Just got back from the cinema, and wanted to post a short warning for '30 Days of Night'.

This movie would have been better if it was different. It would have been much better if it was much different. I don't even recommend the video. The trailer might be tolerable, and it's free. I recommend the trailer.

Now, I shall try and forget about it by thinking of other, more pleasant things like global warming or nuclear holocaust.

Mrs. Baphomet and I just went tonight as well... I walked away feeling that he movie's ultimate message was There's Nothing You Can Do To Save A Marriage... Nothing.

That said this movie was really, really bad. I'm sorry Mrs. Pigpen, I can't even recommend the trailer.

I never saw the trailer so you might actually be right. I now feel like someone shares my pain. So much to discuss, but I don't want to be a 'spoiler' to those interested. I'll skip the numerous plot holes and often painful dialog....I just have to ask (rhetorically), what was the point of SO much gore? I wanted to stand up and scream, "Okay! I get it! They are really bad and like to drink blood!" But no matter how much they might like to drink blood, did they have to constantly wear it on their heads, chins, clothing? I really, really like apple pie but I don't rub it all over my face and hair and leave it on for 30 days....GAH! Okay, back to concentrating on global warming....

Heh! I've always wondered that about modern vampire/cannibal films.

I thought maybe the producers might be taking a cue from big cats or something, who do get undeniably gory during the course of a meal. But they can't be, because, as cats, they do clean themselves up pretty much straight after their meal - you don't see lions wandering around caked with dried blood for three weeks after their last big kill.

So I think maybe it's just a grand industry conspiracy to give the continuity and special effects people something to do on the days in between the big set pieces.

I wanted to go and see In The Shadow Of The Moon but - thanks, British film distribution guys - it's showing on only about five arthouse screens around the country and three of those are in London. Think maybe I'll just wait for the DVD and maybe tune in, in the meantime, to one of the periodic arts TV programmes where film executives agonise about how to increase cinema attendances.

When I was a kid - say, when Star Wars came out, and before it had an episode number (on the publicity at least) - there were already a few multi-screen cinemas in Britain. If a film was really popular (like Star Wars) it would stay on exhibition for weeks or even months, until everybody that wanted to see it had done so. Now, with maybe 10 or more screens in a single site, they'll try to cram in the same attendance into up to around six weeks by showing it on six of the damned screens at once.

Why do they do that? Why not show films on a maximum of two screens and then show more, different films?

Scratch that, I know exactly why they do that - money. There simply isn't much money in film exhibition (which is why the concessions are all so unifromly over-priced; it's where they make their profits). There's plenty of money swilling around the film industry, so I wonder if it isn't about time the industry restructures itself to be able to pay exhibitors more and support a wider variety of films on show.

But - these days - it's probably just easier to hurry cinema releases through to get to the real modern mass-audience medium, DVD & subcription TV. 'Cos that way the distributor gets most of the money. Retail margins on DVDs are higher than on film exhibition, but still tight, and the competition is much fiercer so much of that gets frittered away on consumer discounting. And the consumer still ends up paying (at least) slightly more for a DVD than for a cinema ticket.

Well the story is based on a comic book. That's what all the "frame" shots were about. The comic book, like a lot of Darkhorse comic, was awash in crimson. And plotholes? Plot caverns. I mean... and the taking of all the _______s - they're in the middle of nowhere why not knock out the local _______?

Plus Josh Hartnet was by far the prettiest girl in the movie which I found quite annoying. Gun jammed... HAH!

Funniest thing about 30 days of night in Barrow? Um- there are way more than 30 days of night in Barrow - but I guess "65 days and spare change of night" just doesn't sell as well? Oh yeah, they filmed it in New Zealand- doesn't look even remotely like Barrow- not to mention all those white poeple and not many Eskimoes eh? No one named Brower or Active in the city? That right there screams "posuer"

Can't drive to Barrow either.

Oh yeah, plane comes in twice a day- one of them military, and typically Alaskan- meaning, armed with enough firepower to kill a decepticon

However- that being said- the comic book is quite good.

I typically HATE gore films of any kind, and the torture porn (Hostel, Cannibal Holocaust) and gore fests (Saw) to me are just horrid exploitation flixs. They just add to my cynicism and jaded beliefs that human beings were created by Satan, not by Gawd.

In fact, folks that watch those kinds of flix on a regular basis, I have serious questions about thier character, and I won't let them anywhere near MY children.

That being said- after Pan's Labyrinth, such an amazing tale and movie (with some pretty graphic violence itself- I am not against violence in movies- I am against gore and torture as "forms of entertainment )- I am DEFINATELY going to watch "the lives of others" to see how it beat out Pan's Labyrinth as well- it has me very, very curious.

Especially since the main actor, he has died since- was asked how he was motivated for the role, he said "I just remembered"- having been sold out by his second wife to the Stasi- which, interestingly enough- she won a libel suit to force him to NOT write about her being a traitor to him- even though Stasi dcouments show she did inform on him.

The back story makes the film story even more of a "must see" now!

Gee...I didn't think it was that bad...

I have no particular affinity for "torture porn" like Saw or Hostel and their witless sequels. I also understand full well that today's filmmakers are far more skillful at splattering blood and gore on the screen than building tension and mood. But I had a free pass for 30 Days of Night so my 17-yr-old son and I checked it out.

Our verdict was yeah it was pretty much wall-to-wall splatter, but it didn't bother me as none of the characters were developed enough to care about. They might as well have been titled, "Victim #1 and #2" for all the emotional impact their end made on me.

The part about the vampires not bothering to wipe the blood off their faces was to drive home the point that these weren't sophisticated Eurotrash vampires like Dracula or those that have popped up in the "Blade" series. These were feral, brutal killing machines who prefer ripping out throats to sipping Type O Negative from a wine glass.

I gave it a solid "C+." Not the best of the genre and not the worst. For what I paid for it, the price was right.

Now, if I can just get in to see American Gangster next week...

I just saw this last night (two movies in three days!). I had to see a good movie after that last one and I'm glad I did. I highly recommend this film with two thumbs up. It isn't a happy film, but that's probably self-evident.

Denzel Washington never ever disappoints. Not only is he great to look at, and blessed with extraordinary talent, he is one of those very rare actors who truly knows how to pick a script.

Gee, nobody's seen any flicks lately?

