Reviews by Lexi

''Yeah it's chaos, it's clocks, it's watermelons, it's everything.''

Ruminations on the life of Bob Dylan, where six characters embody a different aspect of the musician's life and work.

Cate Blanchett: Jude

Director & Writer Todd Haynes has created a biopic so unique and so diverse, that it's predictably going to be attacked for not reaching the everyday standards of the everyday genres of film, with standard storytelling methods applied. Haynes never once shys away from what he is striving to accomplish: change, chaos, ambiguity. This film is soul and embodiment of Bob Dylan. The themes, settings, look, pacing, characters, chaos, ambiguity, contradictions, and for the fact that this never once tries to explain who Dylan is or why he is the way he was is, so fitting it's hard to imagine a biopic on Dylan done any differently. This is a bold film done in a fresh and unique way. This isn't the usual predictable Walk The Line or standard by the book Ray type singer-biopic(Which are brilliant in their own way) where you have one great performance surrounded by the life and times, the highs and lows, and then the conquering of life's obstacles.
I'm Not There on the other hand, baffles, confuses, lies, contradicts, and makes you question everything, tipping your world upside down. We never know where we're going, who we're going to meet, or what time and person we'll end up with. Haynes doesn't have one person recreate Dylan as Dylan was. He relies on six actors and an actress to play parts of the mysterious man, that we know as Dylan.

Haynes style is breath taking, the music a vessel of transport for our minds into this mind of faceted greatness, the acting is unrivaled, from every star in the film with award worthy performances everywhere, the cinematography was excellent, the writing superior to most of this decade and the editing was unsurpassed surrealness. We never once feel we're at one place with one character for too long, or we jump into one life unexpectedly where it feels forced. Gere's part seems left wing and it completely is, but when we're there, we learn just as much about Dylan than we have with every other character. Blanchett, Ledger, and Bale are the three standouts. Blanchett will get most of the praise because she embodies Dylan's psychedelic, far out trips, flamboyant behavior, and his eagerness to rebel, question, and change. Ledger gives one of his best last performances, during a marriage that is falling apart due to infidelity and long lasting time away, as he plays Robbie Clark, a young, up and coming actor. Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins. When Rollins pops up it's through a documentary like form. We're watching a movie within a movie about one of the characters. Not only is that unique, but Robbie Clark (Heath Ledger) plays Jack Rollins in a movie called "Grain of Sand." During the in-movie documentary on the life of Jack Rollins we learn about his past experiences and how he came to become an evangelical preacher. All three actors have the most intriguing parts of the film that just suck you in and stay with you long after you see them. Blanchett deserved the Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actress. She's fantastic and gives one of her best performances as she's quickly building a resume that most actresses can't touch, but Bale and Ledger are both equally impressive.

The intertwining stories are done so well and stay so true to the man that Dylan was makes I'm Not There one of the best films of the year. The constantly changing themes, looks and colours of the film embody Dylan's appearances to perfection. The six characters embody Dylan's schizophrenic like changing of personalities. The historical backdrops used in the film are important and relevant to the times and characters as they add depth and perception to the character's lives. Todd Haynes has created a work that should only get better and more revered as time goes by because we just don't come across films such as this in any time period. Haynes has created a piece to be proud of and a faceted jewel, that even Dylan would be proud of.

''If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives.''

A remake of the 1951 classic sci-fi film about an alien visitor and his giant robot counterpart who visit Earth.

Keanu Reeves: Klaatu

To start with I never had any major expectations upon seeing The Day the Earth stood Still. Initially it's an effect laden disaster movie disguised as an Alien encounter of sorts, and of course it's a remake of a major Classic B&W film with a deep message between it's lines. This is the beginning problem with this new project, combined with a typical cast and a routine battering of pointless plot. The Day the Earth stood Still begins very slow and this is the start of it's unraveling, and ultimately it's predictable demise. I was willing to give this affair a chance, give it a shot per say, for criticizing it or knocking it before viewing would perhaps be unfair. Now I wish I hadn't bothered but at the same time glad I've got it over and done with.

