Reviews by Lexi

''I hope life on Earth is everything you remember it to be...''

Astronaut Sam Bell has a quintessentially personal encounter toward the end of his three-year stint on the Moon, where he, working alongside his computer, GERTY, sends back to Earth parcels of a resource that has helped diminish our planet's power problems.

Sam Rockwell: Sam Bell

Just two years ago I was immersed, impressed and tantalized by Danny Boyle's shimmering spectacle Sunshine which provided human drama and resulted in being an intense thrill of a rollercoaster. Two years later Duncan Jones releases Moon; a low budget, human drama, set out in space featuring Sam Rockwell(Frost/Nixon); whom happens to be one of the under-rated actors in film today. All of these attributes should mix perfectly to create a film that's highly emotive, beautifully acted and a sight to behold but is this moon landing a giant leap, or just a small step?



An astronaut miner extracting the precious moon gas that promises to reverse the Earth's energy crisis nears the end of his three-year contract; makes an ominous discovery in this psychological sci-fi film; also featuring the voice of Kevin Spacey as computer robot assistant GERTY.
For three long years, Sam Bell has dutifully harvested Helium 3 for Lunar; a company that claims it holds the key to solving mankind's energy crisis.
As Sam's contract comes to a close, the lonely astronaut contemplates returning to his wife and daughter down on Earth, where he will retire early and attempt to make up for lost time. His work on the Selene moon base has been enlightening; the solitude helping him to reflect on the past and overcome some serious anger issues...but the isolation is starting to make Sam uneasy. With only two weeks to go before he begins his journey back to Earth, Sam starts feeling strange: he's having surreal visions, and hearing disjointed sounds.

Let's state the obvious: Moon looks sublime. Similarly to Danny Boyles Sunshine, this low budget spectacle uses effects to enhance the story rather than eclipse it. Mix with some harrowing shots of the environment and you've got a film that dually looks fantastic and, thanks to Clint Mansell's(The man behind the scores of Requiem for a Dream & The Fountain) superb score, Moon sounds great, and unlike the moon itself, atmospheric.
Sam Rockwell is a versatile actor, his range is absolutely phenomenal. One moment he is relaxed and friendly the next he's ready to pummel you into submission in a fit of angry temperament...but let's not spoilt the faceted performance.
This is an Oscar worthy performance from Sam!
My only major discrepancy with Moon was with Kevin Spacey as GERTY(A distant relative to HAL maybe from 2001?) whom does a exquisite job, but sometimes distracts you from the realism that the film strives for. However, all of these elements merge; displaying some fantastic glossy sci-fi. It's the story and the direction that leads me to believe that this is among the greatest films of 2009.

The story is told at a steady pace. The film never compromises and the pacing feels organic, and its this slow pacing that helps generate that feeling of isolation. The filmmakers cleverly, never relent from showing you a deserted hallway; calling it eerie or uncomfortable is a severe understatement. So much so that once the film decided to give us answers you're so involved they seem personal not just to Sam but to us the audience as well. Moon never strays from pulling on your emotions; a phone call to earth makes for one of the most emotional moments of the piece. You might not contemplate that Moon is indeed the sun of this year, indeed Sci-fi is not everyones cup of tea...yet Moon is addictive to any audience; simply because it is not just a sci-fi piece. It's a drama and a story about moralistic questioning...Is cloning humane? or cruel? Is isolation or being alone maddening in time? Can robots have empathy and friendship with humans? Moon is a long list of questions and deep discussion.

Overall, Moon is a faceted diamond in so many regards; it replicates Si-Fi in a way not seen since Alien, Blade Runner or 2001: A Space Odyssey. The direction is methodical, clinically precise mixed seamlessly with the multitude performance of Sam Rockwell. An eerie, disturbing and moving story, but not without occasional bursts of humour(''I'm cold''...''you're sitting under the fridge''), Moon is a refreshing antidote to the unintelligent action-orientated futuristic pieces which has dominated cinemas in recent years. For these reasons alone Moon takes it's place, as one of the highlights and deepest films/stories of 2009.
Simply put: Moon is a radioactive tampon, which will Rockwell your World, so definitely check it out.

''We have to do something, they are not going to land this plane.''

