Reviews

I've had an interesting relationship with this movie over the young years of my life and I still have mixed feelings about it. My Fair Lady is often cited as one of the greatest films of all time, or at the very least "the only perfect musical." Its impact on film culture is indeed undeniable but I agree with the late Robert Osbourne of Turner Classic Movies. He stated that it is a nice movie but it is not essential and it has many problems its contemporaries could have overcome better than this. But I will try to be Fair to the film.

The story involves street urchin Eliza (Audrey Hepburn) who's cockney is so thick her peers even comment on it. By happenstance, she encounters an arrogant phonetic expert, Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) who believes a person's manner of speech is what separates urchin from duchess. They strike a bargain that he can teach her to speak like a princess and pass her off as one to prove his theory, whereas she could possibly gain proper employment at a flower shop. Their relationship is fraught as both are headstrong and stubborn, but eventually she "gets it" and speaks properly. But the question arises: Will Higgin's views and strict teachings help or hinder her?

I'll start off with the elements of the film that work very well for me. Rex Harrison nails a mysonginistic character with a heart, he doesn't seem all that aware that what he's saying is hurtful as his passion for what he does blinds him to the heart of the woman he's trying to mold. The supporting cast is decently assembled, with the standout supporting player being Stanley Holloway as Eliza's ne'er do-well alcoholic father Alfie, who gives the movie life it desperately needs at times. I am of the opinion that almost any score from the great duo of Lerner and Lowe is going to be absolutely wonderful and this movie is no exception. There are smatterings of brilliance in the dialogue and the story development but unfortunately this leads into many of the movie's problems.

Chief among the films problems is it is far too overblown. The same issue arises in films like Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Hello Dolly, the issue of large sets and huge casts of hundreds in costume but have zero zest to them and come off as way to stylized to make an emotional connection. There is a difference between portraying aristocrats with a slight tongue in cheek attitude and then theres this movie where I laughed with incredulity at how people could possibly think this is a great movie. I like George Cukor as a director but here, he tends to keep his cast and sets in medium shots and even wide shots, which does nothing to help the story. And when there are close-ups they are uncomfortable when they are meant to be endearing and vice-versa.

I need to address the elephant in the room and discuss Audrey Hepburn's performance and how it ties the the story. I love Audrey Hepburn and when she speaks the part, she is interesting and almost compelling. I do not mind that she was dubbed but Jack Warner made a horrific decision to do so for two reasons: 1) It sounds like most of the cast was not dubbed by someone else (save for Jeremy Brett which itself is odd) thus her dubbing sticks out like a sore thumb 2) Yes Julie Andrews was passed over and once people saw her in Mary Poppins it didn't seem right when the talent was there and an executive didn't even give her a chance to screen test for it However, this is not my issue with the story or Hepburn's performance, but rather Alan Jay Lerner's screenplay. The dialogue sparkles and the characters established, but the narrative is hopelessly weak as opposed to its source material, Shaw's Pygmalion. Eliza starts as a stubborn urchin who yearns for a life better than rescuing her flowers from puddles. However, she is constantly seen as less than by Higgins, and she decides to strike out on her own. Good for you! But then she decides to complain to his mom and rub it in his face like a woman scorned, which doesn't strike me as a logical progression for her character. And the ending cripples a possibly progressive and powerful message that Shaw achieved wonderfully.

So my final thoughts are this. I'm glad this movie means so much for people and it nearly clicked with me, but too many things just prevented me from embracing it. I do not think it was the best film of 1964 by any stretch. I think Mary Poppins, Dr. Strangelove, and even Becket were better films which took risks and delivered something better than this film. I'm glad I've seen it and I even hum some of the songs once and a while, but My Fair Lady isn't a perfect flower for me.

When I was young, I saw a videotape of Fess Parker as Davy Crockett from Disney's interpretation of the legend and one of the parts was Crockett at the Alamo, which I loved. Then what seemed like a month later my dad picked up a videotape with one of my favorite movie stars, John Wayne, and it said The Alamo. My dad explained that in this movie John Wayne played Crockett. I excitedly watched it with him but I can't remember ever watching it again as it was very long. Well years later I saw it was coming on tv and decided to watch it all over again. And what i saw was... pretty darn good if you ask me.

The story, or legend in this case, involves Mexican general Santa Anna's charge to drive away the Texicans from then Mexico territory, Texas. Because of the lack of organization of militia and army elements scattered all over the territory, Sam Houston (Richard Boone) orders Colonel William Travis (Laurence Harvey) to hold his troops at an abandoned mission, The Alamo, and hold off Santa Anna and buy himself the time to mount a defense against the coming intruders. Travis conflicts with local militia leader Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark) on what the next steps should be but are soon benefitted by the arrival of the legendary Davy Crockett (John Wayne) and his band of rough and tumble Tenesseeans. Eventually surrounded by over 7,000 Mexican troops, the men must hold out during thirteen days of siege by Santa Anna, building to their final encounter with history.

This film is indeed an epic in most respects. For his first time ever at bat as director, Wayne certainly is able to fill his screen with men and sets, one of the best sets ever made for a film in my opinion. He knows where the camera should go and his action directing is top-flight. The final assualt sequence alone is worth a place alongside the Huey attack in Apocalypse Now and even the charge on Ft. Wagner in Glory. This was advertised as "fourteen years in the making" as this had become Wayne's passion project and even sunk much of his personal wealth into it. Unfortunately the film was not a giant success and critics singled out the film as Wayne trying to promote his conservative Republican ideals.

With that said, the film is not without its problems, and sadly there are a few notable ones. It's clear that Wayne is exhausted in front of the camera playing Davy Crockett as his duties behind it were enormous. The acting is very hit and miss, which the actors attributed to Wayne's uncomfortableness trying to motivate an actor without his own style of acting coming into the fray. Sometimes there are lively readings, such as Chill Wills and Richard Widmark, but the others come standard and uncaring about the long-winded dialogue. Yes lets talk about the writing. There are a lot of scenes with talking, and sadly some of these fall desperately short. The rhythm is off and the dialog is very stuffy and long winded. I call this "speechifyin" and Duke does a lot of that. James Edward Grant was his favorite writer and sadly Duke didn't question any of his awkward choices of both lines and character. The film's length, although necessary I suppose, doesn't help this.

Technically this film is a marvel. As i said before the art direction is amazing, with the Alamo compound recreated in painstaking detail. An element that should be studied for years to come is the astonishing sound mix. Recorded in Oscar winning Todd-AO, it is crisp and clear, almost like it was recorded yesterday. Kudos! The cinematography by William Clothier captures both the splendor of the Alamo and even the loneliness of it, and because of Wayne's carefully placed army extras, we get the sense of dread and anticipation. I cannot dare say Wayne and his crew didn't master atmosphere for this movie. It looks and sounds great.

Overall, I love this movie. Can it be slow and a touch too long? Yes. Corny? Unbelievably so in many instances. But I deeply respect Wayne's dedication and craft to bring this story to life and they all did try to give something to the audience. I can see some of Wayne's own politics coming into the fold, but this is very small as he wanted to make a movie, and thats what he gave us.

Note: I've seen both the roadshow cut (a dvd/video you should get before it goes out of print forever) and the restored general release version which I think is better paced and Wayne even took out scenes to make it flow better.

Roger Ebert once said that "to see Falconetti in Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" is to look into eyes that will never leave you." I cannot find a better statement for this miracle of a silent masterpiece. What has been mastered here is a view, taken from historical record, and put under a microscope figuratively and literally on screen to dive into the spiritual essence of destiny. This film is in a class by itself, and had a profound impact on this viewer.

The film begins during the 100 Years War in France. In its battle against its enemy England, a commoner rose through the ranks to lead France to many great victories. This great warrior was peasant girl Joan of Arc, not even 18 years old but commanded a presence among her peers and a reputation impressed upon her enemies. Joan has been promised French deliverance from the mouth of God himself. Captured and put on what is essentially a mock trial for the whole film (she would have most likely been executed anyway) she must stand firm against the cacophony of priests who at first spit at her and call her a demon who cries blasphemy. Soon however, when she is given the chance to free herself at the expense of her devout belief in God and refuses, the film becomes a tragedy of the rest form, a good person making the ultimate sacrifice to something bigger than anyone in this film can possibly imagine.

The mastery of this film's narrative is in its reliance on the extreme close-up, which i can only estimate takes up 95% of the film. Director Dryer and cinematographer Rudolf Mate take a radical approach to the film, which has stood the test of time as one of the most daring films ever made. Joan's face as well as the other characters fill the frame, and what was not normal for the silent films, the actors do not wear any make-up at all. What this gives is confinement in the audience, as wee are as locked in this small blank room as Joan is, thus helping us feel the emotions of the scenes and care for the main character in a unique way. We cannot look away from the faces, especially that of Joan's astonishingly beautiful eyes.

What stands out in this film is the central performance of Maria Falconetti as Joan of Arc. When she enters the picture, she does not look like a common heroine. She has short hair, no make-up, and no soft lighting to make her "gorgeous." In this way, Falconetti must communicate a visceral reaction and emotions through her facial expressions, and since she is always in close-up, this cannot escape and she cannot cheat. With this said, this is a truly flawless performance, in fact one of the greatest films I have ever seen in Cinema history. When she does stumble and ultimately does the "morally right" thing, I broke down in tears, quite rarely have I ever had so much respect and heartbreak over a person I never knew. This is a bravura performance that I cannot praise enough.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is a miracle, and when given again the fact that it was made in the 1920s, this is even more astonishing. Please see this film and judge for yourself.