We checked out American Gangster recently. It was good, but not great, and certainly not the epic it wanted to be. Denzel and Russell Crowe were both good but the most evil character was the bad cop played with extra slime by Josh Brolin. Can't quite put my finger on it why the movie is entertaining, but not memorable. Maybe I'll have to see it again and it'll "click" the second time around.

I had a free rental and checked out Shoot 'em Up which can best be described as a cross between old John Woo movies and a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Clive Owen is usually very good, but here he plays a man named Smith (just "Smith") who is chased around by a cackling Paul Giamatti who plays a henpecked hitman. Monica Bellucci plays a lactating hooker who Smith takes on the run with him to play wet nurse for a baby he's protecting from Giamatti.

There really isn't much of a plot to this movie. It's just a series of set pieces as Smith blows away armies of goons as he empties rounds of bullets and fills up the morgue. Though every now and then I like movies big and loud and a little dumb, the "gun-fu" gets old real quick and the Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd comparisons aren't at all subtle. Owen is constantly chomping on raw carrots and even says, "What's up, doc?" at one point as Giamatti calls him a "wascally wabbit." Oh, and Owen kills a few thugs with a carrot.



I think I fell asleep about halfway through. Probably a good move.

Since nighttimer has (inadvertently, I'm sure) invited more film reviews, allow me to add some of my own eccentric viewings.

Judge Priest (1934) -- Will Rogers stars as a country judge circa 1890 in this rather dull comedy-drama directed by John Ford. Features the intolerable Stepin Fetchit.

The Ghost Ship (1943) -- Possibly the least known of the moody thrillers produced by Val Lewton, this is a tense tale of a ship's captain slowly going mad and turning to murder. The cadaverous character actor Skelton Knaggs has his best role as a mute sailor who narrates the film via his thoughts.

Gunslinger (1956) -- Without the folks from MST3K to mock it, this Roger Corman quickie turns out to be a slow, cheaply made, but offbeat proto-feminist Western, as the wife (Beverly Garland) of a murdered sheriff takes his place as the town's peacekeeper. B-movie favorite Allison Hayes co-stars as the chief bad "guy." John Ireland unfairly gets top billing over the two ladies as a gunman hired by Hayes to kill Garland. Complications ensue as he falls in love with her. Quite silly at times, as when the dance hall girls execute a teasing routine with modern choreography, but worth a look.

The Love-Ins (1967) -- Hilarious hipsploitation drama as a Learyesque college professor goes from resigning over the expulsion of two students for publishing an underground newspaper to becoming the robe-wearing leader of a "love cult." Features the most clean-cut hippies you've ever seen. Watch for Susan Oliver's LSD trip, which is shown as a ballet (!) of characters from Alice in Wonderland.

Oh, I've seen quite a few good films recently, some big ones too (the ability of the internet to corrupt knows no bounds)

Juno.

A charming and funny film about a teenager who gets pregnant. I have to say this was a great film. My GF and I both had tears in our eyes at the appropriate moments and its nice to see a film where things aren't all end-of-the-world. The main character is played by Ellen Page and she does a great job playing a very likable 16 year old. 4/5

Charlie Wilson's war.

Another great film. This one stars Tom Hanks as the congressman who helped get the funding for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Once again Hanks disapears behind the character he plays and although the subject might seem odd (they say this is a comedy but it didn't feel like one to me) Hanks carries the film brilliantly. (I never get tired of watching Tom Hanks). For politically inspired viewers, the history here is curious as it precedes the war of terror and is thus a very political film. It was quite hard to spot the bias though, whether this film is pro or anti war is rather obscure. Charlie Wilson is set up as being the 'man who killed the USSR', but the lesson is, the USA failed because it forgot the end game. There is a poigniant scene where Wilson sits in a room full of people asking for 500 million dollars for covert support and breezes through the procedure, then later in another scene, same room, Wilson sits alone with two or three other guys, asking for a aid to rebuild schools and can't even raise a single million. 4/5

3-10 to Yuma.

Not too bad but a bit off centre. I didn't realise who was in this film until it began. The story is simple, the acting fairly well done. My biggest problem with this film was the amount of gun fire. It was simply ridiculous, especially the climax of the film with literally a whole town firing at the main character and repeatedly missing, even at close range. 3/5


I am Legend

Will Smith has to be the planets number one sci fi actor by now. I love this guy because unlike so many others he will act in sci fi films. This film is a remake of The Omega Man (which I didn't really care for) and it starts off really well. I love how they did dead New York, with the ambient bird and insect sounds. The film kicks off with a lot of potential. Unfortunately, 'I am Legend' fails in its second half. Things start to unravel when Will Smith begins to fight horrible CGI vampires that look like CGI vampires. Its as if a computer game took over NY and the sense of desolation quickly evaporates as the automated Hollywood action film machine kicks in and takes over the film. 3/5


No country for old men

This film also starts off well but kiinda let me down at the end. Brolin is brillaint and so is the creepy sociopathic assassin chasing him. Together they make for a very exciting film. Unfortunately the film is not about them, its about a small town sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) and his struggle to come to terms with his inability to effect a change. The trouble is Tommy Lee just doesn't get enough screen time for this to matter to the viewer (or so it felt to me) I got wrapped up in the chase between Brolin and the killer and when the film reached its conclusion I felt cheated. I didn't empathise with Tommy Lee's character at all and did't care about his inner dilemma. 2/5

Grind House: Death Proof & Planet Terror

I saw Death proof first and for the first 2/3 of the film I wasn't impressed. I thought, here we go again, Tarantino talking from his fundamental orifice to a soundtrack of obscure music. Seen it before... and then the film flips. Suddenly the shoe is on the other foot and I was laughing myself silly. Stuntman Mike was a great character once you realised you'd been had. Tarantino had pulled a fast on on me so I guess he still has the magic touch. 4/5

Planet Terror on other hand has no twists, no great plot device's and no pretentions to be anything but a slaute to the grindhouse genre. It even has a 'missing reel' where the film jumps forward by half an hour and you have to guess what went on in between (the characters make cryptic remarks to events which you never get to see). Apart from this though, this film is about gore and a girl with an interesting artificial leg. No one gets shot in this film without buckets of blood and slime splattering out all over and after a while, to be frank, it gets a bit dull. Josh Brolin, who was so good in No country for old men is a veritable non entity in this film. 2/5

I'll end with an oldie.