A real time account of the events on United Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on 9/11 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania when passengers foiled the terrorist plot.

Paul Greengrass: Director of Flight 93.

Paul Greengrass's bold dramatization of the horrific events of September 11th 2001 was one of the biggest undertakings taken in cinema in the first few years of 21st century. The importance of the event was undeniable, but the emotions which it had naturally aroused in those personally involved in the story and the vast majority of the world's public made this subject incredibly delicate. However, with United 93, Greengrass met the many obstacles that came with the project; thus establishing himself as one of the most talented and important filmmakers out there.



The power of United 93 comes almost entirely from the genius of Greengrass; the script, the style and his execution of a brilliant and sensitive piece of film-making. The film is not a simple documentary drama.
It is a true to the events but takes the steps necessary to turn it in to a story with intelligent perception of what happened and helps us connect with all the people involved; which isn't just everyone on the plane. Bravely, however, this film takes on the subject of the hijackers without reducing them to inhuman psychopaths but portrays them as misguided human beings. Before one boards flight 93 to carry out their terrible plan; he uses his phone and simply says "I love you"; a touch of genuine class from Greengrass whom shows us the tragic humanity of the hijackers yet cleverly never sides or goes against them; this is a genuine account of what happened from various sources.
Starring many unknowns, and even some of the real people involved at the airport, including Lewis Alsamari as Saeed Al Ghamdi, J.J. Johnson as Captain Jason Dahl, Gary Commock as First Officer LeRoy Homer, Trish Gates as Sandra Bradshaw, Polly Adams as Deborah Welsh, Cheyenne Jackson as Mark Bingham, Opal Alladin as CeeCee Lyles, Starla Benford as Wanda Anita Green, Nancy McDoniel as Lorraine G. Bay and David Alan Basche as Todd Beamer. The real events inside the plane will never be known, but the authentic feeling aroused in United 93, from the phone calls made by the doomed passengers, is convincing, gripping, moving and dignified, a magnificent drama. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Editing, and it won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and the David Lean Award for Direction for Greengrass, and it was nominated for the Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film, Best Cinematography, Best Original Screenplay and Best Sound.

Due to Greengrass's sensitive handling of the story it is not hard to see why it won so many Awards and Nominations, he is to be praised (he only proceeded with the film once he had gained the consent of all the families of United 93, whom co-operated with his research),but his realization of the story on screen is the real triumph. His hand-held style, which is exhilarating in the Bourne series; a style he contrasts with the scenes on the ground where the chaos is viewed through a far more stable and controlled environment. The sheer lack of order and control that occurred on the ground that day with the air-traffic controllers and the federal government is brought to our eyes effectively; with some of the crucial real life figures re-enacting what happened that day.

All of this would still have been rather pointless had it not been for the power of the story being told. The courage of the passengers is incredibly powerful and a testament to the human spirit which seemed so absent that day. The final part of the film in which the passengers fight back happens is a glorious piece of cinema. Moving, chilling, haunting; it is an absolutely perfect ending to an important reminder and recording of events.

''There's the television. It's all right there - all right there. Look, listen, kneel, pray. Commercials! We're not productive anymore. We don't make things anymore. It's all automated. What are we *for* then? We're consumers, Jim. Yeah. Okay, okay. Buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, if you don't, what are you then, I ask you? What? Mentally *ill*. Fact, Jim, fact - if you don't buy things - toilet paper, new cars, computerized yo-yos, electrically-operated sexual devices, stereo systems with brain-implanted headphones, screwdrivers with miniature built-in radar devices, voice-activated computers...''

In a future world devastated by disease, a convict, James Cole is sent back in time to gather information about the man-made virus that wiped out most of humanity on the planet.

Bruce Willis: James Cole

Madeleine Stowe: Kathryn Railly

Brad Pitt: Jeffrey Goines

Terry Gilliam's twisted tale of a virus/illness destroying all but a handful of people across the Planet, forcing them to move beneath the surface while one man is sent back in time to gather information about the causes of said illness.
Haunting, mesmerizing, and highly stylized film that also boasts one of Bruce Willis' best performances ever.