Note: I am sorry I haven't written in a long time. College and work is murder and time must be put elsewhere quite a lot. But I intend to write more and this film helped me rekindle the flame that git me to doing this in the first place - Theflyace"

Over forty years since the Titanic tragically went down on her maiden voyage, author Walter Lord published what many consider, including myself, the definitive account of the sinking. It was indeed a fascinating and incredibly detailed read, which accounts for why this film is the result of a faithful adaptation. A Night to Remember is a gripping docudrama which acts almost like a reporter observing a tragedy live. In a similar approach to the brilliant United 93, this film doesn't try to emphasize the drama, but rather let the drama speak for itself.

The plot revolves around the moments of both heroism and terror after the Titanic begins to sink, slowly but steadily. As the ship was popularly deemed "unsinkable," many of the passengers opt to stay with the ship, as we the viewer are helpless to tell them otherwise. Many of these moments come straight from survivors which lends a great air of authenticity. One major subplot of the film entails the activity, or rather inactivity, of the liner SS Californian. What might have happened if the distress call was received is almost too heart- wrenching to bear, and the film lets this sink in slowly.

In a narrative sense, this could have easily been too dry for audiences, like it was with Tora! Tora! Tora!. However, because of the source material, as well as the painstaking detail, the story is never dull, nor does it ever lose its suspense, all the way to the end. The casting uses fine respected British actors, but they were far from"stars." In this way, again like united 93, the people become far more "real" for us, and therefore there is no previous baggage for the actors to try to leave behind. Some of this acting is sublime, scubas Kenneth More's portrayal of 2nd Officer Lightoller, arguably the protagonist of the film.Others do fine in their roles, but some are rather crusty with no personalities, but this is perhaps the intent of the actors, so I give it leeway.

Technically, the film is quite well produced. The legendary director of photography Geoffrey Unsworth brilliantly uses the camera to give weight and size to the ship, and intimacy of the human element. All in all, the production is well guided by director Roy Baker and producer William MacQuitty, who both try to reproduce the liner in all of its glory. It did not have the budget of James Cameron's film, but that does not make it any less of an achievement than that great film was.

If there is anything to be considered "lackluster" in this movie, it would probably be the model work involved. I am a huge fan of miniature models and many times in film they are used well, rarely giving away scale. In this case, most of the shots work, making the Titanic looks grand. It is far better than the 1953 version of Titanic by leaps and bounds. However, the shots of the stern in the air and sliding into the ocean are not particularly convincing, but I will overlooks it as I am engrossed in the story. Also it sinks in one piece, but as this was the common perception at the time, it can also be forgiven.

I am ashamed that this movie does not get as much attention as it deserves. I myself love James Cameron's film and it is indeed a special and brilliant spectacle. However, both are definitive accounts of Titanic, and both should be viewed.

"Tempus" is a rare breed of short film that prefers visual poetry to that of simply being visual for the sake of being visual. What I mean is, each shot, motion, or emotion could be interpreted differently. Short films to me are the perfect way for an individual to put their visual stamp in the film world, even though they may not quite get the recognition they so richly deserve. In this case, director Ian Clay and his incredible team of artists (I ponder how he got such talent in the first place) tell quite simply the tale of a man running to his wife.

With that simple story so many questions can be asked and discussed: Why is he running to his wife? What is contained in the letter he drops in the dirt? Why does he age backwards? What does the dove represent in the end? Coming back around to what i said earlier, all of these can be answered any way the viewer perceives them. For me this seemed like the story of a man who yearns to hold onto the woman of his dreams whom he had the fortunate opportunity to spend his life with. His aging backwards may signify his feelings about how cares little about the world around him and his core essence and spirit of youth is what propels him to his wife. The dove forms in that he and the woman are one forever and ever and that they will now go off to who knows where.

Now that is my opinion and I could be reading to deeply into it. Another person who saw this, or Mr. Clay himself may say differently. I remember Roger Ebert speaking of the ending of Hal Ashby's film "Being There." He asked some students what the meaning of Sellers walking on water in the end meant, as he had no such hint or buildup of this moment at all. When so many students gave "deep" answers, Ebert said they were all wrong. The moment was what it was. He walked on the water and that's that. This is a prime example of such storytelling. It certainly is what it is, but that doesn't necessarily that our own opinion of what we are watching cannot be quashed by a straightforward explanation.

Clay's fantastical use of the camera also gives us more information about the story and the feelings than we initially realize. It's filled with dust dancing through the beams of light, hearkening the work of masters Vilmos Zsigmond and Emmanuel Lubezki in creating a winsome and beautiful atmosphere. The music adds to this charming atmosphere, not really giving the emotional cues we are accustomed to, but drawing them out of us gradually.

So yes, "Tempus" is a short film masterpiece. Enough said.

We have all heard the stories, the nick-names, and the utter hatred this movie received upon its premiere in 1980. Heaven's Gate was the egg laid by respected director Michael Cimino, which ultimately destroyed one of the most famous movie studios in movie history. I almost cannot put into words how bloody confusing this movie is in terms of reaction. I must ultimately ask this question many ask when they see it. Heaven's Gate: A grand true epic film, or a trip into he unchecked ego of Hollywood? Ultimately, the conclusion I drew was that Heaven's Gate is a gloriously shot but overlong mess.

The story, based on historical fact, dramatizes the Johnson County Cattle Wars of 1890. Marshall Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson) a man born into wealth in the midst of European settlers, tries to keep order despite and impending tragedy. The rich cattle barons of the state of Wyoming, led by Canton (Sam Waterston) create a "death list" of each settler in the county to prevent "anarchy cattle theft." All the while Averill woos local bordello madam Ella (Isabelle Huppert) despite her similar attraction to Baron hit-man Champion (Christopher Walken)

The premise seems simple to follow, but that is only a summary of this nearly three and a half hour movie. In fact, most of the film is empty shots of people quite literally doing nothing of importance. The problem is director Michael Cimino. The film is lacking what it so richly deserves, evoking emotion within the viewer. When there is a five minute scene of people obscured by dust and incomprehensible dialog, the viewer ultimately becomes frustrated, not subversively challenged to get up to speed to understand it. There are numerous subplots Cimino includes in his script, and while some are decent enough, like Jeff Bridges character opening a roller skating rink called "Heaven's Gate," the rest are ultimately and sadly pointless. Two perfect examples are completely unnecessary prologue and epilogue sequences which add nothing at all to the impact of the movie, in fact in my opinion they hurt the movie's flow and central idea.

The budget of this movie has become stuff or movie lore, forty-four million dollars on a movie that could have been made for at least three quarters of it. Most of it was spent on Cimino's relentless attention to mostly unnecessary details. But, with that said, the movie is BEAUTIFUL. One of the brilliant choices Cimino made on this movie was the selection of legendary DP Vilmos Zsigmond. The vistas and wide shots are like beautiful oil paintings put to film. Zsigmond is the master of lighting, and it truly shows in this film. Sometimes I got lost looking at the lighting and shadows created. The sets, however expensive they were, are also gorgeous. I can at least say that this movie is not cheap looking at all, every penny seems to be on the screen.

What ultimately makes this movie a dud is Cimino's lack of idea what this movie is supposed to be. It was trying to be the greatest movie ever made, but it tried much too hard. Much too hard to the point where one cannot latch on to anyone or anything in the movie, which is what we as a viewer are supposed to do. While it is a pretty movie, it runs far too long to have a cohesive story and not much interesting development in the characters.

I do believe that this movie deserves at least one or two viewings to catch what may have been missed the first time around. However i wouldn't go putting it on the top ten list of anything, or the top 100 for that matter. Ultimately, Heaven's Gate is the scorned child of a director who went too far without really going anywhere to begin with.

When I first watched the U.S. Series of House of Cards, i was surprised to learn that not only was it based off a book, but also another BBC Miniseries. Whet i found was not only a good miniseries, but perhaps ones of the finest television series ever put to film. House of Cards U.K. is most impressive and gripping considering how short it is and how much story there is. Thanks to clever writing and a powerful performance from Ian Richardson, this is one of the best.

After Margaret Thatcher's departure as Prime Minister of England, Chief Majority Whip Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) seeks a higher office after years of learning the deepest secrets and ins and outs of politics. However when is double crossed by the spineless new P.M. Hal Collingridge, he sets out to ruin the P.M. and take power for himself. He assembles the desperate band of scoundrels and spins the web of political drama that may very well be dangerous for unsuspecting members of Parliament.

This series, based on political writer Michael Dobbs' best selling novel, is a prime example of how well balanced a political series can be without getting bogged down in the minutiae. Much like The West Wing, we are given a very complex situation and setting, and yet we are able to follow it because just enough is explained for us to know whats really happening. Andrew Davies' writing is some of the best I have ever heard in media, and really set a high bar for Beau Willimon when it came time for him to write the U.S. Series, but thats for the next review.

The best element of this series is Urquhart himself. He is played by a little known British actor named Ian Richardson, and by gum he hits out of the stratosphere. He is a very calculating man who always seems to hit the right note when he has to. What makes him even more interesting, when he shares his little asides with the audience (a wonderful idea), is that he can be a warm and quite funny individual, like a charming uncle you would visit every so often. He never once gnashes his teeth or ever goes over the top as most villains would. In fact he's very subdued and stoic, making him all the more intimidating when his lackeys must do his bidding.