At it's core it's got some good points, obviously the plot isn't one of them or the depth. It's effects and visual efforts are very impressive, which almost disappoints me in the fact it hasn't the story to support these lush renderings. For instance we have the huge spheres of light artistically stimulating and a huge metal man guardian who are either under used or misused with the ongoing script occurring. The Day the Earth stood Still plot has been done so many times before that it's almost a crossbreed between The Happening, Independence Day and even having a resemblance to Spielberg's Close Encounters of the third Kind. I mean The Day the Earth stood Still is a typical American goody two shoes movie, the center of disaster, the main sphere of destruction is, you've guessed it, in the good old US, Manhattan. I'm sick and tired of these disaster/Alien movies always having the main bloody event occur in their Homeland. To me this is just unbelievable and byaist, while also being very big headed.
Which brings me to yet another annoyance worthy of mention, the other countries shown in the Alien occurrence. The glimpse of London UK is disturbingly awful, which shows America's perspective of us to be a Taxi Infested city with Old people wearing stereotyped caps. Come on guys, this is the 21st Century here too, not the 60s. Also the middle Eastern Countries shown, are truly inaccurate, giving us the impression that all denizens in Egypt or surrounding Countries ride around on Camels and are primitive cultures. All this just shows how stuck up the film makers are and a diluted Western view we are given.

Keanu Reeves as Klaatu is another reason why fans of the original, will hate this intrepid re-make of pointlessness. He's got that type cast role, giving nothing new in a lifelessly wooden drab performance. We have an Alien beginning to feel empathy for the human race yet in fact the evolution towards this empathy is missing. Granted he has a few moments that are fun, like his control of technology, but it's all a mindless dizzying waste because there isn't enough life in the acting or the disposition of how Klaatu is represented by Reeves. The fault doesn't just lie with Reeves but with a weak script and a tired story of Alien Encounters that offers nothing new whatsoever.
Jennifer Connelly as Helen Benson, is the female star, yet this choice for her is a far cry from Blood Diamond, this is something she should of stayed clear from. Her performance isn't great, more of acting with her blue eyes and staring towards camera rather than adding any weight to her dialogue.
Kathy Bates is an annoying 2D character, Jaden Smith backs her up as another deadpan cop out, while John Cleese as Professor Barnhardt is meant to pass as a renowned Scientist type character. The film at this point becomes unable to be taken seriously in any regard, with miscast people, a mindless remake with dire consequences.

This could have been really amazing but it turns out to be as flat as a pancake and one of the worst disaster Sci-Fi excuses this year, or hell this decade.
The Day the Earth stood Still is a wonderful example of how a movie's effects alone cannot carry a lifeless husk of events along. As for humanity being able to change it's ways for this Planet, well don't make me laugh. The Day the Earth stood Still shows a stupid military and characters making some of the worst choices since Deep Impact, you can laugh when people get blown away, you can smile when bad atrocities happen, when metallic bugs eat away anything in their path, because it's all so laughable, so unbelievably executed and displayed, it's hard not to scoff at proceedings.

Overall The Day the Earth stood Still is best to be avoided, unless you are like me and a glutton for punishment, wanting to see what the fuss is about, if indeed there is one. Granted there have been some bad films so far in 2008, and as we hit the twilight of this year I can safely say The Day the Earth stood Still can be added to the pile.

''Words can be very powerful...''

A young girl discovers her father has an amazing talent to bring characters out of their books and must try to stop a freed villain from destroying them all, with the help of her father, her aunt, and a storybook's hero.

Brendan Fraser: Mo 'Silvertongue' Folchart

I lose count at the amount of fantasy films that seem to be churned out of film studios nowadays. After LOTR and the HP series escalated in showing public interest and a great source of inspiration, film studios are capitalizing once again on this genre. Unfortunately resulting in fantasy blunders like Eragon, a mediocre Narnia series, or the below average Golden Compass. So where does Inkheart fall and fare among all these clones and repetitive efforts? I'd say it lands squarely into being not something of greatness, but rather mindless fun like City Of Ember was.

Character development and elaboration seems to be lacking or missing, while action and plot seems to be detailed in some areas while lacking in others. For instance the concept of reading books and everything coming to life from them, could of been done so much better. Inkheart goes for a safe option, it neither goes all out on this idea but it feels to me like some alternative take on The Last Action Hero but with books instead of films. Don't get me wrong, there are some brilliant ideas on offer here, and I believe it must be an intriguing book to read but it's hardly new or awe inspiring.