What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel/sci-fi films is that Bruce's character actually has to cope with the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actually happening, the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to is in question.
Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a well written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia.
Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility.

Visually, Terry Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivaling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colourless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness scenes and characters.Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly earned him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives a mighty performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero roles and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false religion.

Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film, makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape that has not been since Gilliam's Brazil. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness that spirals into one hell of a looped paradox.

The future is history.

''Not everything comes along just when we want it. There are times when decisions just have to be made, or you certainly will miss out.''

Guinevere Pettigrew, a middle-aged London governess, finds herself unfairly dismissed from her job. An attempt to gain new employment catapults her into the glamorous world and dizzying social whirl of an American actress and singer, Delysia Lafosse.

Amy Adams; Delysia Lafosse

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is a lovely, quaint film breathing life into the romantic comedy genre. The film shows the benefit of submerging to literature for inspiration and it develops its characters well because of it. Miss Pettigrew and Delysia both possess the characteristics the other lacks and compliment themselves, throughout the entire 90 minute period. Miss Pettigrew effortlessly slides along it's run time, the film utilizes its running length well. It doesn't have to tack any extras on and finishes succinctly on a positive note.
Jazzed up with an all star cast to boot; Frances McDormand, Amy Adams, Ciarán Hinds, Shirley Henderson, Lee Pace, Mark Strong, and Tom Payne.

The story (all of which takes place in a single day and the following night) follows Miss Pettigrew, a presumably troubled yet effective nanny, as she assists a young actress, Delysia, choose which of the three men she is seeing to marry. I felt compelled to tell you the story because it was difficult for me to follow. Fortunately, this wasn't because the film was convoluted, but it moved quickly. The opening sequence when two of the three men are shown is nearly impossible to follow until one realizes Delysia's promiscuity. This is representative of the film's greatest strength: it's simply fun to watch. One generally doesn't know what will happen next or how poverty-stricken Miss Pettigrew will react in the various wealthy-class social gatherings to which Delysia leads her. As odd as it sounds, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is a romantic comedy period piece, a commonly used strategy but a rarely effective one. In most films which attempt this, the primary character finds a love interest and the supportive friend, eventually finds romance as well. The story focuses on the primary romantic interest in the friend instead of the titular character. So, we really hope Miss Pettigrew finds someone and when she does, we feel even more satisfied. She not only helps Delysia, but herself too. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day can easily be interpreted as a lesson on the virtues of giving, or placing others' needs ahead of one's own gains.

''I am not an expert on love, I am an expert on the lack of love, Delysia, and that is a fate from which I wish more fervently to save you.''

The production quality is crisp and clinical, and Director Bharat Nalluri, did a great job creating the elevator as a symbol of the distance between the two women and their lovers. This is cleverly applied as one sees Delysia in the elevator hiding from Phil, unsure about which man she wishes to marry, and then one sees Joe through the elevator which is symbolic of Miss Pettigrew's distance from men. The lighting is mostly high-key, but low key during the bar sequences with carefully placed spotlights. There are few long shots in the film, but a key one occurs when Edyth sees Miss Pettigrew at the beginning. It's a wonderful way to accentuate a scene and heighten its importance for the entire film.

I highly recommend this film to anyone, whom enjoys romance, comedy or light hearted period films. The witty dialogue, costumes and settings can be appreciated by any film lover.
I marvel at how such a lovely book published in 1938 receives a film adaptation 70 years later, thus it has even enchanted me enough to hunt down the book due to it's clever storytelling. A definite charmer.

''I've been looking for you all night, and I believe, all of my life. If you'll have me.''

''You're just seeking the truth. You're a truth seeker. You can't help it, that is just who you are.''

A team of investigative reporters work alongside a police detective to try to solve the murder of a congressman's mistress.

Russell Crowe: Cal McAffrey

Many investigative thrillers focus on detectives digging around for the answers, but State of Play chooses to center around a complex story focused on by a newspaper. Cut a long story short, the forces and pressures motivating a reporter are not altogether the same as a lawful detective, which makes for a much more unique plot with characters an audience can view as more like themselves. A detective must identify a suspect, or catch a murderer is doing their job; a journalist who puts the pieces together himself in the pursuit of truth, is a hero on an entirely new level.