When your dealing with a book the size of the Bible and turning it into a mini-series, a lot of stuff must be left in or left out to make it dramatically compelling. In the case of House of Cards U.K., just the right amount of both political jargon and human elements are left in. Sometimes it takes a second viewing to rally catch whats going on and how they are trying to deal with the situations Urquhart has spun beyond their control. It all builds up to a rather exciting conclusion which i wouldn't dream of spoiling.

This is one of the best no questions asked. I do hope that the U.S. Series will make people aware of this truly outstanding series and they will at least give it a view. As to whether this will become quite as popular as the newer one, I couldn't possibly comment. Enjoy!

After many years and limited titles, I have finally discovered a new film to go with the ones that actually get the hairs on the back of my neck to shoot up on end. The Haunting is a masterpiece from director Robert Wise, the kind that comes rarely in a distinguished career. There is hardly anything I can find in this film that is remotely lacking. I rarely say this... this movie genuinely made me afraid.

The story thank goodness is actually very solid. A professor's keen interest in the supernatural leads him to create a group of "established" parapsychologists and ESP experts and observe the goings on of a aged property called Hill House. One of the invited, Nell (played by Julie Harris), is a mentally unstable woman who harbors deep fears and insecurities about herself and her place in the oppressive world around her. Eventually the house-guests begin to experience paranormal activity and hear sounds that send them into absolute terror. Nell however believes that this haunting may be for a reason that the others can't understand like she can.

The execution of this seemingly simple story actually becomes very complicated, and keeps you guessing at every turn. As a viewer, we aren't exactly sure if the sounds are coming from the house itself or the minds of the house-guests, more specifically Nell's own tortured mind. Much like Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, this particular story is made all the more suspenseful and scary in what we do not see, and what our subconscious presents to us. Some of the images become so disturbing and creepy that we actually begin to doubt what is real, which is the sign of ingenuity in storytelling.

In what initially annoyed me in the acting, eventually changed to empathy and wanting to help these characters. Initially, Julie Harris' Nell is a very mousy character who grated. But as the film progresses and the haunting becomes more intense, her insecurities and delusions about her lack of respect from the others begin to consume her, much like her romantic notions about the house when she arrives. The other actors, including Claire Bloom (Charly) and Russ Tamblyn (West Side Story) and Richard Johnson as the surprisingly honest Professor Markway do good jobs trying to portray flawed people thrown into an uncomfortable situation.

The atmosphere of this movie is immense and breathtaking. The old unchanged look of the house gives off the impression of the Gothic, and the cinematography and lighting emphasizes this. I think this is the first film from the 60s that I've seen that uses very odd techniques and pan shots to convey a sense of mind bending terror and confusion very effectively and stunningly. The sets and statues in this movie gives off a very menacing presence adding to the chilling atmosphere.

While it may not be the scariest movie ever, and believe me there are very few movies that are truly scary, this one really got me cold and shivering as we went from one encounter to the next. Practically every aspect of this production works very well. This visit to Hill House is definitely worth your time.

The biggest cultural phenomenon of its time, Batman has become a thing of legend. Its Batman logo with its simple black and yellow design is now so iconic nobody needs to ask what it is. I unfortunately think the film's popularity overshadows a seriously flawed movie. Tim Burton's Batman is a perfect example of production design triumphing over substance of the story and potentially great characters.

The film plays out during Batman's (played by Michael Keaton) beginnings of crime busting in Gotham City, all while mob Lieutenant Jack Napier (played by Jack Nicholson) is set up by mob boss Gus Grissom to take a fall. Through the inadvertent interference of Batman, Napier is dropped into a vat of chemicals and emerges as the twisted, psychotic, silly, Prince music-loving Joker. As Joker's reign of crime continues and Batman must solve it, his alter ego Bruce Wayne must balance his double life with romance for ace reporter Vicki Vale (played by Kim Basinger)

The most impressive elements of this movie is the production design by artist Anton Furst and set decorator Peter Young, and the cinematography by the amazingly bizarre Director of Photography Roger Pratt. When I think of Gotham City this is the look I think of, something that few of the following films, except for The Dark Knight, have been even able to try to aim at. The sets and look of Gotham City is truly a wonder to behold, a bizarre array of angles, black schemes and Gothic Deco accentuated by Pratt's gloriously under-lit photography during the night scenes. One can almost feel the grime and gross smell of everyone and everything in this world. The Batmobile still remains one of the greatest designs for a car ever made and blows anything out of the water.

The best surprise of the movie for me in the dramatic department is Michael Keaton as Batman. Keaton is a very funny actor with great timing, but was rarely given the opportunity to anything outside the mold, in fact when Burton cast him fans were outraged that Mr. mom would play the beloved caped crusader. But thankfully, no one griped after they saw the masterwork he does here. One thing I noticed when watching is Keaton is very silent as Batman, and very reserved as Bruce Wayne. This is actually a very good approach to the role, on the opposite spectrum of what Christian Bale did as Batman in Nolan's films, which itself was a great take on the character. Keaton is able to convey the sense of loss and emptiness that Wayne feels after the terrible tragedy he's endured with one look in his face. That is impressive.

The rest of this film I find to be a little dull and too silly to take seriously. Basinger doesn't have much to work with as Vale, I just find her as a pretty object for affection. The characters of Bob and Knox are enjoyable to watch so thats fine. Jack Nicholson as the Joker sounded like a really good idea, until he became the Joker. He is so silly I can't ever believe him as a villain. I actually thought he was more scary as Jack Napier than Joker. Anybody who uses Prince songs to carry out crime to is as non-threatening as a demented snail.

The story is decent enough except for a few things writer Sam Hamm, who often takes the blame for it, did not do. One is making the character of Jack Napier into the man who killed the Wayne parents and into the Joker himself, who has always been nameless. He is not responsible for it, end of story. Alfred also makes the most unbelievably stupid mistake in the universe, but I can't reveal what it is.

I like this movie enough to watch it if its on TV occasionally, but I wouldn't call this a must see movie. For me its kind of a bore in most spots. But like I said before, it still has an amazing and gorgeous look to it that make sit an interesting movie. Of course, i have to credit this movie for giving Batman movie life, and ultimately paving the way for Nolan's films.

Sometimes there comes a film that falls under the radar, despite earning positive reviews from many important critics. The Brave Little Toaster is a gem of creativity from a team of Disney animators independently of their corporate masters which never got the release it so richly deserves. Thanks to its smart writing, near-perfect direction, a glowing voice cast, and not half-bad animation, Toaster is cooked to the right shade of entertainment.

In an isolated summer cabin, five anthropomorphic household appliances (a toaster, a vacuum, a desk lamp, a radio, and an electric blanket) wait forlornly in anticipation for the return of "The Master," a little boy whom they formed a bond with before his "2,000 day" disappearance with his family. Fed up with waiting, Toaster (outstandingly voiced by Deanna Oliver) decides its time for them to set out toward the "City of Light" to find him. Their journey includes the stuff of adventure including appliance mutilation at a parts shop, a waterfall, evil modern appliances, and a sadistic junkyard magnet. Along the way, they learn to deal with their differences and band together to get home.

This film, based from the novella by Thomas M. Disch, was originally a vehicle for a young animator's directorial debut. That animator was John Lasseter, who sought to combine 2-D characters on a computer background in-house at Disney. Unfortunately, Disney's films were in the malaise era, therefore it's penny-pinching management pulled the plug on the project and fired Lasseter from his job. The project was then taken to independent studio Hyperion, where it ended up in the hands of Lasseter's good friends, animators Jerry Rees (Tron) and Joe Ranft (later Pixar writer) who transformed the novella into a smart screenplay that, unlike Disney, wasn't afraid to take risks with its imagery or ideas. Despite a budget that is practically an eighth of what it takes to produce decent animation, the heart and creativity gives it that special edge.

What sets this film apart from other animated films during that time, and even some features nowadays is the way Rees and Ranft got a handle on their characters. Just like the finest work at Pixar (where Lasseter and Ranft expanded on these achievements even more) each character has a special personality, and has the voice cast to match. The cast includes great voice actors and some great comedians, like SNL alums Jon Lovitz (as the loud and bombastic Radio) and Phil Hartman (who hilariously impersonates both Jack Nicholson and Peter Lorre in great cameos), Disney/Tony the Tiger voice actor Thurl Ravenscroft as the rumbling vacuum Kirby, Groundlings Deanna Oliver and Tim Stack as Toaster and Lampy, respectively, and Timothy E. Day as the sweetly innocent Blanky.

What makes Toaster very unique is its unabashed ventures into nightmarish imagery and scary sequences. There are plenty to go around in this movie, which some have seen as totally unnecessary and cruel. However, they're no scarier than the original Disney features, which themselves dabbled in darker images to offset the whimsy and sweetness. These scenes also add to the emotions of the journey that anything may face. I must say the darkest, but also the best, has to be the Junkyard sequence which is accompanied by the Van Dyke PArks song "Worthless," which evokes more emotion in five minutes than many features can't achieve in two hours.

This movie has all the right elements that work to a very good degree. David Newman and Van Dyke Parks' score and songs are pretty impressive, and dare I say brilliant. Jerry Rees' direction is pitch-perfect, the writing is good, the characters are good, its good to look at. This is a good, and very underrated movie. Give it a watch, and you will not be disappointed.

