through the system. They can pass the buck as much as they want, but there are many teachers, principals, school workers in any capacity, who protect the children in their schools, and everyone should be doing the same if they work in the education system.

I give this a 9 out of 10 only because I feel, like some reviewers, the filmmakers could have included some more hidden camera footage to strengthen the emotional reactions, although there was certainly enough to trigger outrage and disgust. There are many more heinous acts of bullying going on that are not shown/represented in this documentary; many things you wouldn't believe kids could do to one another. I know a documentary like this is not meant to shock, but I do believe there needs to be full, open truth, and though the filmmakers did a great job at bringing the issue of bullying to light, they could really have went even harder at people by including more explicit footage. This is not a bad thing though, all the same. There were many awful things to see and hear in Bully.

Highly recommended. The crackdown on bullying in schools, anywhere, everywhere, needs to continue, and we can't allow more young people to get into a place where they feel there are no options left available to them except death. For any 11-year old child to think of suicide is terrifying, heart breaking, and very, very disparaging for future youth.

I'd been waiting to get a glimpse of Coldwater for some time; this afternoon, I finally got my chance. There were a lot of things I enjoyed about this film. We see the tale of a young man named Brad who, after some unfortunate incidents in his life (he is certainly at fault- there are no real attempts to gloss over his character in the beginning), is sent away to one of those youth rehabilitation camps, or better yet boot camps, like the ones you used to see on Maury back in the day. Once there, he realizes not only does he have to deal with what he's done in his life, but he also has to try and contend with the ex-colonel who runs the camp and the string of young psychotics he's given some authority to so they can help run the place. It's brutal at times, harsh. It speaks to what is going on today. People act like, oh poor privileged kids are sent to a camp where they're yelled at, big deal- just because it's not a war torn country these kids are in, just because they're not poor and starving, it does not make their plight any less real. These things are truly going on in life. No young person, regardless of their tendencies towards criminal behaviour, should be stabbed with keys, or beaten, or whipped, tortured in any fashion. This film speaks to many things going on around the world in the name of helping others, especially wayward youths.

Mainly the acting really does it for me. The young man who plays Brad is wonderful, and I thought he did a great job throughout the entire film. Many of the young guys who had a significant amount of screen time really were spot on. James C. Burns did an amazing job of bringing to a life a real menace. Not only was the colonel character awful, he seemed to enjoy being awful, and it can't be easy for an actor to get into that sort of thing. Though the colonel is a bad man, it's interesting to see the character go through his own inner turmoil; one particular scene has him drinking Jack Daniels, puffing a cigar, chasing some of the young men he's charged with rehabilitating while they jog in front of him, and laughing himself to death. It's really raw, disturbing stuff.

The end of the film is what essentially put this from 7 to an 8 stars out of 10 for me. I imagined it would come to a very different close, but about 10-15 minutes left I realized it was going somewhere a little further. It was intense, and really got to me. The end comes as bittersweet- Brad comes to terms with what he has done in the past by doing something that needed to be done in the present. I really don't want to ruin it, so I'll say no more.

Great performances, pretty nice story, and the cinematography was well done. Highly recommend giving it a watch, especially if you enjoy prison-type stories; though this is more youth offenders, still along the same sort of fare.

I've seen a lot of films, not to say I'm an expert, but there has been a fair share of both gold and trash. Often, because I usually end up knowing all the films recommended to me by others, I'll look around online to find unknown, or lesser known, movies I haven't yet got around to screening. On several lists concerning the found footage genre I saw The Hunt; many people said it was worth checking out, that it was a hidden gem in the genre. How wrong some people are.

First of all, the acting was really rough at a lot of points. Not always, but often enough for me to be totally taken out of any emotions I'd been feeling for the characters. There's one really hair-raising scene of acting when one of the actors has his shirt off, sitting back, drinking some booze, and ranting to himself on camera. It's not just bad acting, it's also a bad scene; badly written and executed. The plot itself is not bad, and could have worked, but everything works against it. The way it's filmed is nothing special, even as found footage goes, and the fact that most of it is badly acted really just takes away from the overall finished film.