Oscar winner(2000, Gladiator)Russell Crowe stars in one of his certainly unique roles; partaking as a seasoned investigative reporter named Cal McAffrey. Crowe somehow more easily portrays Americans than any Australian or British actor working in Hollywood and he brings a light-hearted spirit to his serious role. His character finds himself in a dangerous place when his personal friendships with a congressman and his wife (Ben Affleck, Robin Wright Penn) come at odds with his job when news breaks that the congressman was having an affair with a girl who recently died in a DC subway accident. McAffrey first tries to protect his friend, but when he sees trends leading to conspiracy, his professional instincts take hold of his obssesive nature.

Cameron Lynne: Well, I happen to like miss Della Frye... and yes, I did send her down there to winkle something out of you. She's hungry, she's cheap and she churns up copy every hour.
Cal McAffrey: Yeah, I now... I'm overfed, I'm too expensive and I take way too long.

State of Play brags a diverse but star laden cast. Crowe is the dependable star vehicle, Ben Affleck the sometimes under-rated acting talent, and Rachel McAdams makes a triumphant return to the screen as a young journalist/blogger who assists Crowe. Also appearing in the film are (Oscar Winner 2006 The Queen)Helen Mirren as the editor, Jeff Daniels as fellow politician to Affleck and even Jason Bateman makes a cameo. All of them are talented and have proved so in many different genres, but never have they been together to make a thrilling puzzle of politics and journalism.

It's also the first experiment in the genre for the director, Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland) Macdonald keeps this film slick and exciting, generally refusing to use a tripod but not distracting us with shaky camera-work either. He mixes lots of close detail shots with scene setters that tell the story at a provocative angle. There are numerous albeit typical thriller movie conventions used; but he makes it his own; He's a director certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Credit must also go to an incredibly well-assembled writing team. Although based on a BBC mini-series of the same name, State of Play boasts Michael Clayton creator and penner of the Bourne series Tony Gilroy for the drama and action, Shattered Glass creator Billy Ray for the journalism expertise and Matthew Michael Carnahan (Lions for Lambs, The Kindgom) for the political/military end. It's amazing to see how that all plays together so nicely with so many reputable writers. Some of the twists might be more on the extreme side, but it's mostly convincing and exciting the whole way through.

State of Play hooks you and keeps you guessing. It tries to keep the characters intimate and worth caring about while also making sure the story picks up velocity. Subplots occasionally get in the way (McAffrey's personal connection to Wright Penn's character among them) but you become pretty easily invested in what's going on and are frightened when what seemed like a nice mystery suddenly gets serious. This is a thriller that is smart and quick and never blows itself out of proportion. It holds its ground and it does so with much talent.

Lastly, the film questions the necessary extent of hard edged reporting, but also revels in its necessity. Watergate is alluded to as a building where a couple key companies are located. The connection is purposeful; we're supposed to see the scandal as a fictional modern recreation of Watergate in terms of how it's reported and uncovered. While films in the vein of All the King's Men praised the work of journalists, Play is too stubborn to give them full attention and glory, bringing into the discussion the idea of selling papers and not waiting too long to get all the facts or how the Internet/blog-sphere twists the news in various ways; for sales and profits disregarding the truth if necessary. It might not be at the front of your mind while enjoying State of Play, but it sets it above the many over baked detective thrillers out there any day.

Stephen Collins: I thought you didn't call them yet?
Cal McAffrey: I lied.

''Jin-tae: [pulls out Jin-seok's pen that he lost] I found this in the fire. I've been holding onto this for you.
Jin-seok: Give it to me... when I see you again.''

''I wish this was all just a dream. I want to wake up in my bed, and over breakfast, I'd tell you that I had a strange dream. Then I would go to school, and you and mom would go to work.''

Early, one Sunday Morning, in late June of the year 1950, was the beginning of a terrible turbulent conflict that would rip a people apart. Thousands of casualties, a whole unity of a nation being the biggest of all. Korea, a country still plagued by a guilty past, divided even to this day.
Told through the eyes of Jin-tae Lee, played by
Dong-Kun Jang and younger brother Jin-seok Lee played by Bin Won , who go to war and are cruelly ripped from their family and become embroiled in a war North against South.