During the transitional period between the Studio system period of filmmaking and the New Hollywood period of filmmaking, the modern greats were still film students breaking out of their box of creativity. One of the brightest was George Lucas. Based on a script by both himself and friends, Lucas created a film that drew attention to film students from major studios. THX 1138 4EB is one of the milestones by how student films are measured.

The minimal story is the escape of a drone, named THX 1138 4EB, from his dystopian labyrinth of a society, in which everything is white and sterile. "Authority," which is equivalent to "Big Brother" in this universe, always has security cameras and eyes watching THX's every move as he sprints his way figuring out how to escape Authority to the color world above his own.

This film isn't deep, this film has no character to really attach to. However, the artistry and storytelling approach is what make this short film quite unique. Lucas really knows how to present sets, characters, and sound in such a precise detail that one becomes enthralled by the sights and sounds before we even know whats happening. The theme of THX breaking free of an oppressive society where everything is controlled to the last chromosome is very familiar, and one we can all connect to on a visceral level.

This is a very impressive short film. It's not perfect, but its still has effort both in front of the camera, and had a future genius stretching his wings behind the camera.

Once in every decade since the inception of the motion picture camera, comes a film that seems to transcend criticism and stands the test of time as one of the all time greats. Such is the case with James Cameron's magnum opus, Titanic. This epic recreation of the ocean liner's ill-fated maiden voyage offers everything one can ask for, and more. There is spectacle and dramatic images that sticks with viewers for a very long time.

The film begins as a frame story, with a 101 year old survivor, Rose (played by Gloria Stuart), telling a team of treasure hunters and scientists her experience on the Titanic. As a younger woman (now played by Kate Winslet) Rose traveled in first class on the Titanic with her materialistic mother and her haughty fiancée Cal (played by Billy Zane) Rose feels completely suffocated by the stiff and mind numbing activities and chatter that comes with being rich, and wants to break out and just do something exciting. Her life changes when she meets third-class artist Jack Dawson (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) As the two talk and hang out more and more, they begin to fall for one another. Of course, her mother and fiancée disapprove mainly because he is poor. Everything comes to head when the ship hits an iceberg and begins to sink to her inevitable doom.

Some people have made the joke to death that this film is essentially "Romeo and Juliet on the Titanic." I see this as only somewhat true, as there are indeed similar elements, but the real story would detract from a by-the-numbers correlation between the stories. Here the love story really works on many levels. Rose and Jack do not fall in love at first sight. When they start talking with one another, they see that they do have much in common. It takes a few days but they decide that they are best for each other and fall completely in love.

Cameron has done something very special with all the characters characters in this film. He has always been noted for putting characters and interactions above the story, and so he does here too. Jack, Rose, Cal, Ruth, and Lovejoy are all fictional characters of course, but they all interact very convincingly with the real-life characters. In this way, when the ship sinks, the audience has built up and emotional connection to both fictional and real characters, allowing for more heartbreaking truth when most of the characters die or are in peril when the ship is sinking.

The casting of this movie is phenomenal. I have to credit casting director Mali Finn and Cameron for really finding great actors, and some of the best character actors in the business. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet forever made a splash (no pun intended) as two of Hollywood's best leading actors, and have so far proved that they are two of the best.

When production began on this film, Cameron knew partial sets and models simply wouldn't do. So he and his crew went out and actually built a huge version of the ship, carpets and all. He is a perfectionist, therefore everything on the ship had to be artistically and physically correct, to lend a greater sense of verisimilitude when the audience viewed it in 1997. It looks simply breathtaking, and we feel like we have been transported to the actual ship itself. As far as we know, Cameron probably knows the Titanic than anyone, so when its shown here in its glory, we believe it.

Of course, Titanic is about the sinking of the "unsinkable" ship. The final hour of the film is indeed the most gripping, as we see the ship start slipping beneath the waves. Cameron uses his extensive knowledge of special effects to very convincingly present the sinking in all of its gruesome truth. Its very well paced, finely edited, and of course, spectacular. And what makes it even more moving is we have gotten to know the characters and therefore its very heartbreaking when most of them die. The aftermath is of course, very tragic and cruel, because we all know what happened. But when it came on screen, we were still broken by it. When those who couldn't get into the lifeboat drown, we wish in our hearts that they could have. There is more her that will shock viewers, but I wouldn't dream in a million years of revealing the ending of Jack and Rose's story arc.

Just as I claimed for Steven Spielberg directing Schindler's List, here, it initially seems like James Cameron is the wrong man for the job at first glance. He is known for action films, no romances or dramas. Yet somehow, this is the greatest film he has ever done. He directs with a keen vision, and is quite unrelenting in getting his vision across, hence why many people despise working with him. But his passion and dedication to the project shines through all the way through its three hour running time. Such dedication won the film multiple Oscars (11 to be precise) Cameron himself took home 4 in one night, cementing his status as one of the most successful filmmakers of our generation.

This is one of the best films to grace the cinema. The sheer might and size of the picture doesn't dwarf the actors, who are given the chance to breath and connect us to one of the most infamous tragedies in history. A sharp criticism of man's hubris, and a stirring tribute to those who lost their lives that night. Such is how I can describe Titanic.

Candles slowly burn during the Shabbat in a Jewish household. After many hours of burning and illumination, the flame goes out and gives off ominously rising smoke and reveals the black and white image that snuck in as the candles shrunk. Such is the tone that is set for the rest of the film Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg's tribute/justice to the millions of Jewish people slaughtered during the Holocaust.

This particular chapter of the Holocaust is the portrait of the mysterious Oskar Schindler, and his actions during the war in Poland. We see him begin as an opportunist businessman, who wines and dines with the Nazi higher ups in exchange to receive funding for a factory he wishes to profit from. For both parties, Jews are considered "cheap labor," therefore Schindler hires Itzhak Stern to handle rounding up a workforce in his new factory. Stern is really trying to save as many people as the "Herr Direktor" will allow from certain death. Over the course of the film, something changes in Schindler that drives him to save "his Jews" because he begins to realize the atrocities being committed around him, and that he must make a difference, even at the risk of losing his life in the process.

Every actor in this film is perfect, no matter how big or small the role is. Liam Neeson gives his best work here as the complicated Schindler. It could have been a stereotypical "revelation" motivated performance, but Neeson never condescends to a perfunctory level. He is complimented in his performance by Ben Kingsley as the loyal and determined Stern. The actor who steals the film is Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth. He, like Neeson, has the hardest task of any actor, to give humanity to someone who is morally reprehensible on paper. His is one of those performances that was robbed of the recognition it deserved.

Much like the film The Shawshank Redemption, this film delves into the souls of the people in the middle of a dark situation. Schindler himself is an enigma. here we have a man who begins thinking about only himself and his money, but realizes what his actions mean in the big picture of what's going on. As the film progresses, he begins to care about the people he has saved, and pours every ounce of energy and every cent of his money to make sure that they do not suffer the same fate as those who couldn't be saved. The character of Stern acts as his moral compass, convincing his boss that what he is doing is right. He does not always agree with his boss' logic, but works to make sure no one is killed or taken away to the ovens. The evil incarnate character Amon Goeth, is also conflicted by his feelings about this whole affair for one reason. He too hates the Jews with a brainwashed passion, but ironically falls in love with his Jewish housemaid. He struggles to come to terms with this fact while still managing to shoot Jews at random for sport.

Director Steven Spielberg and writer Steve Zaillian take a really smart approach to the material, by not making the characters one-dimensional or motivated by a cheap cliché. We are never really clued into what makes Schindler change his mind about his workers until the very end of the film, which is a brilliant storytelling masterstroke.

There is absolutely nothing glamorous at all in this film, which lends its greater sense of verisimilitude. The cinematography is in black-and-white, as it should be. If it had been in color, it would have been all wrong. Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski shoot this like a documentary, lending itself to far more realistic shots and actions than a straightforward drama. The violence is truly gut-wrenching and sickening, but again, it is an accurate view of what happened in real life. The disturbing image of bodies burning and the billowing smoke from the Auschwitz chimney won't leave one's mind for years after seeing this film. The girl in the red coat is the most haunting image from the film, as the filmmakers wished to convey the confusion of how people didn't even know this was happening, even though it "stuck out like a girl wearing a red coat." Spielberg knew just when to add color to the film, the moments when there is true despair or hope at the end of the film

This film is made all the more haunting because of the first-rate score by John Williams. Backed with the violinist Itzhak Perlman, Williams delivers one of the best scores in eternity, and one that is never overblown. Both use their beauty to convey a dark passage in history, but most importantly, to highlight the success of the people saved.

At a first glance, it would seem Spielberg was the wrong man to make this film, as his focus in his early career was on entertainment films and escapist images. With this film, we see him blossom into a true artist. He does not mince images or words in this film whatsoever. He presents the events depicted like it was, stark and hopeless. Spielberg so poured his heart into this material that it was reported that he sobbed every day during filming, but wouldn't relent in telling this story. This film is the greatest achievement in his career, not only in terms of Oscars and recognition, but his transformation as an artist.