The Car

I'm only adding this film (which was pretty dismal) because Josh Brolin's dad James was in it and its amazing how much they resemble each other. Some one ought to utilise this in a film, they could easily play the same guy over a life time. As said, The Car was rubbish. A demonic car terrorizes a small sleepy town in the middle of no where. The local cops try to catch it, but it kills most of them, eventually they succeed... and thats about it. 1/5

edited to add:

I forgot American Gangster, but I'll stand by NT's description. yet Josh Brolin made an impression. The guy is all over the place these days

I would also have to seriously recommend Juno. It was a very smart comedy. Ellen Page was absolutely fantastic as were all the supporting cast. Perhaps the weakest link was Jennifer Garner, but even she wasn't bad. I enjoyed how you started off feeling for her character's husband and then it switches. It really does a good job of keeping the audience following Juno's point of view.

QUOTE

This is not a remake of The Omega Man. While they both stem from the same root source - Richard Matheson's novelette, this version is another stab at the original source. Matheson's story is riveting, gritty, dark and ends badly for the leading character and the world. It's a great commentary on the death and life of civilizations and how we tend to kill that which we don't understand. It also deals on a very primal level with the effects of loneliness. This film brushed up against these ideas, but stops short. I had hopes, but as it came closer to the end, I was disappointed.

In regards to 30 Days of Night, it is a somewhat faithful adaptation of the comic book. It wasn't a great film and certainly could've been better. I wonder if they'll make the sequel. I'm not sure if they can because they never included some of the important characters that fuel the follow-up comic book.

There Will Be Blood

I believe this movie is going to be released everyone this weekend, but it's playing in some parts of the country. I saw it yesterday and it's fantastic. Daniel Day Lewis is amazing as an oil man from the early twentieth century. It's PT Andersons' best work (Boogie Nights, Magnolia). I saw No Country for Old Men and I liked it as well, but I feel this is more complete work. Without giving anything away... So many films these days try to make political statements, or play to the current culture... this movie stays away from convention. It's a great story, with unforgettable characters. I highly recommend it.

As it happens, I've been going on a pre-awards season film and DVD viewing binge over the past couple of weeks. Okay, then, ten recently viewed titles (in roughly ascending order of merit):

Once Once was more than enough in this instance. Unappealing leads singing too much blandly annoying music did little to endear me to this "naturalist musical". Whatever has been charming the critics about this shallow little flick was lost on me. And I tend to have a weakness for Irish films. I wouldn't even waste a Netflix delivery on this one; watch The Commitments instead.

Enchanted I wasn't. Cute idea, missed opportunity - and the worst performance of Susan Sarandon's career. Unlike most, I found Amy Adams' Princess Giselle more cloying than endearing and, despite approximately two good jokes, the "fun" with the animated princess genre was toothless and predictable. I'm not sure what children make of it, but I found the adult appeal close to zero. Give me another Shrek movie any day.

I Am Legend This third version of Richard Matheson's novel is probably the best in terms of design and effects, creating the depopulated landscape and such - though, as a chiller, the Vincent Price vehicle, The Last Man on Earth, hasn't been bettered (though it must be admitted that I Am Legend is better in every way than The Omega Man with Charleton Heston). Will Smith was good, but he's apparently been pimping Scientology at the behest of Tom Cruise lately, so - meh.

Charlie Wilson's War This was a major disappointment. Devoid of context, it is very thin - and tells us virtually nothing about the background of the events it presumes to be illuminating. The evolution of Wilson's political consciousness could have made for an interesting film, however catastrophically misguided his actions may have been, but that transition occurs during about a thirty-second sequence. The rest is sketchy, if talky, filler with little substance - and Sorkin's dialogue here sparkles like a lump of coal. Between this and 2004's Closer, I have a feeling Mike Nichols' best work is well behind him. Julia Roberts' hairdos are pretty astonishing, though.

No Country for Old Men No film for old critics, more like. I have a suspicion that, one of these days, "the Coen brothers' new movie" will become synonymous with "the emperor's new clothes". This has to be the most overrated flick of the new millennium. And there's been no shortage of hype over the past seven years. No Country isn't bad by any means, but it's no Miller's Crossing - or Fargo - or even Blood Simple. For my money, they adhered a bit too closely to Cormac McCarthy's novel - and their embellishments were pointlessly gimmicky.

Gone Baby Gone A fairly engaging crime drama with decent performances all around, especially from relatively underexposed performers like Casey Affleck, Titus Welliver, and Amy Ryan - though Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris ain't bad either. And, hey - it turns out Ben Affleck is a passable director.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead As ever, director Sidney Lumet's focus is on the actors and Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Albert Finney, and Marisa Tomei (as well as, briefly, Rosemary Harris) are all terrific in this taut little film about inept crime and family dysfunction. Kelly Masterson's script is structurally intricate - revisiting scenes from different points of view and so on - without being distracting, as the story unfolds with increasingly excruciating detail.

Eastern Promises David Cronenberg's best film since his last film (A History of Violence - which was pretty durned good) with great performances from Viggo Mortenson, the wonderful Naomi Watts, Sinéad Cusack, and a creepy Armin Mueller-Stahl. It's a tough, sometimes nasty, occasionally heart-wrenching crime drama - well-paced if often fairly low-key.

Michael Clayton Good, intelligent script, terrific actors in peak form (it's one of George Clooney's best performances, Tom Wilkinson is typically brilliant, and Tilda Swinton is more frightening than Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men), tight, atmospheric direction, a good score, and great cinematography - plus it's a decent suspense film and the bad guys are corrupt corporate greed types. What's not to like?

Sweeney Todd This would be my nominee for Best Picture of the Year 2007 - with Tim Burton as Best Director and Johnny Depp as Best Actor. I'd throw in most of the design awards as well. And Sweeney Todd is one of Stephen Sondheim's best scores, performed here with its largest orchestra ever. Depp is terrific as the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Helena Bonham Carter adds a wistful quality to Mrs. Lovett that works well for the film treatment (and compensates for her being a bit young for the role), Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall are an eminently seedy pair of malignancies, Sasha Baron Cohen's cameo is superb - even the young lovers are innocuously corruptible. And the fourteen-year-old Ed Sanders is amazing. Burton's direction is fluid and dynamic, seamlessly merging music and camerawork. While much of the melodic descent into madness, bloodlust, and death is grim fun, the final sequences are the stuff of classical tragedy: shocking, moving, cathartic. The translation of Sondheim's musical, with its operatic storyline and the grandest Grand Guignol since André de Lorde, to a Tim Burton film works to the great advantage of both - and the result is very like a work of art. Even on a third viewing, I was overwhelmed.