The acting is sensational, the cinematography perfect, the battle sequences rivaling Saving Private Ryan and Letters from Iwo Jima possibly even surpassing them.

How do you criticize a masterpiece?
Answer is you cannot.

Raw brutality, compelling humanity and even inhumanity. Emotional, powerful, shocking and some of the greatest scenes that had me getting teary eyed and come the film's climax... Emotional.
Ideologies, communism and capitalist imperialism are dissected and analysed. This film shows them for what they are: dangerous when implemented in a corrupted fashion. There's always a cause of war ranging from religious beliefs/persecution to glorious idealistic propaganda.
A gripping tale and account of two brothers and the meaning of sacrifice.
In my opinion it is the greatest brutal raw emotional film seen recently.
Still haunted by Jin-seok standing over the bones at the end and all the senseless killing, families divided, this demands to be watched.

The film’s most harrowing moments are constrained to the first 40 minutes, where Jin-tae and Jin-seok arrive on the front lines fresh from the train they were forced on. It’s a bleak, muddy, dangerous, and fragile hill, but no more so than the men trying desperately to hold it. Later, the film’s aesthetics brighten up a bit as we follow the unit as they push into North Korea, through Pyongyang, and to the Chinese border. The film caps off with a gigantic epic military engagement on a hillside along the 38th parallel that ends with the two factions caught up in a bloody, brutal, group fight. It’s all incredibly executed, utterly and completely chaotic.

Reminiscent of all war movies, “Taegukgi” has many characters and limited time. Thus, their deaths mean we often didn't get to know them deeply, and the only reason we take their deaths as significant is because the musical score has suddenly become emotionally and powerfully charged. That guy that keeps showing his fellow soldiers a picture of his family. If you can’t figure out this guy is going to bite it, and that his precious picture will poetically flutter, fall, or come into view during his death, you haven’t seen nearly enough war movies.

The acting by the two leads is versatile, although Dong-Kun Jang, who was excellent as a brooding cop in the average “2009: Lost Memories”, falls victim to a script that fails to give him very much complexity. Bin Won (“Guns and Talks”) does well enough, managing to be convincing as the naive schoolboy who grows up as the war churns on. Still, the character wavers from helpless schoolboy to uncompromising schoolboy too many times to be overly sympathetic. The script has positive and negative qualities based on previous factors, which offers boldly drawn characters that “grow” in Polaroid moments with spalshes of crimson and energy.

For brotherhood, for family, for love shining through and a journey of emotion and epic proportions.

''Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone.''

After being kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days.

Min-sik Choi: Dae-su Oh

Ji-tae Yu: Woo-jin Lee

Oldboy(2003); Now this is the ultimate mind-fucks of revenge stories. You can honestly see that director Chan-wook Park outshines Quentin Tarantino when creating the most violent revenge scenes. The film itself a witty revision and re-mix of Alexandre Demas's The Count of Monte Cristo, Takashi Miike sadism and the David Lynch imaginings/dream surrealism.



Compelling, dark, twisted, and gory, carrying with it a strong lesson of what imprisonment and revenge will do to a man. Dae-su was a sleazy, gossiping fool who let his mouth get the best of him, resulting in a huge mess. He became a cold, bloodthirsty killing machine after 15 years of being locked up alone in a solitary room, completely changing from the verbally clumsily young man he had been before. Oldboy is about the effects and limitations of revenge, showing us the consequences for lusting after justice or revenge. A very brutal, stripped down view of human emotions.
Oldboy is overly violent, hallucinogenic and drenched in bloody revenge.

Whats more compelling than a man trapped within a room for 15 years, slowly eaten up by madness and seething for vengeance? Well, the answer is simple: Seeing the man attempt to carry out the task, and Oldboy affords us this luxury.
Oldboy has some intricate, slick cool music which is a mix of modern and classical to set the mood and tone.
It all adds up to a fascinating study, and evolution of a character who after this ordeal is let go by his captors after nearly escaping, then plots to find his kidnappers.
The acting is good all around, especially by Choi Min-sik, who played Oh Dae-su. Very emotive, very angry, and a very powerful and convincing actor. Marvellous. Kang Hye Jeong and Yu Ji-tae did very well as Mi-do and Lee Woo-jin respetively.

