Reviews

It's a classic. I think it's a classic. One that was not made to be one, that's not pretentious, that doesn't follow some secret formula to be fun, intelligently-written and intense. I've read a lot of theories on the ongoing themes: but I don't believe it was made to overanalyze, to have one thousand cryptic messages, but yes to spot something new to love every time you watch it.

I love it, I think it deserves every ounce of fame it ever got, but I don't think it is undoubtedly Tarantino's masterpiece – I happen to think his filmography *is* the masterpiece itself, that how we should see his work is as a whole. But Pulp Fiction is definitely a high point.

It *is* the movie that defined the director's style the most. Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer's chat about robbing banks as if they were talking about the weather; a cheap-looking, greasy John Travolta discusses Big Macs and foot massages with Samuel L. Jackson on their way to a mass murder; every character is human in the most fictitious way possible, in a movie that never pretends to about real life, just created to be an extremely fun ride.

The stories are top-notch.

The second story, starring Bruce Willis, was my favourite. From all the scenes that make it memorable, I'm just going to mention the introduction: about two minutes of Christopher Walken, as one certain Captain Koons, eloquently delivering one of Tarantino's famous riffs, fairly more intense than the man himself ranting about Like a Virgin in Reservoir Dogs, better even that Dennis Hopper's astounding performance in True Romance. Only Christopher Walken could make something involving "watch up one's arse" all transcendental and unforgettable.

It's this thing Tarantino has that made, makes him different from every other screenwriter and director. He takes advantage of the personalities he's gifted to write, to the last drop: fills dialogue with unique essence which only pertains to the character who's talking, makes them human in their own little ways.

Uma Thurman is particularly worthy of mention as Mia Wallace the criminal boss' wife, who Travolta gets to take out for a rather intense night. In an interview, Q mentions how, discussing personal aspects of Mia's character with another, unspecified actress who would most probably be earning the role, he felt like he was cheating on Thurman: how could he be discussing her with someone else, if Uma *was* Mia? And honestly, head to toe, she was the perfect choice. Nobody else could have nailed that character, her dry sharpness, the silent chemistry between her and Travolta's Vincent.

Some have regarded this movie as a step back from Quentin's first. I think it may have aged a little *too* well, in that hardly anybody acknowledges what that movie meant back in 1995. It may look like it doesn't have that edge of freshness, of "somebody just *wanted* to make this so much it's maniacal" that Reservoir Dogs had: but it isn't pretentious, it's a movie to lay back and watch without over-analyzing. And for that, I think I deserves to be Top #5 and more.

I have to admit not being a fan of the book. In fact, I hated it. It can't deny it was entertaining to read, and you could clearly recognize it was made to be a best seller for its fast-paced formula of mystery, action and vague eroticism, but the only I can give to Dan Brown is that he is a genius of publicity – not a good storyteller, not even a good writer. It looked like this guy had just typed symbology and DaVinci in Google and stuffed all the results in the novel. Yet however, it has its fans, and I respect their opinions, but don't ask me to like it. I don't.

The DaVinci Code is a bad book, and though I enjoyed the movie a little more, I can't call it good either. With bad yet commercial source material, my expectations were subzero, and I wasn't surprised or anything. It's simply the novel, with a few tweaks here and there (more on that later because it's one of the few things I loved). The start is okay: it builds up some tension and shows off how good Ron Howard can be as a filmmaker, with these brilliant, story-of-the-character-in-15-seconds style flashbacks, which I found an excellent technique to shove aside all the unnecessary melodrama and annoying angst which riddled the book. The problem, though: after some downright boring bits, you just find yourself wondering when will it recuperate. It doesn't.

This movie takes itself too seriously. It's in serious need of a little sense of humour about itself and so do the two main actors about their characters. But once again, the standard 'you can't make a good movie out of a pile of rubbish' applies; so much cliché, after all, will never possess or deserve a third dimension.

Hanks kept looking confused all the way through, although I can't blame him – it's how I've always imagined Robert Langdon anyway –, and Tautou (no matter how much I'm biased in her favour) plays her typical curious, cool & cute, but her character sometimes is just… there, with not much to do or say. I guess the novel gave her more protagonism, but can you really call that something good?

Fortunately, the secondary actors are a lot more entertaining to watch. As always, Ian McKellen is brilliant, taking delight in playing flamboyant and eccentric sir Leigh Teabing in a great opportunity to make the audience smile, steal every scene from the boring protagonists and give the plot an okay turn. Jean Reno is always himself, and although I swear I can hear the question of 'what am I doing in this movie', the role of Fache didn't belong to anyone else. Alfred Molina gives an oddly refreshing performance and plays perfectly with that sneaky poker smile, although I just so wish we got to see more of him; and Paul Bettany is without a doubt my favourite: for he's the only character to truly display passion, emotional charge. He makes Silas so expressive and tortured and adds in that soft, sweet, slimy, intentionally unfocused tone which is not based on anything, nor does he owe it to nobody - not even Dan Brown. It's all his.