The greatest moment in recent Olympics history was the so-called "Miracle on Ice," when the amateur Hockey team from the U.S. defeated the long time Soviet champions at Lake Placid. The journey was a long and arduous one, with the players being driven to top condition both mentally and physically by coach Herb Brooks. In 2004, Walt Disney Pictures produced a recreation of the events leading up to and including the legendary event, with disgustingly underrated actor Kurt Russell as Coach Brooks. The result is not only a really inspirational but down-to-earth adaptation, but Russell in his career-defining role.

The year is 1980. America is at a low point in terms of spirit and morale. Iran has taken hostages, Gas is running low, and the Soviets seem to be dominating the Middle-East with no one to stop them. To the U.S. Olympic committee, they have no chance to beat the longstanding champions of the USSR, so they decide to give college students the chance to play under Coach Herb Brooks. Brooks is a hard man determined to knock the Soviets off their pedestal, but not for reasons you would think. There is some bad luck to begin with but the team eventually makes it to Lake Placid and begin their legendary game against the Soviets.

What makes Miracle so impressive is the fact that it focuses more on Herb Brooks than it does the team members. Brooks has unfinished business with the Soviets, as he was cut from the 1960 team the week before the games, the only team to beat the Soviets up to that point. He is a rather blunt and mean man who pushes the team to their limits. he makes absolutely no bond with anybody, as he sees this as the way to intimidate his team into performing at their highest levels. But with all this, there is a likability to Brooks that make him all the more three-dimensional, not just a cartoon over-the-top coach.

The key to what I just said and the pure ingredient to what makes the film work is Kurt Russell. Here, he paints the portrait of a hurt and driven man who not only wishes to fulfill some need for vindication, but to give people the joy that was taken from him at the eleventh hour. He also looks the part, with the hair, jowl, and even those silly outfits that were considered to be cool back in the day. This is a great performance, one that I really believe was robbed of an Oscar. Not just a nomination, but a full Oscar win. Russell is Herb Brooks, hands down.

The recreation of the events are also really good. The Soviets aren't portrayed as the bad guys, but the team that they just have to beat for Brooks. They aren't stereotypical Russian bad guys, but people we don't know apart from what we saw on the television screen in 1980. Its strange how one can often forget that this movie was produced by Disney. One would think the movie is schmaltzy and sugar-coated, but this is one of those exceptions. I think the only thing Disney couldn't allow was strong language that may be prevalent in hockey, but we can forgive them for that one.

There has been an argument that there are too many sports movie clichés to be found in this movie. Well, I don't see any of them, except for one. Patricia Clarkson plays the stereotypical housewife who does nothing but complain. I don't watch the scenes with her or I try to mute whatever she says when she talks with Kurt Russell. Other than that, there is nothing to gripe about. I think the reason that critics see them as clichés is because the elements that seem familiar, are actually based on real events and dialog. I never saw this as anything more than history being put onto film with a Hollywood crew and actors. It seems to be and actually is very faithful.

This is a good film. There are some slow spots, and maybe some flaws, but none that were easy to notice or try to notice. Kurt Russell is exceptional, and makes this a must see sports film.

This was the big one. We were finally going to see how it went down. The pressure Lucas was under when creating Revenge of the Sith was unimaginable, especially considering the fans had savaged his last two films. But come Memorial Day weekend in 2005, the expectations were SURPASSED. Revenge of the Sith was considered to be the best of the Prequel Trilogy, but for me it is the best film in the series since Empire Strikes Back.

The Clone Wars are coming to an end, and it seems the Republic will stand tall once more, but an inevitable danger lurks beneath. Anakin Skywalker is at odds with the Jedi Council, and somewhat his mentor Obi-Wan. The headmasters don't trust him and feel he may not be the Chosen one after all. His wife Padme announces her pregnancy, which he is overjoyed over, but becomes fearful when he sees vivid premonitions of her dying in childbirth. Chancellor Palpatine, the Sith Lord, seduces Anakin to the Dark Side, as he promises it is the only way to save Padme from dying. Thus, the extermination of the Jedi is set into motion as well as the rise of the First Galactic Empire, and Anakin must confront Obi Wan in a duel to the death.

The true genius of George Lucas' writing is that he doesn't try to surprise us with anything, but he gives a Shakespearean tragedy sense to it. His transformation is not because he wants to be evil, but because he wishes to save Padme's life, as he has had recurring visions of her death. Palpatine, who is the equivalent of the devil in this universe, promises him that the only way to save her is to use Sith powers. The key to this idea's success is Hayden Christensen. I blasted him in the last film, but here, he does a really solid job. He sells the fact that he doesn't want to lose the person he loves the most.

Lucas' character connections were admittedly not as strong in the last ones, especially when you look at the acting in this installment. The acting here is top notch, and the sparks between characters hearkens back to Empire Strikes Back. The biggest improvement in this film is Hayden Christensen. Unlike the last film where he was sleepwalking through, here there is a character and a more likable approach to Anakin. When you see him go down the wrong path, it is heartbreaking, and when he loses the very thing he wanted to protect, the last goodness of him is practically gone forever. Every other character is great to begin with, and each actor's story is given equal amount of weight and gravitas.

The is easily the darkest of all the Star Wars films. It starts out in a light and adventurous mood, but then descends into darkness and disturbing images. The scenes when Anakin turns to the Dark Side and goes on the massacre is truly depressing, as you have come to care for the good man that he was, yet you also understand really why he does such things. But the third act is really taking place in Hell, the lava planet Mustafar, and the images are some of the most striking in any film in the last ten years. The climax between Obi Wan and Anakin is truly electrifying, but is then balanced out by the gravitas of the last goodness of Anakin being burned off. Warning, that scene will not leave you for quite some time after viewing.

Every technical area of this film works on such a high level that I had taken it for granted for a long time. The music is great, obviously it will be because its John Williams doing the score. The effects are so eye popping and busy, that you notice more and more of them with every viewing, which is really not a bad thing.

This film is a complete return to form for not only George Lucas, but for the franchise in general. Revenge of the Sith proved that with hard work and lot of thought put into the material, it can stand the test of time and provide entertainment for people of all ages. The themes and ideas presented are really strong, and the execution of the story is flawless. This is the best film in the series since Empire Strikes Back, and will always be one I look to forward to watch.

After fans were driven bonkers by The Phantom Menace, they were hoping upon hope that Attack of the Clones would be better. Again, Lucas seemed to misstep with a lot of them. I laugh at this movie often, but you know, it's a much better movie than people remember. It has a tinge of darkness to it much like Empire Strikes Back does. There are many things in this film that I feel have to be addressed. So here we go.

Ten years or so after the events of Phantom Menace, Queen Padme is now Senator Padme, who immediately starts the movie off with her nearly being assassinated. Talk about starting off with a bang! She suspects former Jedi master Count Dooku (played by the excellent Christopher Lee) of the deed, but the council is skeptical. Now grown up Anakin Skywalker (played by Hayden Christensen) is assigned to protect Padme while his master Obi Wan is dispatched to solve the mystery of the assassin bounty hunter named Jango Fett. Fett has be used as the host for a secret Republic Clone Army (the ancestors of the Stormtroopers) While hiding Padme on Naboo, both begin to feel an attraction for one another, even though its forbidden for Anakin to love another as a Jedi.

The story actually has a lot going on here. Lucas introduces threads that will be long lasting throughout the present Saga of films. We see where the Stormtroopers come from, we learn what the Clone Wars are, we see Luke and Leia's mother, there is just a lot here. But instead of focusing on that, Lucas puts his energy into two main stories. Story A, it seems, is the love story between Anakin and Padme. Story B is Obi Wan figuring out what goes on when Jedi don't look at invisible planets. Both stories are actually very well developed and take time for them to unfold. The love story works well considering the dialog.

We all knew this was coming. The dialog during the love scenes isn't as good as the way it develops. Some lines are truly hokey or wooden in delivery. I feel this mostly comes from Hayden Christensen. In this movie he doesn't seem to be acting as he is sleepwalking through the movie, never really changing his tone unless he is screaming. Portman does her best to at least to seem interested, but if her co-star is sleepwalking, then she can't do much. Some of the lines are actually good, so we can't say every word is awful.

The characterizations in this film are where I have a couple of issues. Obi Wan seems mean and condescending to Anakin in this film, but compared to the first film, his humor is far more funny and his timing is superb. Padme is a very sweet person and dedicated to her job and morals, and she does actually see some good things in Anakin that she loves, but she doesn't become sappy. Yoda and Mace Windu (played by veterans Frank Oz and Samuel L. Jackson in all their grandeur) are spectacular, nothing more to talk about. Count Dooku is a great villain, but it seems like the role was meant for Darth maul had he survived in the first film, but it's Christopher Lee playing him, so hes really good. But the one that I don't like is Anakin. In this film, he is played like a whiny teenager who wants to be master even though he is clearly not ready. One could make the argument that at this age, teenagers are like this, and perhaps that is what George Lucas was going for. But to me, it makes him slightly unlikeable.

For some reason or another, the action scene is this movie seem like a "been there, done that feeling." Except for one scene, they all feel a little done and way too necessary. The other films scenes were as well, but there was some kind of spark that made seem more spectacular and special then they really are. The exception(s) is the lightsaber battles. Wow! These are really good in pacing and the beauty of their choreography, but what makes it special is that we see YODA FIGHT! That alone should make this movie really memorable!