I give this a 2 out of 10 because the story wasn't bad, it just didn't have the best writing behind it. I liked where it all went; I wasn't expecting how it all ended up. I'd anticipated a simple movie about hunting in the woods, maybe some weirdos hiding out and killing people- what I got was a little different than that. Not to say it was innovative. I just felt there were at least some redeeming qualities, even if they were very few and far between. Skip this one and find something better if you're looking to quench the found footage thirst.

I'm a fan of many of the actors here, especially Mark Strong and Taissa Farmiga, as well as Brian Cox and Noah Taylor. Unfortunately, a good cast does not a movie make. For a long while I was really enjoying this film- it was tense, mysterious, strange, a little creepy at times. However, in the end it all fell apart with the ending. Another film that left me feeling cheated by how the filmmakers chose to end the story.

Taissa Farmiga plays a young girl named Anna who needs evaluation; she may or may not be a sociopath, possibly she could be victim of abuse or trauma of some sort. She is unusual, gifted, and maybe dangerous. Mark Strong is a memory detective, who can experience the memories of others and help to understand what has happened to them, who becomes involved with the case at the request of his boss. The setup is fine, but the ending completely destroys all the director was attempting to do. Without spoiling it, the ending makes this film become just another copy of a copy, trying hard to be something different yet never quite being able to do so. I was hoping the film would end at a certain point, yet it keeps going for another 10 minutes with a completely unneeded twist.

Worst of it all? The twist completely undoes itself, in a way, at the very close of the film. I'm not a person who needs closure or completely resolution - some of my favourite films are actually completely mind bogglers - but I just don't understand the point of so many twists, and then basically giving off a sort of "happy ending" after all. Very weak. It really discredits everything the story was working towards. In the end, I was completely thrown off.

I give this movie a 4 out of 10. There were some great performances, specifically Farmiga and Strong, even Cox in his small role, but they just can't save this film from a set of terrible ideas executed near the end. I was prepared, until the final ten minutes of the film, to say "this was a really good thriller". Now I'm suggesting you not bother with this unless you catch it on TV or Netflix whenever it becomes available. It wasn't worth my afternoon. There are better ways to take in great performances by all involved than to bother with this.

As someone who suffers from fairly major depression and anxiety, I'm always pleased to see a movie that treats mental illness with the right mind and respect. Some may think filming these people before and while they jump off the Golden Gate Bridge is disrespectful, but I don't- they jumped from the bridge for many reasons, one of them, certainly not the least of which, is to be noticed. This film helps preserve their life.

I found the candid and openly honest answers from the family and friends of those who are the focus of the film refreshing. Most people are closed off, they want to think this doesn't exist, it didn't happen, just forget about it. These families, their friends, they all understood their loved ones' illnesses (as well as they could anyways), and they understood the pain associated with severe depression, schizophrenia (et cetera); it is a monumental pain, something only those who experience it/those around them can truly understand. It affects everyone and everything within arms reach. It is devastating. On the other hand, it's also terribly upsetting to know the families understood yet were helpless to truly do anything for their loved ones; like the torture of the damned. It's amazing everyone who shared their stories were willing to do so.

This is a brave piece of filmmaking. It also serves a purpose. Though the filmmakers, nor anyone else features, make the case, there really needs to be some sort of barrier protecting those who cannot protect themselves from the depths of mental illness and utter despair. To think, so many people jump from the bridge every year, year after year, and yet the government hasn't done anything. I know a lot of Americans I'm sure would complain about tax dollars being wasted on people who are clearly determined to end their own lives, but where does our humanity end? I think by showing these people, before and while they jump, is very effective. It's going to cause people to reevaluate what suicide is, what it means, how desperate people who take their lives must be, and the remarkable amount of determination suicide requires on the part of those who feel it constantly creeping in their minds. I applaud the filmmakers.