So performances, firstly Paul Bettany as Dustfinger, almost proves to be about as half annoying as he was in A Knights Tale, he just seems to be typecast and miscast these days, Inkheart is a perfect example of this.
Brendan Fraser as Mo, seems to be the same problem, he always goes for these family father type role figures, whether it be Mummy or Journey to the center of the Earth, you know exactly what to expect if he's in it. Which isn't necessarily a good thing.
Helen Mirren is no Gandalf, Andy Serkis seems to be having too much fun as Capricorn, Jim Broadbent looks like a weathered old leaf and some girl, Eliza Bennet shows us an awful dress and deep voice in a bizaare final showdown. We even get Rafi Gravon showing us some Prince of Persia antics.

Whats funny about Inkheart is the fact it has all these famous stories, and it has creatures, people and monsters coming to life from a silver tongued reader. We see flying monkeys from Oz, A croc from Peter Pan, even a Minotaur. Sadly some concepts and ideas aren't elaborated on. For instance when character's swap over, one thing comes into our world, while another is swapped. The explanation or elaboration for this is left strangely missing. Inkheart at it's heart is a film for the family, there is no doubt. It's hardly deep or educational nor is it new or ground breaking. Upon reflection it is fun and the time flies by while watching it. While a dark nemesis at it's peak called the Shadow was abit Lord of the Rings or Never Ending Story inspired I suppose it can be forgiven for not hiding it's efforts to emulate them.
Andy Serkis getting his just desserts also seemed to be a rip off of Philosophers Stone, which was amusing if what something of a parody of misconception again on strains of originality.

If you have children or young friends then this would be a good watch for any fantasy appreciative fan, while also giving some escapism to boot.
Overall the effects are without fault, the music accompanying does its job, and the cast turn in so-so acting and charismatic efforts.

''He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer-lasting light bulb.''

Following the Normandy Landings, a group of US soldiers go behind enemy lines to retrieve a paratrooper whose brothers have been killed in action.

Tom Hanks: Capt. John H. Miller

''That boy is alive. We are gonna send somebody to find him. And we are gonna get him the Hell... outta there.''

Steven Spielberg continues what he does best with Saving Private Ryan, a film so graphic in its Second World War battlefield depictions that many veterans have called it the closest thing to being there.



The explicit scenes of gushing arteries, severed limbs and faceless corpses come fast and furious, numbing us into the reality of the setting. In fact, if we didn't know Spielberg as a serious artist with noble objectives, we might be tempted to call him a shock artist obsessed with blood, guts, splatter and gore.
Steven Spielberg's genius stems from his ability to always know, exactly where he wants to show his viewer and to transport them there. If he wants to aim for our emotions, he'll make us fall in love with a brown and wrinkly alien we might otherwise find grotesque and scary. If he wants to make us inch the blanket up over our eyes in fear, he'll crank up the grim orchestral music and put us up lose and personal, with a toothy shark nemesis. And if he wants us to truly understand an entirely different kind of horror, he'll show us small children leaping into a pool of outhouse waste, to escape their murderous Holocaust captors. He isn't afraid to dirty his hands with any material he selects.

But what do we do know about Spielberg? We know he would not take us down such a rocky road without a reason. In Saving Private Ryan, the obvious rationalization is to help us understand not where he's coming from, but where the men we will ultimately spend nearly three hours with are coming from. It's in this hell on earth that Cpt. John Miller and his small group of soldiers (fine actors like Edward Burns, Tim Sizemore and Barry Pepper among them) must not only survive with sanity intact, but carry out orders. And not all of those orders make sense at the time, if ever. Case in point, Hanks and his men are sent to locate one Private James Ryan (Matt Damon). Private Ryan is no POW, no casualty, but a soldier still serving somewhere within the vast U.S. Forces, if he's still alive, that is. During WW2, with a communication system that is a technological relic by today's standards.

''My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust.''