Highly surreal director Chen Wook Park Oldboy is epic and vast. The two men behind the Oldboy material: Garon Tsuchiya(story) Nobuaki Minegishi(comic).
There's something ethereal and dreamlike to proceedings that the screenplay writers hit on the head with their cleverly constructed scripting.
Jo-yun Hwang, Chun-hyeong Lim and Director Chan-wook Park were behind the screenplay while Joon-hyung Lim the writer.
As a consequence fight scenes, shootouts roar with energy and power. One of the most famously recognized scenes being of the corridor brawl showing us Dae-su against a great number of henchmen. What makes the scene so impressive is the fact it feels reminiscent of a 2D platformer and uses a unique way of using cinematography and camera techniques.

The effects also featured some very imaginative ideas; Ants being creatures of groups that lonely people see to deflect the former feeling of being alone. It all results in being highly engaging viewing especially when you throw in some mind bending dialogue which makes one ponder and reflect with it's deeper analogies. Who was to thank for the effects? Jeon-hyeong Lee was the man behind the visual effects and he did a grand job.
There is a love for storytelling at it's beating adrenaline pumping heart; Oldboy is ironically as hypnotic as it's subject matter and upon first viewing may not be fully understood by it's audience. Repeated viewings give a taste of the details, intricacies and heavily drenched psychological warfare which isn't just restricted to being physical.

Original Music by Hyun-jung Shim with classical modern resonance, Cinematography by
Chung-hoon Chung with power, originality and style, lastly Direction from the clever, talented Chan-wook Park.
This film has sex and violence, incorporating those themes into the plot, instead of constricting them to the plot alone. The incest is a touchy subject, but it's used as a plot point, not playing against personal sick delusions witht the audience. If you judge the movie based on this then you're missing out.
This movie does not glorify incest or the numerous acts of violence Oh Dae-su commits throughout the film's 2 hour duration. Oh Dae-su is a tormented character; this is especially seen in his line "After my revenge...will I be able to be Oh Dae-su again?" He's not evil and he's not enjoying the things he's doing; he wants to be his oldboy self again! Not to mention the schizophrenic tendencies he gained in those 15 years alone. Oh Dae-su is not a hero, just a man who wants his peace of mind, and his revenge. You don't have to sympathize with him if you don't want to, that's not what the movie strives for. What it does strive for is answering and indeed raising questions regarding revenge, emotions and the ripple effect of one's actions; Not to mention fleshing out it's respective characters hand in hand.

Question is, what will Dae-su do when he finds his kidnapper? Will his enemy kill himself as promised or is there more to this than meets the eye? Oldboy will set tongues wagging.

''Even though I'm no more than a monster - don't I, too, have the right to live? ''

''How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams...''

A freak accident brings together a critically ill mathematician (Penn), a grieving mother (Watts) and a born-again ex-con (Del Toro).

Sean Penn: Paul Rivers

''God knows when a single hair moves on your head.''

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu throws out a line of tension and keeps it incredibly taunt from beginning to end while exploring the most fundamental human emotions: fear, love, lust, and tragic loss.
Capturing intense performances from Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro, not to mention from Charlotte Gainsbourg and Melissa Leo also.
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu uses in 21 Grams a technique being seen more and more in film, a technique in which the story is not told in chronological order, but temporarily scattered. This technique is similar to that used by, for example, Christopher Nolan in Memento(2000) in which the story is told in reverse chronological order. Here there is a mixed pattern as the story unfolds, sometimes in sequence, sometimes out of sequence. At first it is disconcerting, then intriguing, and finally everything begins to take shape and focus into understanding in our minds, as an audience. I don't feel this technique is necessary, but it does have the virtue of forcing the viewer to become engaged in trying to figure out what they are experiencing and watching, and perhaps this heightens the cinematic dilemmas which arise throughout.



''You know what I thought when mom died? I couldn't understand how you could talk to people again, how you could laugh... again. I couldn't understand how you could play with us. And no, no that's a lie, life does not just go on.''