It took a long time for me to watch this. I was worried it would hit me very hard, as I've had many bad experiences over the years relating to my own mental illness. I'm happy I finally watched it. I have a friend who committed suicide almost 4 years ago now, and I understand how it is to lose someone- just like I understand how it feels to want to take my own life. This film opened even my eyes to certain things. I hope, someday, the Golden Gate Bridge will be retrofitted with some sort of

In closing, the finale of the film really did a number on me. Having watched Gene Sprague and heard people talk about him throughout the whole film, it was shocking to see his incredibly dramatic leap from over the bridge's railing. My jaw actually dropped. As the camera followed him, I couldn't believe it. I sat wide-eyed through the credits until the film went right to the very end. Incredibly gripping piece of work. An absolute 10 out of 10. We need more documentary filmmaking like this to help expand the minds and opinions of the general public on the uneasy subject of mental illness in general. Highly recommended.

I saw the lower rating on this one, and I've already seen one other project by the same directors which I did not particularly enjoy a whole lot, so I didn't expect much going in. However, I got a big surprise. This was a really good documentary. It isn't very stylish, there's nothing too exciting visually going on, and I'm not a fan of re-enactments or anything like that. What it does have here is a lot of neat information about the true case that influenced William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist. A lot of people go in assuming they're going to almost see a step-by-step of how the story influenced Blatty, but it's not about him, or the movie- it's about the true case behind it all.

I'm non-religious, completely. Yet there is something terribly creepy about the real case here. There is some terrifying stuff here when you sit and listen to it. They go into a lot of the backstory, including St. Vincent's hospital, et cetera, and you get a real sense of the history in all this. Things have been wrong a long time, it seems. I don't really believe in demons, ghosts, none of it- I'm sceptical (yes, I speak and write in true English, as I'm a Canadian), though I want to believe. I just need to see it to believe it. That being said, I didn't go into this documentary hoping to see evidence of ghosts or demons, I went into it wanting to know more about "The Haunted Boy", and where it all started.

I gave this 8 out of 10. There is no style to this, it's not exciting to look at, but there's more to it than the look, it's all about the real story that's being investigated. At a few points we get to hear some of the audio from the exorcism of "The Haunted Boy", performed by Father William Bowdern, who himself suffered greatly after the event as well, and what we are able to hear is horrifying. The screams and the sounds which, presumably, come out of the young boy are blood curdling, and absolutely amazing in a horrifying sense. I'm not saying he was "possessed", but something was clearly not right, and the audio really put this over the top for me.

A nice look at the real case. I could have done without the dramatizations and such, we've already seen William Friedkin's fantastic adaptation of Blatty's novel and countless other exorcism-based film. However, there was enough to really keep me interested, and I feel it's the best of the Booth Brothers I've seen yet, as opposed to the very lackluster Children of the Grave. I can't see how anybody could rate that awful 'documentary' any higher than this one. I recommend anyone interested in the real events behind Blatty's fictional novel check this out because despite what others say, there are some excellent things in here!

I don't think it's always necessary for someone to read a novel before they see the film version, however, with James Franco's As I Lay Dying, an adaptation of William Faulkner's classic novel, I believe it's very necessary for someone to read it. After that, have a look at Franco's film.

The reason I say this is because a lot of people don't really understand, or see the point to, why Franco chose to use a lot of split-screen sequences. First of all, if you'd read As I Lay Dying, you might possibly understand it as how Franco chose to present all the point-of- views within the book. The whole novel is divided into chapters, each one labelled by the name of which character we are hearing the story from- this is why I think Franco wanted to use split-screen a lot. Sometimes in the novel, you almost have to flip back and say to yourself, "Okay this is Darl's chapter, this is Addie's chapter (who in the novel sort of speaks 'beyond death' as well)" and so on. It's not easy to read William Faulkner in general; I'm a fan, and I still struggle to make it through a novel of his I'm reading. He was one of the first great American writers who was interested in stream-of-consciousness writing. I think, personally, Franco did a great job at trying to recreate that stream-of-consciousness feel.