Each man has a unique background, skill or specialized field. Whether it be an expert marksman or a Jewish veteran and fighter at war. IT all adds to the gritty realism and the taste of war, that your granddad would remember.
The mission they face, is a very hard venture, not just logistically, but emotionally. Private Ryan is sought so he can be sent home to his mom, who has just lost her three other sons virtually at once. As he himself admits, Private Ryan has displayed no more courage than his fellow soldiers. Why should he get to leave? Indeed that question crops up in the minds of Hanks' soldiers. Why is one man's life worth risking those of a group of men? they ask. It's an interesting angle for a film about heroes and rationality. We often think of soldiers doing their job with no questions asked, happy to put their lives on the line for their fellow team mates. We forget they are human beings like us, flesh and blood.

What Saving Private Ryan does extremely well, is show the world the harsh reality of war. Such as letting prisoners go only to return in circulation later, Allied Soldiers killing prisoners or surrendering Nazis because they are bitter and vengeful.
It all shows that the only fairness in war is the unfairness of it. The story about a squad of soldiers sent to retrieve the surviving brother of three dead soldiers is told with competency and due reverence from all perspectives of the characters involved. It is an uncommon and intriguing drama, but it serves as an excuse to describe a setting, rather than the other way around. The story manages to move us through all sorts of different landscapes and scenarios, giving us an unforgettable glimpse of a world unknown to most of us, and terrifying to those who are familiar with it from personal experience.
And therein lies one of the biggest strengths of Saving Private Ryan. It's a very human story told in extreme circumstances. It covers all the traditional struggles like inner turmoil, terror, carnage yet has a level of sophistication absent from most other war films, particularly those inspired by The Last Great War. Hanks isn't Patton, but a schoolteacher, a human being, someone we can relate to, who secretly cries at the enormity of it all. The enemy fighters don't have horns, but uniforms and feelings just like the Americans. The soldiers are heroes, but reluctant ones.
Spielberg is a master at telling the story of war and men. Saving Private Ryan is not his best, but it certainly comes close.

''I just know that every man I kill, the farther away from home I feel.''

''But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet. Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.''

In a Fascist future where all forms of feeling are illegal, a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system.

Christian Bale: John Preston

Who doesn't want to see Christian Bale in a Sci-Fi futuristic dystopia where feelings are against the law where he can unleash hell with guns? Like someone seriously on speed; this kicks some awesome choreography, stunt work and major shoot outs that will have you cheering for more.
Christina Bale turns in some emotional acting and shows a tormented soul that once he starts feeling again, he enters a new world of senses that ultimately sets him free from the bonds of a totalitarian society.



Equilibrium(2002) is the perfect example why I do not rate lower for derivativeness or unoriginality. The film is basically high-concept combination of Fahrenheit 451(1966), George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four(original published in 1949, film versions appeared in 1954, 1956 and 1984), The Matrix(1999) and a bit of The Wizard of Oz(1939) thrown in for good measure. What matters is not how original the ideas are (assuming it's not a case of plagiarism); as whether something is original or not is an epistemological problem that tells us more about our own familiarity with other material rather than the precedent status of the artwork we're questioning, but how well the material is handled. The high-concept material in Equilibrium is handled brilliantly.

On its surface, after a brief action-oriented beginning, Equilibrium is basically a progression from a fairly complex sci-fi film (meaning simply that it takes a lot of exposition to get up to speed) to a thriller to a gun fu-styled actioner. The progression is carried out deftly by writer/director Kurt Wimmer: who unfortunately hasn't shown the same level of elegant panache in other films I've seen from him; including Sphere(1998) and The Recruit(2003), with all of the genres somewhat present throughout the film. Wimmer is so austerely slick here that Equilibrium sometimes resembles a postmodernist automobile commercial. The transition from genre to genre is incredibly smooth.
The most impressive material on this surface level is the Gun Fu action stuff; which almost out guns The Matrix in style, if not volume. Preston is so skilled to be an almost invincible opponent. His solitary misstep as a fighter occurs once he gives himself over to emotion. This is nicely related to the common advice from kung Fu Sensei that emotion lessens one's effectiveness in combat.

''Mankind united with infinitely greater purpose in pursuit of war than he ever did in pursuit of peace.''