Juno and There Will Be Blood are next on my viewing list.

I was also incredibly disappointed by No Country for Old Men. And I was reminded of that harsh disappoint again when I saw There Will Be Blood. I am getting a little irritated with movies that are critically acclaimed, and yet have no compelling, memorable endings. Both movies left me feeling like I had just wasted two hours of my life (or 2.5, in the case of There Will Be Blood).

I just wanted to comment on Wertz's critique of Gone Baby Gone. It wasn't just a passingly good crime drama. In my opinion, it may be the most important movie to come out of 2007. Not because the story is complex and interesting, but because it was the only movie I saw that really made me question the source of my morals and the nature of man. Unlike the two aforementioned movies which seem to dwell on the hopeless nature of man, this movie showed me that things may be more complex than "good" and "bad." Granted, I already knew that, but I think most movies fail to grasp that concept in any meaningful way.

Oh, and I thought Once was awful. I didn't even want to go see it; I was tricked into seeing it by a bored friend. I hate musicals.

Wertz, with regards to Charlie Wilson's War. Did you pick up on that it was meant to be a comedy? I'm just curious about that because you seem to have been more expectant of it. I didn't even know what the film was about when I *cough*cough* 'acquired it'. Subsequently I saw it with 'raw eyes', and I was quite impressed, not so much with the story though, which I'd already read about on Wikipedia ages ago, but with Hanks.

And Kimpossible, did you feel that 'No country for old men' was bad only because of the last twenty minutes or was it the whole film you didn't like?

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who didn't like Once (along with Mr P). This movie was so boring it should be very beneficial for insomniacs...better than taking a melatonin pill. And I liked The Committments and thought it would be something similar. Not even close. The entire thing seemed to be in real time. She tries to use a tapeplayer, then goes to the store to find batteries. Sorry for that spoiler! It does take up a large part of the movie. They show everything....Usually these things aren't shown in a movie for a reason. They are too boring to watch. The sort of dialog you find in this movie you can find everyday. I can't remember a single witty quip or clever phrase that might have helped to make this movie watch-worthy. If I want to hear people speak about their laundry and vacuum cleaners, I'll go to the laundry mat/hoover factory. Bah! The songs weren't bad, but they were sleep-inducing as well. This movie came very highly recommended from nearly everyone, and Mr P plays the guitar. I thought it would be great. What a disappointment.

But Sweeney Todd was brilliant! I don't typically like either slasher films or musicals, but this one is the exception. It was incredibly well done, and Johny Depp rocks as always.

I'll submit a thumb's up for I Am Legend, as well. I've never seen either of the other film versions, but I did read the book. If the film were based too closely on the book it would have been too dark to be entertaining, IMO. Kind of like Angela's Ashes (why in the hell did they ever make a movie about that one?). The film's version worked better for cinema audiences, and Will Smith really impresses me (particularly since I watched his portrayal of Chris Gardner in Pursuit of Happiness, another older film I'd recommend).

Oh, quite inadvertently, Ms. Silverwolf. Quite the eclectic lists of flicks you listed I must say.

I will throw out two more flicks that I've enjoyed. One is a Belgian film called The Memory of A Killer which I found on cable one sleepless night. Subtitles don't bother me and while I found the ending a little too pat, I really enjoyed the movie. Most foreign flicks suck when American studios remake them, but with the right casting, this one might not get lost in translation.

This one isn't going to be nominated for any Academy Awards, but it was the best movie this controversial director has made and that's Sicko by Michael Moore. One day, Moore will be confident enough in his subject matter to keep the stunts out
them (such as trying to get into Gitmo to get free medical care for a boatload of sick people), but my wife and I throughly enjoyed it.

The last twenty minutes. I liked the struggle between the psychopath and the Vietnam vet. I thought the beginning of the movie was interesting and compelling. I lost interest towards the end, when Tommy Lee Jones rambles on about not being able to do his job. I think the whole movie was very anti-climactic. The main characters don't even interact with each other.

I saw Eastern Promises last night.

Great friggin movie. Viggo Mortensen is such an underrated actor. The story line was good but also left itself open to be developed into great (but unlikely) sequels.

Seeing how everyone has been commenting on it, No Country for Old Men has to be my choice for Best Film of 2007. I haven't really done a good job keeping up on the movies of last year, but I thought of all the movies I have seen, this new Coen Brothers film is by far the most memorable. Aside from the astonishingly good performances by the whole cast, the sheer tension maintained by the Coens throughout the whole film is palpable. I felt genuine dread whenever Chigurgh appeared on screen--quite possibly the most unsettling depiction of pure evil I've seen in years. I left the theater feeling absolutely worn out. Not without just cause is Javier Bardem receiving all the Best Supporting Actor awards. His performance is one of the best I've seen, taking what is essentially a one-dimensional killer and imbuing him with a sense of evil that leaps off the screen. He makes Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter seem like child's play.

I can't wait to buy it when it comes out on DVD!

In fairness - to Gone Baby Gone - the adjective I used was "engaging" (and it was the primarily the moral question that made it so). It was Ben Affleck's direction that I found "passingly good" (or, to be exact, "passable"). And that was largely in relation to other actors-turned-directors. Compared to, say, George Clooney's directorial efforts or the now sizable oeuvre of Clint Eastwood, I found Affleck's direction workmanlike, but not necessarily overwhelming.


Oh, I knew it was "meant to be" a comedy all right - hence my comment that Sorkin's dialogue was somewhat less than sparkling. My expectations were primarily in relation to Aaron Sorkin being the writer and Mike Nichols being the director. In my opinion, both disappointed. Hanks was fine and Philip Seymour Hoffman even better, but neither could raise the film above its script, which I found thin, decontextualized almost to the point of irresponsibility, and about as funny as passing a kidney stone. Not what I was expecting from the author of A Few Good Men, The American President, and "The West Wing".

Kim! Mrs. P! I am delighted that Sean and I were not alone in our reaction Once. Thank you!

Its that season again and America's internal politics are interesting but beyond my field of interest. So instead I watch American films and shake my head in amazement.

Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Here is an old classic by a well versed master of the genre with a famed actor of considerable repute and a lot of really talented camera people, set designers and art direction. The ambience of old London is in place, the sense of Victorian squalor has been evoked and the costumes are tip top.

So why is this film so bad?