Second, I love the acting here. Some of you may disagree, but I believe each of the main actors in particular brought some great work to the film here. Tim Blake Nelson as Anse is incredible. In the novel, it's known that Anse is not particularly easy to decipher, nor does he always necessarily make any sense either, and he is not a good man, regardless of him agreeing to bring his wife's body back to Jefferson. Nelson brings the downhome Southern quality to Anse, and I loved every second of the portrayal. Franco was also a good here. In the book, it's not always clear if Darl is mentally unstable, or what his deal is, until you read further and further; I think Franco did a nice job at subtly portraying Darl and his personal journey. Logan Marshall-Green did a perfect job with Jewel. There is a raw intensity about Jewel, here and in the novel, so I think his character was one of the best that came through on film. Marshall-Green is fast becoming a favourite of mine. There are more nice performances here, smaller ones, and they hit some great notes. I really enjoyed how most of the characters translated into film. It may not be the perfect adaptation, but it was great in terms of acting.

I certainly give this an 8 out of 10. I don't feel it's perfect, but I do find it close. Franco understands Faulkner, in the way I understand and enjoy him. I'm not saying I'm right about how I view Faulkner's work, or that Franco is right, or that I'm even correct about feeling the same way as he does about the famous author- I just know what I feel. There are great moments here, classic moments, in my mind. The split-screen personally works for me; I felt it really brought to the surface an idea that we were seeing the story through the eyes of the entire Bundren family. That's how the novel worked, and that's why it was so compelling. Faulkner was a master of the craft. I continue to read his work, and hope one day I'll have read it all. His novels, short stories (et cetera), are not for everyone, but they are engaging, and have, for decades, stirred up many debates and critical opinions from one end of the spectrum to the next. I think Franco gets what Faulkner was doing in As I Lay Dying. I hope he'll be able to capture the same understanding with his adaptation of The Sound and the Fury.

Highly recommended. Even if you don't enjoy it, don't be one of those people who turns it off after 20 minutes to half an hour. You can't judge any movie that way. Sorry- you just can't. Just like a novel. Sit through until the end, and I suggest reading the novel if you enjoy the story, or want to understand Franco's intentions here.

I was hoping this film might add something to the debate about school shootings in America, but unfortunately it does not. The story of Herman Howards, a bullied and ridiculed young kid in high school, who decides to finally show people what they're doing to him: he walks into his school, laying waste to many students and teachers with guns and pipe bombs. Herman is familiar; he's like all the real school shooters who ended up taking lives needlessly because they were traumatized personally. I have sympathy for those who are bullied- I was in juniour high school, and it was awful. However, there's a difference between having sympathy and agreeing with what someone has done. School shootings have a lot of angles to consider- one major angle being the availability of guns to people, and particular young people, in the U.S- but this film goes in too many directions, never really going for one angle instead of a bunch.

The acting was all right. Mainly Norman Reedus carried the acting here. Even the kid who played Herman wasn't that great, though there were a few moments I enjoyed from him. Unfortunately acting can't make up for the lack of a decent plot. It's too simple. They're not really saying anything here. I gave this a 4 out of 10 because of Reedus, and also the willingness to tackle a really tough subject for American audiences. Other than that, I would say skip it. I was waiting on this awhile, but now I'm thoroughly disappointed.

The one thing that I did enjoy here Reedus' character, and his backstory. He was involved with some undercover reporting, a la Hunter S Thompson with the Hells Angels, which of course eventually goes bad. Basically we get more depth into the character, how he has not always necessarily been an "innocent", and took part in something brutal. Though this is another area the film also falls short- they never really gave me a satisfying conclusion to the character and his demons. It was a very intense setup, but I don't feel like they paid it off in the end.

Find something else to watch, unless you have some time to waste. There are a couple other films involving school shootings, particularly Zero Day, that use the premise more effectively, and with much more impact.

Jack O'Connell and Ben Mendelsohn absolutely shine here in David Mackenzie's Starred Up, as an estranged son and father who end up in the same prison after the former is starred up (an early transfer of a criminal from a young offender's institution to full-fledged adult prison).