The element of this movie that I think will forever stand the test of time in cinema is the score written by John Williams. Here we have one of the most beautiful themes ever in the history of recorded sound, the love theme known as "Across the Stars." It's such a truly beautiful work of art that completely blends with George Lucas' vision of this world he has created. It's also Williams' best love theme since Superman, which itself is a truly beautiful composition. The action is music is also great, punctuating each movement and tick and making the action seem much more important then how they play out in the logic of the story.

Final Verdict: Its better than I remember, but it is still kind of hokey and funny. It has a well developed story, four interesting characters, and some fantastic music. But the rest is tired, slow, and really bad dialog. So it's better than Phantom Menace, but nowhere close to the next one.

I was five years old when Phantom Menace came out on video, and of course, I was instantly hooked. When I got older though, I started reading up on the complaints fans have. And when I mean complaints, I really mean death threats made against these specific individuals: George Lucas, Jake Lloyd, and Jar-Jar Binks. Seriously I have seen these. Now that I'm older and understand more about what makes a movie work and not work, I can honestly say Phantom Menace isn't as great as I remember, but by gum is it an entertaining movie.

The story starts out with some sort of trade dispute between a group called the Trade Federation and the planet of Naboo, run by Queen Padme Amidala (played by Natalie Portman) When Jedi Knights Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi Wan Kenobi (the brilliantly cast Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor)are dispatched to negotiate a truce, the Federations intentions are made clear when they try to kill the two and stage a government takeover on Naboo. After rescuing the Queen, it is decided to hide the damaged ship on Tatooine until they can repair it. There they meet the boy Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) and Qui-Gon thinks he may be the chosen one to bring balance to the force. Then ensues action, planning, and a bunch of dazzling effects.

The story is actually interesting because it takes its time to develop. However this does lead to the argument that it really has nothing going for it. I find a mid-ground, its interesting but some things are unnecessary, For example, the sub-plot on Coruscant really yields one thing but we spend like half an hour there. Sometimes the dialog doesn't work, like some of Obi-Wan's humor, but for the most part its fine. Lucas had so much pressure to live up to the Original Trilogy. With the standards the fans put on him, he could never live up to those impossible expectations.

The acting and characterization has been a source of jokes and criticism for most viewers. It's really not that bad as you may think. You have some very good actors (like Neeson, McGregor, and Portman)and some who get the job done (Lloyd, McDiarmid, and Quashie) I never saw anyone I really hated in here and I still don't. For those with a heart, leave Jake Lloyd alone. he didn't do a bad job. I truly don't understand how people think Lucas made him an all knowing genius as a kid for worse. Some kids are more technologically gifted than others and some have deep thoughts. Sure his performance doesn't work at moments, but its still OK.

Now we come to the aspect of the film people hate the most... Jar Jar Binks. People wish this character never graced the universe and would rather die than listen to him any more. I have a confession to make. I sort of like Jar Jar. Let me explain myself... I know he's an awful character. I know he was probably thrown in for "comic relief only." but seriously he was one of the first CGI characters in a movie, that's a huge accomplishment. And if people acknowledge him as a character that they somehow connected to on a bad emotional level, that means the effect worked. For me, I thought he was funny growing up, and I still think he kind of is.

The effects are truly spectacular in this movie, some of the cleanest and best I have ever seen in my life. While Jar Jar is quite clearly visible these days as a CGI character, the others are actually very convincing. The Podrace on Tattoine is one of the best things I have ever seen put to cinema, it looks real and exciting at the same time.

The music by John Williams is also a bit of a departure, which is an exceptional thing. He incorporates Sanskrit sounds and building up music to outstanding effect, which makes it sound more awesome than it already is.

So yeah, I like this movie. I recognize its flaws sure, but this movie is meant to be fun and entertaining. It's not the best, but it sure ain't the worst.

Following two really great and imaginative films, Return of the Jedi seems a bit like a letdown. Its not that its bad, I just feel slightly annoyed when I watch it. The story is understandably under pressure to live up to Episodes VI and V, but it doesn't really stand as tall. There are some good things though, so let's take a look.

The conclusion of the trilogy entails the threat of a new (yet somehow half finished "OPERATIONAL") Death Star. This time the Emperor himself (played fiendishly awesome by Ian McDiarmid) has come to lure Luke Skywalker into joining the Dark Side, but Luke's only concern is to free his father Anakin Skywalker from the darkness of Darth Vader. Meanwhile, after freeing Han from Jabba the Hutt, which takes an inordinately long time I may add, the our heroes go to the teddy bear infested toy store... I mean Ewok run moon of Endor to destroy the Death Star's shied so Lando Calrissian can destroy the station's jumper-upper thingy.

There are, unfortunately, very weak elements to this story even though it should really have been more epic and emotional. The stuff on Tatooine with Jabba the Hutt goes on for far longer than it should, but Jabba is a rather interesting fellow, so at least that carries us through it. The dialog and characterizations are really bad in this one, and I mean really annoyingly bad. Luke barely smiles once in this movie, and for the most part, he looks and sounds depressed. His platitudes aren't that great either when he talks to his father. Leia and Han are equally as boring. There is just no more spark between any of them anymore, and they seem like they're either playing role models to a fault, or they are caricatures of themselves.

The element that really does bug me is the reveal of the fact that Luke and Leia are twins. Add the fact that they had kissed each other romantically and formed a sort of love triangle in the previous two films...EEWWWW!!!!! It wasn't necessary at all, so why it was done is completely beyond me.

When I talk about the dialog, it comes off as stilted and muted. Words aren't emphasized, and when they are, people use them as catchphrase, i.e. "It's A Trap!" Family Guy best summed up the Emperor's dialog by repeating the words "Dark Side, Good, Complete, my Young Apprentice or Operational." The rest is really default word placement, i.e. something, something, something, Dark Side. No one talks normally in this movie, and it truly annoys me.

Now onto the good things. The effects are truly spectacular, some of the best in the series, namely found in the Death Star dogfight. Here it looks like effort was really put into the movie to make it stand out. Bravo. The emotional journey of Darth Vader is actually handled very well, and the moment when he removes the mask that keeps him alive to really look upon his son is very sad but we are reminded that he has redeemed himself in the process, bringing balance to the force.

So I do have mixed feelings about Return of the Jedi. It's not bad, but its not that great either. Now we move onto the controversial Prequel Trilogy. I will try to handle these films as fairly and as best as I can.

After Star Wars was a smash hit in 1977, a sequel was put into the works. The Empire Strikes Back is one of those sequels that is equal to the original, while still being its own film. While I can't personally say it's the best film of the Saga, it comes pretty darn close.

As with any second film in a trilogy, we begin after an unspecified amount of time following the Battle of Yavin. The rebels are discovered on the ice planet Hoth, and are promptly defeated by the Imperial Walkers. Our main group is split up into separate teams. Luke, following advice from the force ghost of Obi Wan, seeks out the wise teacher Yoda (a puppet played in a stunningly real performance by puppeteer Frank Oz) who teaches him the true power and meaning of the Force. Leia and Han, along with Chewie, Threepio and R2, are pursued by the Empire for use as bait in a trap by Darth Vader.

For a film that has no real beginning or end story-wise, this film has more emotion and character study, exactly what George Lucas and director Irvin Kershner wanted. During his experiences with Yoda, Luke develops an inner conflict about Darth Vader and the Dark Side, and that he must confront this evil in a duel. We as an audience also learn the power of the Force, which is further strengthened as a religious idea, such as Yoda's line, "You must FEEL the force AROUND you." Such material is what makes Empire great, is that we move deeper and deeper into darker and more thoughtful thematic material. The real interesting part of this film is the big reveal in the third act, where Vader reveals Luke's true parentage. It is simply one of the greatest scenes to ever grace the movie screens, and such an emotional pull that we still get lost in the moment even though we all know who he is now.

On the opposite side, the stuff on Leia and Han's side of the film is good, but not great. Let me explain. The love story is actually very well done. There's not a lot of smooching and sappy sentiment, but it happens very naturally, along with some banter. Harrison Ford also delivers one of the best improvised lines when Leia says "I Love You." he simply says, "I know." Those are actors who really know their characters. But the rest it seems just to be "funny" or unnecessary annoyance. Chewie and Threepio fit into this category, though Threepio is far more interesting than Chewie so... I guess I give him a pass.

The rest of the movie is pretty good. The effects are unbelievable, the music is perfect, with John Williams giving us the universally loved "Imperial March," and the terrifying lightsaber duel between Vader and Luke being the highlight of the entire film.

Its one of the best of the Saga. I say "one of the best" because, for me, this ties with two of the other films, Episodes VI and III. All three of these films are on the top of the game and great films to watch.

Onto the first in the sort of "lackluster films the fans love to rip to shreds...

When George Lucas created his galaxy far, far away, no one believed it would be anything more than a dismal failure. It had modern special effects concepts that no one understood, casting and characters that went against the normal mentality, and above all things, it was science fiction (not a bankable genre at the time) But when the film was released in May 1977, all the doubts were immediately blasted away and the film became an international and cultural icon.

Star Wars is one of those films that takes risks and presents what people can do with a lot of imagination, determination, and a lot of sweat. George Lucas changed cinematic technique forever with this movie. He applied universal themes and classic good vs. evil to a story with mind-blowing effects and a grand spectacle for all ages to come.