Because they keep singing awful songs! Why? Why? Why? The actors don't sound good and the songs are just awful because they are so predictable. It seems stage musicals always fall back on tuneless monologues interspersed with a catchy chorus. Tim Burton didn't bother to change this so Depp would be droning along with either Rickman or Bonham Carter and they'd sound like amateurs in a town hall pantomime production. This isn't meant to be a reflection on the merits of amateur theatrics, which I'm sure are the utmost pinnacle of performance for amateur actors, but this is a Tim Burton film with a massive bdget, a plethora of world class actors and a fantastic story to work with. What could possibly go wrong?

It hit rock bottom when the little kid started singing. Then the mediocrity was complete. It wasn't that he had a bad voice. It was just that he looked and sounded like a child in a childrens school play. I'm sure his family would have had tears of joy in their eyes at his performance and quite rightly so for he had a sweet voice, but for me, it was an effort of will (and a desire to see any digital matte paintings that might crop up along the way) to keep going to the end of the film. I've never come across such a deliberate juxtaposition of the mundane with the sublime.

Moif I enjoyed your take on Sweeny Todd, but I completely enjoyed the film, horrible singing and all... never seen the theatrical original, wonder how that would have shaped my opinion.

But let's talk about movies: There Will Be Blood. Wow. That was great! Anyone see it? It's a long and tense historical fiction about an oil man who turns a sleepy, infertile californian hamlet into a booming oil distopia, competes for the favor of the residents with an evangelical preacher. Had me on the egde.

Recently saw 310 to Yuma As a big fan of Russell Crowe and Christian Bale I knew I wouldn't be disappointed. The acting is as wonderful as it always is with those two. The plot has some holes but, because of the really seamless characters, one is able to suspend his disbelief, for the most part. I'd give it an 8 on a scale of 1-10.

Also saw Kingdom, with Jamie Fox and Jennifer Garner. It was very enjoyable from the aspect of not knowing where the story would take you. It's a definite action movie so if you don't like blood and shooting I wouldn't recommend it. However, I enjoyed it very much. In fact, I'd give it 9 out of 10.

A third film I viewed was called A Mighty Heart, starring Angelina Jolie. Films based on true stories can sometimes be either corny or exploitative. Yet, this film was neither. She really fit well into the role of a wife of a victim of extreme terrorist (Daniel Pearl). It's a very troubling film in many ways, so I don't recommend it to those who want a light-hearted, feel good movie. It's not quite that, but the overall message is one of hope.

I love this review! Very witty excoriation. But I disagree.

Sweeney Todd was intended to be darkly humorous, not a prelude to a future hit movie soundtrack. I thought it was brilliant on that basis. If anything, the songs added to that. It was a musical made even for people who normally don't care for musicals. Comedy noir at its finest. I'll probably buy the DVD.

Since nobody has mentioned it yet. I would like to toss Cloverfield into the mix. I absolutely loved this. Yes, some people have felt ill as a result of the camera movements... this is not a movie at which you want to sit close to the screen. It is Godzilla told from the point of view of the fleeing populace. It is a roller coaster ride and well done.

I was never a Johnny Depp fan until the Pirates of the Caribbean series. So I wouldn't mind seeing the film, to see how I like Depp in a different role. However, I absolutely abhor musicals? This post leads me to believe I may still like the film, despite the singing?

Signed,

Curious in California

As anyone seen the stage production of this film? I held a role in a production of this play, and I thoroughly enjoy the stage performance, I look forward to seeing this film. Has anyone else had the opportunity to compare the two?

I thought it was great, and I typically don't like 'slasher' films or musicals. It was just so well done. I can't promise you'll like though, I enjoy that style of dark humor, which isn't for everyone....I've never seen a different Sweeney Todd production myself, so I have no basis for comparison.

I haven't noticed any reviews of Atonement yet. It has been out for quite a while so maybe I didn't notice the review. I watched it a couple of nights ago. The movie stays pretty close to the book. It was the best book I've read in some time, Ian McEwan is a phenomenal author. It isn't a happy movie, so I wouldn't advise it for a first date or anything like that, but it was very well done. Like the book, beginning was a little slow at first. The author attempted to establish some sound character development for Briony, as this was really her story, though she doesn't show up much in the middle, but only in the beginning and towards the end. The book was the same, I almost stopped reading after the first eighty pages, but I'm so glad I didn't. I must say, I think that a Kiera Knightly is going to go the way of Karen Carpenter, though. It was disturbing to see how gaunt she has gotten, which heavy makeup attempted to cover...but I suppose it fit the grief of her character in the story.

My husband liked the movie as well, so it isn't a 'chick flick'. I'd give it four stars out of five.

I was at the opening of the original production on Broadway - the Hal Prince production with Angela Lansbury and Len Cariou. I liked the score (though I liked it much more after hearing it a few times) - and Lansbury and Cariou were terrific - but I wasn't really impressed with the overall production. I actually liked the movie version a lot more. Part of that had to do with the juveniles having a bit less prominence. I thought their sequences were the weakest links in the stage version. It probably also helps that I'm a big fan of both Depp and Burton. That said, I felt that everywhere that the stage version failed, the film succeeded admirably. In fact, it may be the best film musical I've ever seen, and certainly the best film in general that I've seen in the past year or two.

So: the stage show is great, but the film is a masterpiece.

Has anyone seen "Across the Universe"?

It may not qualify as cinema... but I absolutely love The Wire. It's an HBO series about Baltimore's struggle with crime. This season unravels in several parallel, interwoven story arcs involving primarily the underfunded BPD, the mayor with an eye for the governor's mansion, the daily newspaper, and the power struggles within the dope game. The production values are high, the directing and acting are superb, the plot is engaging, the writing is wonderful... and Omar Little is just a great character (oh indeed). He's a strongly principled, robbing hood who sticks up drug houses. He's also openly gay and drug dealers are terrified of him.

here's a dialog between him and the defense attorney of the guy Omar was testifying against in season 2

Omar Little: That wasn't no attempt murder.
Maurice 'Maury' Levy: What was it, Mr. Little?
Omar Little: I shot the boy Mike-Mike in his hind parts, that all.
[Jury laughs]
Omar Little: Fixed it up so he couldn't sit right.
[Judge chuckles]
Maurice 'Maury' Levy: Why'd you shoot Mike-Mike in his, um, hind parts, Mr. Little?
Omar Little: Let's say we had a disagreement.
Maurice 'Maury' Levy: A disagreement over?
Omar Little: Well, you see, Mike-Mike thought he should keep that cocaine he was slingin' and the money he was makin' from slingin' it. I thought otherwise.