There are three stories strung together on a single strand of fate. First there is the story of Jack Jordan (Del Toro) a petty macho criminal who has found Jesus and is a born again, enlightened soul. Secondly, there is that of Paul Rivers (Penn), a college professor of mathematics who is dying because of a defective heart. Thirdly there is that of Cristina Peck (Watts) who has found what she wants in life with a husband she loves and two young daughters. Lastly, the catalyst which occurs, the tragic accident that seals their differing fates, and brings horror into their lives. The story is told in starkly realistic scenes spliced in jarring complexities, shifting from one character's story to the other. The effect is to give us relief from the terrible events of one part of story, only to lead into another thread, and then to pull away from that story and into a third until the stories merge into one.

I cannot say enough about the performances of the three leads. Sean Penn is brilliant in an understated way as he projects charm and tenderness, desperation and hope, and a kind of hopelessness headed for a flat line. Naomi Watts is electrifying in the intensity she brings to the most emotionally-wrought scenes. She is one of the most amazing actresses working today, and if you haven't seen her, see her here. You won't forget. She was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress (losing out to Charlize Theron in Monster), and much the same can be said of Benicio Del Toro who was also nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (losing out to Tim Robbins in Mystic River). Del Toro's portrayal of a fated man who both found and lost his faith because of tragic events and his own failure of character was totally convincing, and very tragic, ultimately emotional for us watching him.

''The earth turned to bring us closer. It turned on itself and in us, until it finally brought us together in this dream.''

If I had to criticize I would say that Cristina's initial feeling that she couldn't be bothered to help prosecute Jack Jordan for killing her family did not square well with her later feeling that she wanted to kill him. Yet, I suppose, one's feelings can change; emotions can alter. I also didn't think Jordan was the kind of character who would hit and run. He takes responsibility for his actions; turns himself in and says that he has a responsibility to God.

As far as the ending goes, note that Cristina is dressed in bright, almost happy colours because of what was discovered when she donated her type O-positive blood to save Paul's life. Obviously I can't reveal what was discovered, but I'm willing to assume many found it redeeming and hopeful while others labeled the affair as ironic, then the minority whom classed it as cheap and easy. Personally I thought it worked because everything in 21 Grams revolves around these seemingly random people, all connected by this one tragic incident, which ultimately destines their lives all to be entwined; leaving them with no choice to the contrary.

''How much did 21 grams weigh?''

''Vampires don't need cellphones.''

A young boy named Darren Shan meets a mysterious man at a freak show who turns out to be a Vampire. After a series of events Darren must leave his normal life and go on the road with the Cirque Du Freak and become a Vampire.

John C. Reilly: Larten Crepsley

It's very easy in this day and age to dismiss any film based on a successful young adult book series as just a studio's attempt to throw something up against the wall that could effectively begin a franchise and seeing if it sticks. You have every right to be suspicious of that, based upon the number of fantasy books that have tried it and been mostly unsuccessful - The Seeker, The Golden Compass, Narnia, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Bridge to Terabithia, Eragon(Shudders!), thus the list could go on and on and on.
One begins to feel as if the studios are really becoming desperate to attempt to launch something new into the genre thus make more profit from it. I'm sure that's what everyone is thinking about this adaptation of Darren Shan's Cirque du Freak books.



It probably doesn't help that the movie features vampires that don't have fangs and seem to have one side not wanting to kill humans and the others do. Believe me, I'm getting tired of this story-line since Twilight. But that's pretty much where the comparisons end here, all the alternative vampires featured in the film definitely have a lust for human blood and the main bad guy, Murlough, actually files his teeth into fangs. This is also not just a story about fighting vampires; Yes, the main conflict in the film is between two groups of the bloodthirsty undead; factually there are many different types of characters that we run into on our way through the film. You've got Patrick Fugit as a snake-boy, Salma Hayek as a bearded lady with psychic powers (and an amazing rack/body I might add!), Tom Woodruff, Jr. as the Wolfman, Orlando Jones as a guy with his skin missing and his ribs exposed, and an extremely evil fellow that seems to play everyone against each other to get what he wants named Mr. Tiny. He seems to have some kind of bizarre magical powers that weren't completely explained.