The movie _did_ accomplish something the novel didn't, for the book was indecisive when it came to who exactly was to be blamed for all the mess. 'Cause you know, the evil character just thought they were saving the Church, and evil albino assassins army aside the Opus Dei is cool. The movie made its message a little less blurry - while for example, the character of Aringarosa did come across as more greedy, twisted and manipulative, the police chief was a member of Opus without being the EBOL and Silas, in reality, was a victim of circumstance – and quite an insane one at that.

It's too bad that it was at least 30 minutes too long, and you couldn't really scratch them off anywhere. Wish the ending had been more agile or entertaining, 'cause after giving a not entirely satisfying cut to the main plot, I just wanted the movie to end.

To put it simply, this movie is a jewel: After being in love with it for quite the time, I have decided to settle down and write a review for it, because no matter how much praise it gets, this short animation film deserves more.

This is the kind of movie which will not leave you unhappy; there's a little bit for everyone in this masterpiece. Are you one for emotional, expressive characters? Then you'll like it: not only are the characters, even those more minor, cutely designed and each with unique, sweet strands of quirky personality in themselves, but the clay models' expressivity is sometimes more than that of some bland actors and actresses. The voices are wonderfully implemented too, with Johnny Depp taking into the role of the main focus, dreamy Victor van Dort, and Emily Watson voicing Victoria, his sweet and naïve 'human' fiancée. But the true star is unequivocally Helena Bonham-Carter as the alluring Corpse Bride herself, the bubbly and sexy Emily, whose emotions switch swiftly from happy to sad to angry – and you really won't want to mess with this Bride! Of course, the rest of the cast is placed just as aces, with Tracey Ullman and Paul Whitehouse as the Van Dorts, Victor's status-hungry parents, Joanna Lumley and Albert Finney as the stuck-up and aristocratic Everglots (and, in the best possible way, these were *perfectly* voiced), and Richard E. Grant as the dark, refined and depraved Lord Barkis Bittern.

The score? Striking, simply, a perfect ten. You really couldn't get anybody better than Danny Elfman to do this job, and even with him, I don't doubt it must cost a painful amount of time and effort to compose such a perfectly fit soundtrack, but as it is? In my opinion, it couldn't be better. This man just seems to hit the spot every time, and although nobody would miss a few songs more (comparing this to Nightmare Before Christmas, the result is rather less quantitative), you can tell the songs are a definite improvement, from the repetitive tunes of NMBC to the full songs, complete with lyrics which tell portions of the story as opposed to simply describing situations.

Another of this movie's strong points is the humour. Whether you're one for sophisticated and adult wit, or darkly jokey slapstick and in-context plays with words, there's bound to be a little wink at the audience you'll at the very least smirk at. While the dry comedy is reserved for the grey Land of the Living, wildness is unleashed in the colourful and spazzy Land of the Dead.

So take your pick, but whether you're already a fan of Burton's or a newcomer to his wonderful and crazy world, this dreamy piece is something notable out of his filmography. Personally, I think just the effort and hours put behind the animation, especially with it being so detailed and dynamic in the final result, are worth respecting. Couple that with a wonderfully told, beautiful storyline which, although many found simple and linear, I thought it really couldn't give more out of itself, and you have Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, a movie with quite simple ambitions which easily becomes one of this director's liveliest – no pun intended.

Not many adaptations from a comic book to a movie are so successfully done as what is presented to us with Sin City. All in all, you should at least tell that every single aspect in this movie is treated with lots of care; from the portrayal of the neo-Gothic dark alleys of the setting, to the perfect depiction of amorality through its characters.

In what concerns the translation from comic book to film, there are no flaws in the result, no rough corners to smooth. If you enjoyed the read, it's safe to expect you will like this as much. If not – it's as sane to say you won't.

Definitely, what you should ask this for is not a merry-go-round ride to any colourful world. From the, in the best possible sense, ghastly and interesting aesthetics to the overly dramatic dialogue, not one inch of ground on Sin City retains political correctness.

This movie is an insight to a corrupted society, a kill-or-be-killed system, much of it in first person. Giving us an accurate narrative from the main characters' point of view; and these characters, the protagonists, aren't exactly heroes. Bruce Willis, Clive Owen and Mickey Rourke all play the star of the show in different stories, and while I thought Owen's the most forgettable, their interpretations (as well as, I don't deny, the rest of the cast's) were excellent.

Well directed, shot, with intriguing camera angles and sequences seemingly taken directly from the panels, not to mention the overly effective plots, Sin City earns a well-deserved 9 out of 10. And, assuming they are prepared to some blood splatters and dark humour, I don't doubt anyone else will like it too.

Buried deep down in the nonsense of a bad blend between the kinds of CSI: Las Vegas and Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians", is an actually not bad at all concept for your typical slasher flick – if only it hadn't ambitioned much.

Deep down? Nothing: That's what the result has to offer. "Mindhunters" is vastly uninteresting in everything it pretends. The plot holes are more astonishing than the movie itself; the gore is poorly done; the characters are bland and boring, and towards the end when they all begin being whacked as you're watching, I'm afraid the viewer just can't afford to give a damn anymore because their interest is way too unfocused from the movie.