Maurice 'Maury' Levy: Why should we believe your testimony then? Why believe anything you say?
Omar Little: That's up to y'all, really.

Maurice 'Maury' Levy: You are feeding off the violence and the despair of the drug trade. You are stealing from those who themselves are stealing the lifeblood from our city. You are a parasite who leeches off the culture of drugs...
Omar Little: Just like you, man.
Maurice 'Maury' Levy: Excuse me? What?
Omar Little: I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right?


You just have to watch it. Just watch the first 4 episodes of season 5 and see if you don't get hooked. They're probably on demand or something

Just watched 'Eastern Promises' last night. Wow. It was incredibly good. Sad, graphic, direct. I think this is the best movie Viggo Mortensen has ever been in, to include Lord of the Rings (praise doesn't come much higher than that), certainly it demonstrates his extreme versatility as an actor. You can't tell this is the same person who played Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. He's phenomenal. This is an academy award winning performance. And he's up against Johnny Depp? This is a tough one, but I'd have to say Mortensen should take it. I'd vote Eastern Promises for best picture as well. I can't believe it isn't even on the list of nominees.

I recently watched this movie as well, and I wasn't as impressed. I found it to be predictable and anticlimactic. As for Mortensen's performance, I would agree that it was top notch. The film itself disappointed me.

I watched DEATHPROOF the other night. Quentin Tarantino must think his dialog is poetry or something because all the first hour is talk, talk, talk and talk some more.

FINALLY, when it gets down to some action it's pretty impressive. Then it's talk, talk and talk some more until we get to BIG and LONG chase sequence. That was cool as was the final beatdown.

If a movie where the women get all the good lines (and a lot of lousy ones) and are as tough as any dude can be dubbed in some odd way, "a chick flick on steroids," this would be it.

Still, this is definitely a movie where you can advance the DVD to the main action scenes and lose nothing in the process. The action scenes are a solid "B" but everything else is a egg-sucking "D."

Yes, I've seen "Across the Universe" and felt in love with it.

And on "Sweeny Todd," I directed it once at a theater in town and the differences roughly break down as such:

1.) A chorus of people [8-18 typically] remain onstage to tell parts of the tale that were firmed-up for the movie. They have their roots in Greek Theater and in the revival version of the production, play the instruments along with the "big name" characters.

2.) The movie does not feature several songs and oftentimes has cuttings from the original production. For example, a song called "Kiss Me" [which is one of the stage show's best] was sung between Johanna and Anthony and was completely axed for the movie.

So, anyway, I basically disliked everything about the movie except for the visual appeal.

NT.
I got the feeling that Death Proof was meant as a giant pun, with all the yapping as a kind of set up for the subsequent action sequences with the chase being like a punch line. I certainly wasn't impressed by the talking either, but when Stuntman Mike met the three stunt girls, I felt like I might have been set up (the joke was on me so to speak).

Anyways...

Cloverfield

Be warned, possible spoilers ahead!

Apparently this is the work of producer JJ Abrams (the guy who was behind 'Lost') and Drew Goddard (who wrote some of the 'Lost' episodes) and if your familiar with that, then you'll note a few connections with this. In 'Lost', the monster was always off camera/never explained and the tension was always created by suggestion rather than obvious special effects. Here the monster is always lurking off camera, and the special effects, whilst obvious (its a giant monster in Manhatten after all) are done in a way which supports the suggestive nature of the film rather than as a foundation for a weak plot.

This film is also full of obscure clues as to what exactly is going on and why (another similarity with 'Lost'). Blink and you'll miss them though which can be annoying as the whole film is meant to be seen through the lens of a hand held camera so the picture is all over the place (at least 20% of this film is random blurred images and panned shots that move so fast that your left with a lot of vague impressions and very little information. It works quite well since you get the feeling that your watching real chaos. Apparently some people have thrown up in the cinema watching this, but, on my 19 inch computer screen, I felt no motion sickness what so ever.

The only real problems with this film that I can see lie in the nature of the story. First there is the non linear story format, which having no closure, leaves you in the dark and second, there is the strange sense of the absurd as Godzilla meats reality TV (thats not a spelling error. Its just my little pun). In one sense it works since thats the whole idea of the film, but in another, I couldn't help noticing how conveniently the camera angles were. I don't think any one so obsessed with documenting a giant monster attacking New York would consistently fail to film the actual monster, espcially as this particular monster appears to be continually stalking the camera man... but thats just me being critical I guess. No doubt if a huge mutant monster attacked Århus and I happened to have my camera handy, I probably wouldn't hang about to film it either...

One last point... towards the end of the film a B2 stealth bomber is seen dropping some pretty heavy ordanance on to the creatures back, and yet it not only survives this, but appears to survive in good health. I know its a finicky, military nerd type observation, but I couldn't help thinking that, given the size of the monster, a J-DAM bomb would be the equivalent of me being hit by a 40mm grenade... I know Godzilla type monsters are meant to be tougher than old boots, but that was a little bit too much given the otherwise 'realistic' nature of the film.

Obviously you and I didn't see the same film. You're talking about Cloverfield, right? Based on your explanation of Lost, I get the feeling you've never seen that show, either.

It's not that you don't see the monster, it just isn't explained. I seem to recall seeing the monster pretty clearly. As for the ending, it seemed to me that there was some closure - I won't spell it out and spoil it. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that you were watching a pirated version on your 19" screen. Yeah, you're cool.

Not cool, I was just impatient. We don't often get to see the films from the USA for months and months until after they've come out and I couldn't be bothered to wait for this one.

Which one? The 'Lost' monster or the 'Cloverfield' monster?

Yes, you see them, but their presence on screen is minimal when comapred to other films (and shows) with a simliar premise, for example 'Godzilla', where the monster is the main focus of the show. The impact of the monsters in 'Cloverfield' and 'Lost' is suggestive rather than direct. The lack of explanation supports this. The viewer is left in the dark as much as possible in order to maintain maximum effect.

Well, shucks and boohoo. As someone who's in the entertainment industry, I would just ask that you don't gloat about how you've ripped people like me off. You didn't have to say that you watched a pirated version... pointing that up with your little symbol. Just say you watched the movie. Keep your criminal behavior to yourself.



In Lost there has been a representation of the "monster." And in Cloverfield I recall seeing that monster quite clearly.



Exactly. It creates tension. It gets our imagination going - crazy, that.