This particular (now fourth but at the time first) chapter of the long (six-film) story involves the adventure of a young farm boy named Luke Skywalker as he is swept into joining the rebellion against the evil Galactic Empire. He encounters many obstacles and tight situations along the way, before becoming the very hero of the Rebellion. This story, inspired by old space serials on television, may seem initially basic. But the way Lucas conceives his characters and the themes of the story is what makes it truly fresh and original. this begins Luke's emotional journey to becoming a Jedi warrior, and his understanding of a mysterious energy called "the Force."

This film has classic characterizations, which makes all the more universally appealing. Luke is our innocent blank slate, who becomes just as invested as we do, but he isn't boring. he is a headstrong youth who will jump in feet first if he must. Han is very cynical, but ultimately sees what's important in the end and becomes a good friend. Leia is a not so typical damsel-in-distress. She is much like Luke in spirit, but projects some kind of wisdom beyond her years, which has become typical around Lucasfilm these days, but its not a bad thing.

Alec Guinness expertly plays the wise mentor, Jedi master Obi-Wan Kenobi, who imparts his wisdom of the force onto Luke and the past story of the now prequel trilogy. Now comes the symbol of all evil in this universe, Darth Vader (physical performance by David Prowse, voice by James Earl Jones) Darth Vader is more famous than the movie itself, and has become the symbol of Star Wars. His commanding presence is terrifying.

What separates Star Wars from other films is its distinctive look and effects. The very impressive sets, designed and built in England by Superman designer John Barry, evokes a sleek but what Lucas called "used atmosphere." The reason why we buy that these things and sets are for real is that they look like they have been used and lived in for years, and that we can see the rivets and tiniest of details on the models used for the effects. The effects are some of the best that I have and ever will see. All the films in the saga have great effects as well, though some of them have better effects more than others. Just the frenetic pacing and fast action is enough to satisfy any movie goer.

I will say, Star Wars isn't Star Wars without John Williams. His greatest known and successful score adds this level of timelessness that Lucas was trying to achieve. The famous fanfare is used everywhere now, as it heralds greatness. Lucas and Williams agreed that this score should be full of motifs and themes that would give an "emotional anchor" that may not have come across otherwise. While there is the grand and bellicose music for the action, there are very sweet and emotional themes punctuated throughout, making the experience of watching this film even greater.

I can't say enough about this magical movie that uses movie magic to its advantage. It's fun, imaginative, and overall just outstanding. The start of the Saga is excellent.

November 22, 1963 was one of the darkest days in American history. It was the day President John F. Kennedy was shot dead riding in his limousine through the city of Dallas, Texas. With today being the 50th anniversary of the assassination, I have decided to review Oliver Stone's controversial film about not only that day in Dallas, but all of the controversy and conspiracy theories that have surrounded it from moment one.

JFK is actually a movie about New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) who takes it upon himself to bring to trial the people he believes conspired to murder the president. He and his staff do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald (played eerily similar to his historical counterpart by Gary Oldman) simply acted alone, and as it turns out everyone he talks to has a theory about what the really happened, but every time they try to formally question them the "witnesses to conspiracy" end up changing their view or end up dead. Garrison does bring a man he believes was directly involved, Clay Shaw (played by Tommy Lee Jones) to trial and tries to prove that it was all a big lie and a conspiracy exists.

The acting is full of very recognizable stars in good roles, even though some are only there ever so briefly that it works against itself, or some historically inaccurate. Costner gives a heroic portrayal of Jim Garrison, whom I think represents Stone's view of the assassination, even though most people know that his real investigation was questionable in his grounds of prosecution, and that he was extremely obsessive about a conspiracy theory. The supporting cast is great and they are great actors, but some completely disappear even though they are all supposed to be involved.

The screenplay, written by Oliver Stone and co-writer Zachary Sklar, is something of which I consider to be a brilliant mystery (something that works unbelievably well even though it really shouldn't) My major problem with the story is that both writers try to cram in way too many conspiracy theories. I myself do not believe most of these theories presented, especially when there is incontrovertible evidence against the theories Stone crams in. For example, modern computer animation by animator Dale Myers, ballistics experts, and even the evidence found in the Book Depository have proved the "multiple bullet theory" to be false. However, with these falsehoods in mind, the film does raise some eyebrows about some inconsistencies with the investigation. I hate to say, but some (a very small amount) of these theories could hold water, but we would have to fully research these ideas and think formulate our own opinions.

Like I said at the beginning of the review, this movie has been called one of (some call it the most) controversial films of all time. Many critics and people who were there believe that this movie is very manipulative and completely full of falsehoods and not one shred of truth. I think that people have blindly seen this movie without educating themselves about either the theories or what happened during the actual assassination. Instead of blindly believing everything the movie throws at us, we really have to look into it and study it for ourselves.

But the way the film is executed and filmed is what makes this a classic, and one of the reasons why it appears on my all time favorite films list. The cinematography is so amazing and beautiful that sometimes you question whether or not it's real (another reason why it seems manipulative) Director of Photography Robert Richardson uses the same kind of film stock and cameras that existed in 1963 and before to frame the story in the best way possible. And then there's the editing, which best sums up the feelings of the assassination, which is truly chaotic. The editing is so great in that it forces us to look at all the details and try to keep up with what's going on. Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia did a fantastic job with it and kind of set a standard for kinetic editing that hasn't really been matched in recent years. It also makes sense that both these areas won Academy Awards.

Oliver Stone considers this film to be greatest personal achievement. I, in all honesty, would have to agree with his sentiment. Many think that Stone has tried to manipulate people to match his now ultra-radical views, but he does what a director should be allowed to do. I think what Stone is trying to do is present his anger and confusion about someone who represented the hopes and dreams (his dreams as well) of America being madly gunned down like that, in a way that is more personal and daring than directors and producers were willing to go at that time. Every director should have a view of things and an opinion to present, not to follow the norm or keep quiet.

This film is amazing to watch and is one of those rarities for me in Hollywood, a film to challenge us, make us think, and research about what is presented to us. Some have and will continue to blindly accept what they see in this film and others as fact, which can be dangerous, but still, we have people who are smart enough to know what is true and what is "Hollywood." For many people, the movie JFK truly represents the lack of closure and anger we still feel for what happened 50 years ago today.

Everybody at least knows of or has seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is one of those great movies that was supposed to be a throwback to an old adventure for kids, but has become a vital part of our culture. I think the reason why it is better than the old Republic Pictures serials that it is inspired by is that it takes a "modern" approach, but is still timeless in how it was executed. And with the geniuses of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas behind the camera, this film reached an incredible level of excellence.

The story is about an archaeologist named Indiana Jones, who has a flair for finding rather rare treasures with supernatural ties. On this particular adventure, he sets out to find the lost Ark of the Covenant. Along the way he joins with an old flame, Marion Ravenwood, who is angry with Indy for doing something to her in the past, but the two rekindle their old flame as the film goes. Indy also has to deal with the Nazis, who are trying to bring the Ark to Hitler for his own truly evil purposes. This thread seems as basic as the serials that they were based on, but the way the characters are set up and they way they play off of one another is brilliant.

The writer for this movie is Lawrence Kasdan, who incorporated many of Steven and George's ideas, and forged them together into a very witty, exciting, and intriguing script. Each character is memorable and is never wasted, unless they are the secondary characters. Just like the old Republic films, there is breathless action and fast paced pacing, but here there is time for the characters to breathe and develop.

Fresh off of Han Solo in Star Wars is Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. Instead of being a brash smuggler like Solo was, here is a gruff rugged man who is sensitive and humane, but has just a glimmer of the character of Dobbs from The Treasure of Sierra Madre. Ford is just the natural fit for the character and makes him a fully realized action hero who is not brainless. And like any hero, he has a crippling flaw, a fear of snakes, which presents a great irony when he finally locates the Ark. And on the same level is Karen Allen as Marion. She is really tough and sassy, the perfect tomboy, but somehow presents an elegance that few women characters possess in this kind of genre. She can definitely hold her own in a fight, and gives Indy a perfect lady to fall for, and vice versa in Indy's case.

The villains are pretty good in this film. They don't really act like Nazis very much as guys trying to make names for themselves and do their jobs for their fuhrer. Paul Freeman as Belloq is rather interesting. He is Indy's rival and somewhat equal, who will often times steal Indy's stuff and pass it off as his own discovery. He's the kind of guy who doesn't really like to get his clothes dirty. We have a man named Dietrich who is the senior Nazi officer, who serves only for Hitler and no one else. But then there is Toht, played by forgotten character actor Ronald Lacey. He is really creepy and menacing, but with a great side of humor, like Peter Lorre (which was Spielberg's intention) He is in all black wherever he goes and always wears a coat, which leads to one of the best gags in cinema.

But the movie is very well known for the exciting action sequences. Lucas has a great notion of what should happen, but Spielberg is the true genius of these scenes. Spielberg is the kind of director who knows what he wants to see, which coincides with exactly what the audience wants as they view it. So when something exciting happens like when Indy jumps from a horse onto a moving truck, its done in such a way that it seems much more jaw dropping and stunning even though its perfectly logical in the grammar of an adventure movie.

When Lucas and Spielberg decided to do this film, they would do it the old-fashioned way, quick, dirty, and relatively inexpensive. That's why the movie comes off as very fast-paced and imaginative. But one thing that reels the viewer's mind is that Lucas, the man who transformed special effects in Star Wars, would use "cheap" and old special effects. But again, they're done so convincingly that one hardly notices their imperfections, because they seem so logical and necessary. When the Ark is finally opened, it is mysterious and ultimately dooming for those who look upon the power of God, a fantastic display.