The acting is absolutely the finest point here. O'Connell, who I've seen and enjoyed before, is a fiery young man named Eric Love, with a lot of rage simmering inside him; I saw somewhere else where they likened his performance to a young Malcolm McDowell, and I can definitely see some of him here. However, O'Connell stands on his own- one of the fiercest depictions of a young criminal I've seen in ages! Mendelsohn, someone I'm a huge fan of, plays the role of absentee, criminal dad Neville Love. There are so many great things about his performance, but I think it's a combination of him and O'Connell together- a lot of dynamics going on. The son is learning to cope with actually having his father around, for what seems like the first time in his life, dealing with prison in general, and also coming to understand that his father has become gay (or whatever the criminals in prison classify themselves as) while in prison after so many years, engaging in some sort of sexual relationship with another inmate. There is a lot going on, and I think the script is absolutely amazing.

There are a few prison cliché moments here, but overall it's a well put together British prison drama, up there with some of the best of them. I hope O'Connell does more stuff like this, so he can show off his acting chops, and of course I hope Mendelsohn continues to turn in performances like he has been doing, solid now, for the past four or five years, or more. I give this a 10 out of 10, because I think it was a touching, rough look at prison, and it's unique among all the prison films out there, as it has a bit of heart within it. Amazing piece of work. I highly recommend anybody seeing this, especially fans of prison films, or any of the actors in it. Great film!

I enjoyed some of Cross Bearer because I'm a fan of practical make-up effects, but other than that? I waited a long time to see a real dud of a film.

There are times I'm fooled by a movie with some cool looking art-I admit it. I saw Cross Bearer's cover art, and I said "I have to see this". So I waited, waited, waited, and finally I was able to see it. What a disappointment. Not only is the acting cold and wooden, the writing is just bad. This is a typical horror film, and if you've seen enough horror you know this is just a rehash of so many other better films which were executed at a higher level than this. Even as far as slashers go, this is just weak. Like I said, there are some effects worth seeing, even a little decent cinematography at times, the look and feel of it, but you can't go for all style over substance, you just can't!

This is not old school horror, this is also nothing new- I don't recommend seeing this. At least not if you have something more promising to watch. If you want to see another run-of- the-mill slasher, the same thing you've seen time and time again, then go ahead. I give it a 2 out of 10, only because some of the effects were enjoyable, and I also liked how they didn't go for something too ridiculous for a mask; it was a simple look, and I kind of dug it. Other than that? Skip it.

I must say, I wasn't expecting much when I finally got the chance to watch Q- it looked like a Z-grade monster flick. Not to say it was an epic, grand drama; it certainly wasn't. However, I really enjoyed the movie, not to mention some great performances from Michael Moriarty, David Carridine, and even some hard-nosed cop action from Richard Roundtree.

Larry Cohen is not particularly one of my favourite directors, though I'm always interested in what he's doing for one reason or another. I wish he did more stuff like Q- an odd mix of a story about a cult reviving an ancient, flying monster (from the Mesoamerican legend of Quetzalcoatl), and a criminal (played extremely well by Moriarty) who stumbles upon the creature's nest, as well as its little baby in a big ol' egg. The crook decides instead of telling the authorities straight up, he's going to cook himself a little deal. Of course nothing goes as planned, really. I think it's a great mix. Some people are turned off by the stark difference in the two converging plots. Me? I dig it. I think it's a bit of a genre-bender, and I'm always a fan of that. Cohen wrote a bold script. The actors delivered on the characters. Moriarty perhaps gives one of his finest performances here, in my opinion.

I recommend anybody seeing this film. Okay- the monster isn't a high budget creature, not in the slightest. Yet I still love some of those moments when it's flying around, swooping up prey, fighting off the police- INCREDIBLE! I don't care if it looks a bit cheesy. Most of the time it does; there are a few moments, particularly near the end, where it looks real good at times. I just think the film itself stands enough on its own two legs without having to worry about a creature budget. The acting, the script and its story, and YES, even the creature = a great way to spend your evening. I give it 8 out of 10, and I am definitely going to watch this again in the near future because I think it's a wonderful little creature feature!