Very well I apologize for flaunting my dastardly behaviour with an incriminating smilie. It may comfort you to know that I will almost certainly buy the DVD once it comes out in the shops since I like this kind of film.

Yes, in 'Lost' some tree's shook about, there was a strange wisp of black dust that was the monster and in 'Cloverfield' the beastie was often glimpsed fleetingly, or obscured by smoke, explosions or camera wobble... I regard this as being 'off camera'. Godzilla on the other hand tramps about in full view, for a sizable proportion of his/her (?) films. I regard that as being 'on camera'.

If you recal, Ridley Scott got much credit for 'not showing the monster' in 'Alien', and yet that monster was also 'represented'. I distinctly saw it at the end of the film in the shuttle (in other words, after the tension had been built up and it no longer mattered).

I see. Then it's simply an issue of terminology. I consider things "off camera" when they are unseen - when they are, in fact, off camera. Cloverfield had examples of this... the final actions in the film, for instance. To me you are discussing focus. In Godzilla, the focus was the monster. In Cloverfield, the focus was the experience of trying to get away from the monster.



I recall seeing an alien on Kane's face. I recall seeing the alien come out of his chest. I recall seeing the alien when it attacked Dallas, when it attacked Brett and when it attacked Parker and Lambert - although, Lambert's death occurs "off camera".

---------------------------------------------

All told, I liked Cloverfield because it didn't give things away. Because it left so much to the imagination. Because so much of the exposition occurs in passing and we're left picking up as many pieces of it as we can. Nothing is spoon-fed in this film. I found that refreshing. It showed heroism, but did not have a superhero ending. I've heard there will be a sequel... and I'm willing to bet that it will be much more like Godzilla than this one.

Well, today I have a confession to make (this topic is rapidly turning into a moif therapy session). I went by the cinema today and low and behold the poster for 'Cloverfield' was up showing it has actually reached Denmark after all and my laziness has tripped me up!

I liked it too.

I'm really curious about the rumours of a sequel. I've read that it has in fact already been made, having been shot at the same time as this film, but IMDb lists it as not forthcoming until 2009. WHat ever the truth is, I'm most curious about how they'll film it. Another hand cam film would be an anticlimax, and a Godzilla type film would be far too boring.

In the interest of therapy, then, it'd be very easy to clear your conscience. Just buy a ticket and skip the movie.


You're expecting Hollywood to refrain from repeating itself and/or make a boring film?


I finally saw Brian De Palma's film, Redacted yesterday. I would not recommend it for the faint of heart - it is extremely grim and harrowing. It did, though, give me some idea of what life is like for a lot of our troops on the ground in Iraq.

It's loosely based on a 2006 incident in which it is alleged that a couple of soldiers raped a fifteen-year-old Iraqi girl and murdered her and her family. It is told entirely through "found footage" - video diaries, a French documentary, YouTube type rants, surveillance camera footage, etc. - all fictional, but all reasonably credible. The film is not just a condemnation of a couple of "bad apples"; it also reveals a lot about the tensions and misunderstandings between Americans and Iraqis, as well as the atmosphere of fear, mistrust, and frustration that leads to heinous acts by both insurgents and a couple of frightening young grunts.

It's worth seeing, but it can be very unsettling.

Hairspray - Here's one I was dreading, mostly from John Travolta as Edna Turnblad. How could you take a role played by the late Divine and give it to Travolta? And then I saw it. One of the most joyously entertaining movies I've seen in some time. It is a full-blown musical which, aside from an annoyingly heavy-handed message about racial integration (it really hits you over the head with this message--like a musical version of Crash), is one of the best musicals I've ever seen. The casting may be one of the reasons for its success. John Travolta received a lot of recognition for his turn, and while he is quite good, the movie really belongs to three women: Nikki Blonsky, Michelle Pfeiffer and Amanda Bynes. These three performances are so quirky and charming, I find myself watching the movie over and over just to watch them.

Bynes has the smallest role, basically relegated to Tracy's best friend, but Bynes somehow manages to make a hysterical impression as an innocent blonde who finds love in Seaweed (Elijah Kelley), one of the main dancers on "The Corny Collins Show" (or, rather, on "Negro Day" which occurs once a month). Pfeiffer, after her great turn as a witch in Stardust, continues to remind us why she is such a talented actress. Pfeiffer may not have the best singing voice, but she vamps it up throughout, never once redeeming her poor behavior or racist attitudes. Her use of facial expressions and line delivery is priceless, and a reminder of Pfeiffer's excellent comedic abilities (vastly underused, in my mind).

And of course, Blonsky, a newcomer who landed the role of Tracy Turnblad and makes it her own. It is really Blonsky who makes the movie work as well as it does. She is funny, charming, sweet and has a great voice to deliver the catchy songs. The rest of the cast is also perfect--from Brittany Snow as the ego-centric mainstay of the dance program, to James Marsden as host Corny Collins, to Queen Latifah as the voluptuous, big, blonde and beautiful Motormouth Maybelle.

The music is very catchy, and the choreography suitably captures the dance crazes of the era and adds twists to make them more palpable for modern audiences. Also, watch for the many actors returning from the original 1988 John Waters' version of the film, including Ricki Lake, Mink Stole, Jerry Stiller ... and even John Waters himself as the flasher next door.

All in all, much better than I was expecting.

I'll start with a "current" movie that I recently viewed:

Zodiac - starring Mark Ruffalo, Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. It's "based on a true story" regarding the infamous Zodiac killer. The movie starts off really well in that it pulls you right in. It goes strong for about the first 1 1/2 hours. But it loses steam after that and for about the last hour or so it totters in terms of which direction it wants to go and the ending is very anti-climactic. But still, worth seeing on DVD. I'd give it 8 out of 10.

Now for some really great old movies that I have had the luxury of viewing on a big screen in the comfort of my university theater:

The Kid - starring Charlie Chaplin. It's a silent picture made in 1921, but very entertaining. For those of you who have never seen a Chaplin film, I highly recommend it.

The General - starring Buster Keaton. Another silent film made in 1927. He was a contemporary of Chaplin, but had his own comedic style. Also, a great look into early filmmaking.

Mark of Zorro - starring Douglas Fairbanks. He was charming as can be in this silent film of 1920.

Stagecoach - starring John Wayne. It was perhaps the movie that set his career in motion. The script of this film is phenomenal. I was very impressed with the quality of acting and the overall production for a film done in 1939. It was directed by John Ford.