''College! Job! Family! And one day, if you're really lucky, you'll be standing here yelling at a teenager of your own.''

Just with the names above, you can see that there was no expense spared in pulling together a pretty impressive ensemble cast. Then add to that Willem Dafoe as a rather eccentric acting vampire and a very unexpected John C. Reilly as the freak show vampire Larten Crepsley. Reilly really delivers in the role, being witty and slightly scary in the as Crepsley. He almost veers completely off his normal path of the idiot friend or relative that he has paved for himself by being in Stepbrothers, Talladega Nights, and Walk Hard. The reason I say almost is he still retains a sense of humour, but in a more traditional manner confined to the storytelling.

I found Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant to be a pretty enjoyable, and entertaining film. It had a darkly comic, richly sarcastic vibe that many of the films based on these types of books seem to miss out upon. I haven't read the books of this series, but this film definitely seemed to incite me to do so.
Will this be one of those times where the film will make enough money for the studio to kick off a new franchise? Who knows.

Darren Shan: So do I turn into a bat
Larten Crepsley: NO! NO! That is Bullshit.

''Humbug!''

An animated retelling of Charles Dickens classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption, courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions.

Jim Carrey: Scrooge

''I'm light as a feather!...''

Disney's A Christmas Carol is a solid adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic, although lacking sometimes in the emotional connection to humanity; inherent in some of other previous versions of this timeless story.
The plot of the film obviously comprises of the traditional story of Ebenezer Scrooge, the grouchy old miser whom is in turn visited by the Ghosts of his friend Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Present, and Things Yet to Come. Thus all spirits proceed in giving him visions of his life and the consequences of proceeding in his greedy, unemotional way. One path being of financial materialistic glory, the redeeming road comprising of selfless acts; kindness and consideration for others less fortunate.
The legendary role of Scrooge is played by Jim Carrey (where as he also voices the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and other characters). I was a touched with Carrey giving this character life with his voice alone. With this being an animated film, his portrayal is a very faceted performance from Carrey, and were this a live-action adaptation, he would have truly breathed even more life into the main protagonist, with his inane comedic skills.
Gary Oldman provides his talented voice to Bob Cratchit, Marley, and Tiny Tim. Bob even looks like Oldman albeit a tad shorter and rounder than the master of change.

A Christmas Carol was directed by Robert Zemeckis, whom here continues to try and refine his favoured medium of production, animated motion capture. Disney's A Christmas Carol is on par, animation wise with his previous projects, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but it still doesn't manage to look as good as live-action would, nor as polished as other CG-animated products; though I will say in it's defense, there were certain shots where the lighting was so well designed that I was fooled momentarily believing some of the characters on screen were real.

Ebenezer Scrooge: What do you want with me?
Jacob Marley: You will be haunted by three spirits.
Ebenezer Scrooge: I'd rather not.

I saw this film in 3D, the first time I've ever seen a full feature length film in 3D at the cinema, and I came away impressed with certain aspects, while a touch frustrated with others. A simple dolly shot in 3D has a marvelous look resonating from it's use, simply beautiful and truly enticing me into this world, as well the depth of field in a simple shot where two characters are in frame is astounding, but then whenever a shot of someone's hand flying out toward the audience is shown, that impressiveness previously disappears.

Zemeckis has definitely made a visually intriguing film, a highly original take on this classic story, while also being faithful to the source, and there are many good times to be had within. I think the best way to sum up Disney's A Christmas Carol is that it's style over substance, often taking liberties with the story and skipping vital detailed parts like it's racing through Charles Dickens tale. The film seems to be more interested in being a showcase rollercoaster of impressive visuals rather than one of creating emotional connection with the characters. It's just, whenever a sequence begins to evolve really intriguing emotionally, it pulls away into another crazy storm of fast paced flying.

As a whole, Disney's A Christmas Carol is a jolly experience at the cinema, though it's less of a sentimental, character building piece of story and more of a high octane effects ride, valuing entertainment rather than Dickens story, but there again, isn't that why most go to the films in the first place? I know I certainly expect something deeper, meaningful usually but this being Disney and a family supportive project it succeeds in showing the children and even adults amazement visually.

''God bless us all...every one!''