The best known aspect of the film is John William's score, which is perfect. It is a rousing score which gets the blood going, and accents key moments of both progression and shock in the scenes its featured in. The "Raider's March" is one of the most famous themes in music, mainly because it builds and builds to an exciting payoff, just like the movie's story itself.

This movie, nominated for Best Picture in 1981, was a huge surprise for the producers. It was surprising for an "audience picture" to get such recognition, when only few had done so (like Star Wars and Jaws) Even though it didn't win, it's reputation is still extremely strong among movie buffs like me, and even people who just want an escape for two hours out of their lives. There was a lot of passion and collaboration in front of and behind the camera to gives us something special. The dream team succeeded.

Ordinary People is one of those movies where you think it'll be one thing, but turns out to be quite a different experience altogether. Coming from the very well written novel by Judith Guest, and adapted by Oscar winner Alvin Sargeant, this movie very much deals with the harsh reality of a post-tragedy family in America. With great acting, and a very impressive directing debut from Robert Redford, it became something more than a cheap drama a lot of people think it is at first glance.

The story centers on the Jarrett family, consisting of Calvin, Beth, and their second son Conrad. Their eldest son, Buck, recently drowned in a boating accident and Conrad is still reeling from both survivor guilt and a recent suicide attempt. Both Calvin and Beth are trying to keep going through life and take care of their remaining child, but also try to comprehend what they are actually like and if they really care for one another. Conrad seeks help from psychiatrist Dr. Berger, who helps Conrad to deal with his still festering grief and his seemingly abandoned feeling from his mother.

The acting is truly noting short of excellent in this film. There is not one false note in the list. Donald Sutherland gives a truly fine portrayal of Calvin, who really is trying to connect with Conrad, but doesn't quite know what Conrad wants or how to assert his opinions in arguments or even see what Conrad is feeling even though its in front of him. The fact that he wasn't even considered for an Oscar is truly bizarre, and I see it as one of the worst snubs in Oscar history. Timothy Hutton (who won the Supporting Actor Oscar) Conrad too is complex. he is trying to deal with his grief, but with the world at school who see him as a freak both in general, and after his suicide attempt, it doesn't help his cause. But with Berger, he works through defense mechanisms and vague desires to the root of the problem. We both laugh and cry during his journey throughout the film, which is always interesting.

But the most complex of the characters in the whole story is Beth. She is played by comedienne Mary Tyler Moore who completely breaks that mold and shows of her very good acting skills here. Beth is the one everyone loves and likes being around, and a kind of person who keeps up the appearance of both a loving mother and a good housekeeper. But as the film progresses, it seems that she really doesn't love her son Conrad, and even her own husband. She seemed to pour all her energy in Buck, who many saw as the other version of herself. There is one heartbreaking quote about her character during an argument with Conrad and Calvin. Conrad shouts that even though she never visited him in the hospital she surely would have visited Buck, with her responding, "Buck would have never BEEN in the hospital." Even at the end when Calvin questions her love for him, she breaks a stoic exterior but immediately puts the mask back on, revealing a very broken and vain woman who wants everything to look good, even at the cost of love and connection with her family.

Both Sargeant and Redford do not use drama and the occasional slip into the melodrama for the sake of doing so, but because it helps tell the story and reveal the motivations and idiosyncrasies of the characters. There is no special music or camera tricks to emphasize anything, making the movie seem far more natural and pure than anything else. As a great actor himself, Redford knows how to get his cast to react in a natural way, but not appear to be in a movie.

Even though many consider Raging Bull to be the biggest pass-over in Oscars, it really wasn't looked highly upon as a movie back then and this movie was selected for Best Picture, and Redford beat Martin Scorsese for Directing. I see both of them as equal, just on a different level. I consider them both to be the Best Pictures of 1980. I also wish that Mary Tyler Moore won Best Actress, she so deserved it.

This movie is a fascinating character study of "ordinary" people put in a situation which is a far cry from something remotely ordinary in life. Each deals with it in his or her own way, which leads for some touching and affecting moments, and an ending that seems open-ended in one way, but closes the book in another. Chekc it out, and guess for yourselves.

Well my title says it all about Skyfall. This has to be the best of the Bond films,not just because it's kick ass and fun, but there's also a very good story and characters to go with it. After the debacle known as Quantum of Solace, this is the best return to form since Casino Royale in 2006.

The story this time around is very M-centric. Bond must track down a former agent, Raoul Silva, who is after M for betraying him years before. M is also being phased out as her methods are seen as both passé and dangerous to the agents in her organization, and she both has to fight Silva and the knowledge that the world is changing and that she can no longer keep up with it. Bond also has his own journey as he was presumably killed at the beginning of the film, he becomes out of shape and cynical, but still will protect his boss, who is the closest thing to his mother. We also learn about Bond's childhood at his father's mansion Skyfall, which is really interesting.

We get some of the best acting in this series and fresh faces to old favorites. Daniel Craig does his finest work as an actor in this one, making Bond three-dimensional once again. We get the new Q in the form of Ben Whishaw, whom I think easily fills in for the respected shoes of Desmond Llewelyn. Ralph Fiennes is a government agent Mallory, who becomes M later on. We get Naomie Harris as Eve (Moneypenny) who is unfortunately the one person who doesn't work for me, but oh well.

Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva. SPOT ON PERFECT CASTING. Silva is my favorite villain of the series, and has set the bar for future ones to come. He is calm and collected, never going over the top in what he does or says. He is also a bit effeminate, which makes him very unique, unlike the gay duo Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd from Diamonds are Foerever. He doesn't overplay it, which is why I mention it. He is also intimidating as hell, being given the best villain intro in movie history. It's a long shot that lasts for a long time until he finishes the story he tells us and Bond. So brilliant!

The director of this movie, Sam Mendes, actually brings a more refined look and feel to this series than even Martin Campbell (but both are on the same level in my opinion) He utilizes quiet dramatic moments with some very well filmed and fast paced action. But he also has the great Roger Deakins to shoot the film, and of course, the photography is beautiful. The one scene that I must single out as beautiful is when Bond fights a henchman in front of a blue light display and all you see is silhouette. It looks exactly like Maurice Binder shot it. Deakins should have won the Oscar for Cinematography on this one.

The action is amazing. And surprisingly, I didn't see much shaky cam, or it was so minimal that I didn't know there was any to be had. It has the best.

And I will mention one more aspect of this brilliant film. Adele's theme song. I haven't talked much about the theme songs in Bond because with the exception of maybe 6 of them, I don't care for them much. But when Adele wrote and sang this song, it added a level to greatness not a lot of people thought Bond would have. She deservedly won the Oscar for the song, nice work! This film is awesome. I have watched it many times, and I'm sure there will be many more in the future.

That concludes Bond month. I'm theflyace, and thanks for reading.

P.S. Prepare for my best-to-worst Bond films, villains, and actors lists in my profile.

After the fantastic experience of watching Casino Royale, I expected something on the same level. I expect way too much from Bond I suppose. Quantum of Solace is a strange experience that would jar the senses of any audience member, even non-Bond fans.

Well let's look at the story that I thought had great potential. It picks up directly where Casino Royale left off, with Bond investigating an agent of an organization known as Quantum, which I think is the modern equivalent to SPECTER. This is some guy named Dominic Greene who tries to monopolize a desert country's water before trying to stage a coup-de-tat in said countries with hoarded water. But that's not the main story, its about M whining about Bond being plagued by revenge for the death of Vesper (SPOILER!!) Here's the first problem with the movie for me, the plot suffers from a complete lack of focus (and I'm not talking about the editing or camera-work either, I'll get to that later) Like I said, the story had great potential, but it is underdeveloped and the characterizations often times do not make any sense. Heck sometimes the logic of everything that plays out makes no sense at all. The aspect involving the water isn't all that interesting, and surprisingly, the revenge aspect isn't great either. Now, some people say that about Licence to Kill as well, but there you had a solid story and decent characterizations, but when they are simplified or not clear, it doesn't work as well.

The acting is actually the biggest saving grace of this movie, well for the most part. Craig still packs in a solid performance as Bond, giving a far more darker turn than in Casino Royale, but he still manages to incorporate the dry humor that worked very well in the last movie. Olga Kurylenko is amazing as Camille, and even the first Bond girl that Bond doesn't go to bed with all the way through the movie. The others are fine, but with the bad writing for the most part, they get lost and hopelessly confused so they seem odd and stupid.

Then there's the action and filming. Holy god this is the most poorly shot movie I have ever seen in my life. The camera is shaking to the point of seasickness, like Man of Steel, but is doesn't benefit from poor editing. A lot of the sots in this movie last either a half a second or a half a frame before the scene is over. Then there are random shots and edits that make zero sense and provides the reason why I say this is an unbearable experience for the eyes and ears. Actually, we get a very good car chase at the beginning of the film and a cool aerial battle between a jet and an old Douglas DC-3, that's always great to watch. But other than that there are few and far between great action sequences.

I've harped on this movie enough so I won't try to do anything more to it. But if I had to, I would recommend this one for one single viewing only. Is is the worst executed Bond film? Yes, yes it is. But does is have good things? On an occasion. Watch it once, but have vomit bags ready.

Now onto the next greatest return to Bond-form, and my favorite Bond film, Skyfall.