Best Years of Our Lives - starring Dana Andrews and Myrna Loy. A fabulous film dealing with the after effects of WWII. This is probably one of my favorite movies of all time. It was made in 1946 and directed by William Wyler.

Sunset Blvd. - starring Gloria Swanson and William Holden. It was done in 1950 in the "film noir" genre. A wonderful depiction of the dire effects that Hollywood evolution had on a faded silent film star. It's dark and wonderful.

There Will Be Blood

I saw this last weekend. It's quite a long film (over two and a half hours). The plot follows Daniel Plainview, a silver prostpector-turned oilman in late 19th and early 20th century California, who adopts a dead employee's baby son to use as a showpiece for his family values when attempting to acquire new claims.

The first 20 minutes of the film show Plainview's silver mining, and illustrate his determination and sheer bloody-mindedness, his switch to oil, and the development of his business. This part is wordless, and is really very well done all round. As well as great acting, we get tight editing and direction and a tangible sense of forward motion in the plotting.

The next hour or so focuses on Plainview setting up a new operation, and his interactions with the inhabitants of the (initially rural) area. Given special focus is the family he dupes into selling him the land without declaring the oil interests there, and his relationhip and rivalry with the son, a fire-and-brimstone preacher who is clearly shown to be as mercenary as Plainview is.

Then for about the next hour we see Plainview, having struck oil big in the new well, attempting to control its distribution himself, which involves scouting a new pipeline route and feeling out possible deals with major oil companies, other landowners, and a long-lost family member who inadvertently drives a wedge between Plainview and his adopted son.

Finally, for the last 20 minutes or so, we see Plainview the oil magnate clashing with his son and with the evangelising preacher we met in the first segment.

Daniel Day-Lewis' performance is magnetic; he gives us flashes of humanity in an otherwise unsympathetic character, and he makes Plainview's thoughts almost physically tangible through the facial expressions that accompany the (usually rather long) pauses before the taciturn Plainview says his piece. In my view he fully deserves the garlands and praise (and awards) he has already won, and is yet to get.

Paul Dano, as the youthful and ambitious preacher, also gives some us nice acting, as does the young actor playing Plainfield's son, HW.

The cinematography and production design are also top notch, giving a real sense of space, place and period.

That's the plus side.

On the minus side is the plot and script. By the middle of the third segment, we have seen enough to know everything we're ever going to find out about these characters. Well drawn as they are, the last hour just gives us more of what we've already seen, rather than anything new or suprising.

Day Lewis' performance (alone) makes this last hour bearable, but not really enjoyable, since the only interesting thing left to do is admire it as a technical feat rather than empathise with it (by then we've already established beyond all doubt that, while he has some redeeming features, both Plainview and the preacher are thoroughly unpleasant men).

I dare say that the director Paul Thomas Anderson, who adapted the screenplay himself from the novel Oil, was trying to say something about karma or inevitability or something equally deep, and I also dare say that this is the kind of film that will garner armfuls of awards for craft skills (by which I don't just mean technical crew positions, but acting etc. as well) and will be pored over by film students for years to come.

However, if it wins Best Picture anywhere it will be an utter travesty, and like many similar films geared more towards attracting and satisfying professional critics and industry awards than audiences, it won't have the kind of long lifespan that makes a film a true classic. (Compare this to recent films such as Gladiator which, despite its flaws, is likely to be watched and enjoyed by mass audiences AND critics in 20 or 50 years from now.)

In summary, then, I think this is an actors' film, which suffers from an overlong (rather than weak) plot and decidely overindulgent direction and lackadaisical editing. It could have said everything this film said, without detracting from any performances or from character development, if it had continued the narrative bravado and punchy direction that we see in the first 20 minutes all the way through, which would have probably resulted in a one-and-a-half hour film. It reminds me of nothing so much as another Day Lewis film, Gangs of New York in which another towering central performance is used to mask a plodding script and unfocused direction (except in Gangs not one of the other stars, except possible Brendan Gleeson, has the acting chops to compete with Day Lewis on screen. At least Paul Dano makes a fair stab at keeping up - by comparison Leonardo di Caprio is a provincial amateur).

That's the trouble with indie cinema and the current ascendancy of its sensibility within the studio system - too often, the overlong and indulgent "director's cut" is the one that gets first release, and the meatier, pacier and more focused studio cuts that stand a chance of pulling in large audiences (and creating the cult following that might want to eventually see a director's cut) never see the light of day.

If studio's aren't careful, they risk driving away otherwise willing film-goers who love cinema but don't ALWAYS want to stagger out of theatres with numb legs and bloodshot eyes. Like me.

Ashes and snow

Dir: Gregory Colbert

My heart is like an old house whose windows have not been opened for years, but now I hear the windows opening...

Without any doubt, this is the most sensual film I have seen in over a decade. In almost every moment of its one hour length, the beauty of the images was pulling at my mind and whispering, 'wake up'.

I don't know who Gregory Colbert is. I've never heard of him. Apparently this film is only part of a larger project which involved the largest solo exhibition ever held in Italy and after being shown in a twelfth-century shipyard in Venice, went on to several venues around the world. I don't which I am more jealous of, the beauty of his work, the opportunities he must have had to make this film, or the fact that he had an exhibition in a twelfth-century Venicien shipyard.

When I was living in Liverpool and Rochester, I had a frame of mind then which I have long since lost. That state of consiousness was the result of seeing the world as opposed to just looking at it. I'd been blessed in Liverpool with tutors who knew what they were talking about (and how often have I regreted leaving Liverpool for Rochester!) and their lessons taught be the ability to actually see the world and all that was in it. With time, the vision faded though. Reality does not permit clarity of observation. Pain numbs all, and I am no exception.

Watching this film, I suddenly remembered that previous state of mind. It was like listening to Beethovens 9th and mourning one's lost innocence. I wept tears for the beauty which can never be held. The past is for ever gone, the future for ever unknown. Time is always now. I've lost so much in the last few years as I tried to cope with my ever shrinking world, more than I ever realised. Now it feels like I am that old house and my windows are opening. I have just caught a fleeting glimpse of something which I'd forgotten even existed.

5/5

I saw (on DVD) The Brave One with Jodie Foster and Terrance Howard. On an overall scale of one to ten I would give it an eight.

What I Liked About the Movie
Suspenseful.
Interesting story line.
Decent level of performance by the actors.

What I Didn't Like About the Movie
Absolutely zero chemistry between Jodie Foster's character and the fiance' (who dies early on in the movie) --which made it difficult to believe her grief afterward.