I am generally overly empathic with characters, and that I will admit. But the only persona I felt some sympathy towards was the wheelchair-bound guy, and let's face it, having one character being unable to walk doesn't make up for an entirely one-dimensional cast – in fact, it's a pretty cheap excuse to make you feel something towards them.

The only reason why I don't give this movie one star is because of one cute death, which I won't spoil, includes a pretty interesting parallel between the "fictional" killer they're supposed to face and the true murders taking place in the island, with the scene quickly becoming a disturbing (if not scary, and still physically illogical) "BOO! Gotcha!" moment which I must tip my hat to.

But the rest of the movie – even, objectively, this single scene I liked? Rubbish. Not worth anybody's money, and definitely, not a recommendable movie.

What you see in the screen when concerning Eli Roth's newest project, Hostel, is okay although not excellent. This movie, like any other, has its ups and downs; the ride was dark, curious and definitely entertaining, and it displayed a nihilistic view through not entirely unsympathetic characters. While watching it, especially after the first admittedly fun half hour, I found myself thinking it quirky, but not exactly a masterpiece.

It was once the movie was over, though, that I got to think. And it was thinking about the premise, about the truly dark, sinister and yet perfectly realistic theme. About the subtext which, maybe, I didn't catch the first look through, but which definitely was present when viewing it later. And you might not want to see it, but once you have a deep thought on it, this gory, at times comedic film becomes something entirely different – and by all means effective – which haunted me days after I realized so.

If you're willing to give this movie a second thought, and actually glance at its true motives, it becomes *terrifying*. The classic formula of sex and gore really disguises the dark message, but it's there – and it's true. Very, very true.

Relating to the plot, this time's excuse moves on as we follow three colourful, happy characters who present a clear and radical contrast with the flick's dark setup. This movie tricks and truly plays with the viewer by making them believe exactly the opposite of what truly is going on as our joyful, enthusiastic heroes meet abrupt ends at the hands of antagonists who are gruesomely mentally perturbed, and yet extremely realistic.

Through the first half hour, the characters are introduced as basic stereotypes, but while one of them doesn't live enough to be properly developed, you do get to feel for them as they crave escaping from their torturers. At one point, one character (one I was particularly empathic with) is given a predictably false chance to escape, but the short sequence where he crawls for the exit of the room where he's being held captive is so intense, you can practically feel the fake pain. A friend I went to the cinema with started whimpering at this point, eyes shut as the character met a particularly grisly end.

It's true, maybe, that this movie takes its time to get to the real 'meat and potatoes'. But nothing, and by that I mean literally _nothing_, happens without a plausible and unquestionable explanation – and reason – to back it up later in the movie.

So I'm all for people giving this little movie a chance. Hostel is twisty, disturbing, and freaky – you have to give it that.

I do not think that this movie deserves the low rating that most will give it. It's one of the best "teenager" horror films I've ever seen; and that's saying a lot. Nothing is left without an explanation to back it up, the characters and plot break countless horror movie stereotypes, and it has got nothing to do with some other horrible pieces we've been submitted to lately. (A clear example is the mindless "Saint Ange".) The first 30-40 minutes might be downright boring with the exception of the beginning, although some minor light mistakes can be easily spotted. After the arrival to the village, though, the horror -a different, twisted kind of horror- begins.

With the plot and the details, goofs are minor; the characters are this movie's strongest point, given that so many clichés are broken in it. For example, the two main male characters, Nick and Wade, are not by any means the idiotic types we're used to; although Dalton might fit better in this stereotype, not is he the only one to pay for this lack of consciousness. Some scenes are truly, satisfyingly horrible, making up for tense moments scattered around all the film. And, in the end, and although everything is decorously explained, it's easy to see that things won't go so easy to the surviving characters.

The only errors I can see, and which do not imply continuity (IE, Carly not finding her own cut finger in the unconscious Bo's pockets) is the illumination, which is somehow annoying during the first, boring 30 minutes. Although, plot and effects-wise, everything is drastically and cruelly twisted with the arrival of the main characters to Ambrosia, that little village in the midst of nothing, so I'll give it that. It's been pretty much argued that about 70% of the movie is illogical; "How can two people build an entire house of wax?", "Where do they get all the wax from?". These wouldn't be uprising questions if people would have paid more attention to the movie. The Sinclair brothers did not build the House of Wax; their mother worked making actual wax figures, and they were exhibited at the museum. And the scenario where Paris Hilton's unfortunate character meets her untimely death is the answer to the second question; what is with all the personal objects (mobile phones, cars, clothes) of the dead people? Using their third brother as a connection with the exterior, it's pretty much arguable that the Sinclair twins should obtain the money necessary to buy the wax, in a WWII-type fashion.

So, that aside, I think the movie deserves a lot more than it gets, and nobody should lose the chance to watch it. So go see the House of Wax. Right now.