Of course a major factor of Equilibrium is the set of philosophical points it has to make about emotion. There are sections of the film that are appropriately dialogue-heavy, and Wimmer is more than conspicuous with these concepts. Just as important as dialogue for Wimmer's commentary on man's emotions are body language and behavior. Some viewers might see it as a flaw that characters frequently show what they consider to be signs of emotions in their comments or behavior, but that's part of Wimmer's agenda. Because it's difficult to even say just what counts as an emotion, and emotions are so wrapped-up with being sentient beings, it would be difficult if not impossible to fully eliminate them, and it's certainly not recommendable. The cast does an excellent job of portraying characters who are supposed to be mostly emotionless but with cracks in the stoic armor continually poking through.

Wimmer has a harsh view of our society's self-medication epidemic--even the title of the film seems to be a stab at the common claim that drugs like Prozac and Xanax are taken to help one erase emotion, or remain emotionless, extremes of mood, or extreme dispositions. The Equilibrium government extends this agenda into the tangible material realm as they also attempt to erase mood swings by eliminating any cultural artifacts that might promote varied moods/emotions. Wimmer seems to see it as a not-too-exaggerated extension of the modus operandi behind Prozac-like drugs.

The other primary theme is one of institutional control. Wimmer has a lot to say about unquestioningly following authorities, and he's careful to show that it's not just governmental authorities that can be a problem. He does this by tightly wrapping religious allegory with his depiction of Equilibrium's government. The leader is known as Father, and the government secret service members are clerics. Those outside of this control are shown as authentic, free, individualistic and happy despite the hardships involved with their embrace of forbidden thought/items.
Equilibrium has amazing visuals, music and action with a final showdown that will leave you satisfied.
Bale shows once again that he can do action emotion and then pummel the senses with entertaining adrenaline. Equilibrium will make you feel alright...It will make you feel good. Entertaining is an understatement.

''You're treading on my dreams.''

''There's something more to this place. Our cells don't work. Neither does the T.V. or radio. We're isolated.''

"REC" turns on a young TV reporter and her cameraman who cover the night shift at the local fire station...

Manuela Velasco: Ángela Vidal

''Good evening, this is Angela Vidal speaking. Tonight, as usual, we will share this time...''

[Rec] is basically the most, original, raw, horror films to come out for an absolute age. A Spanish horror film, replicated in the style of Cloverfield or Open Water, utilizing that home filmed feel. After seeing [Rec] I can say it's nerve shreddingly effective. It felt like this is the horror film I've been begging for, ever since playing god send Games like Resident Evil and Silent Hill have I had a glimpse of what a film vision could be like, finally [Rec] gives me something terrifyingly real.

It comes off like 28 Weeks Later or 28 Days Later yet it's that unique minimalist way it's conceived, as with way they film it.
So [Rec]'s plot is basically about two reporters whom are doing a documentary about the firemen at a station during their night shift. We are treated to their respective routines and a glimpse of the function of the department. It really does feel like you're watching an actual documentary in motion.
As matters progress we see the firemen take on their first job while the reporters accompany them to a rescue of an old lady trapped within her apartment. What begins as a routine process turns into something extremely sinister and gruesome, not only that scarily terrifying.

''There are incredible security measures in place. We know nothing. They haven't told us a thing. We saw special forces, health inspectors wearing suits and masks, and it's not very comforting.''

Actress Manuela Velasco plays Ángela Vidal, the main protagonist, the pretty eye candy girl reporter, who's the viewers main companion alongside the secondary Pablo who remains unseen mostly during [Rec].
The rest of the cast are impressively gritty and real, Ferran Terraza, Jorge Serrano, Pablo Rosso, David Vert, Vicente Gil and a wonderful Claudia Font as a sweet young girl who becomes a vision of terror.
[Rec] was interestingly enough also made and shot in real locations. No sets were built to make this movie. During the filming of the scene where the young fireman falls from the stairs, not a single actor knew that was going to happen, so the reactions we see on the films were the real reactions of the actors themselves.
The film is co-directed by Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza and they have clearly dipped into the bucket of clichés with REC, but in doing so they have created something that is both fresh and reinvigorating. It should be noted that clichés aren't always a bad thing and when put to good use can give the audience exactly what they came to see. It's true that the plot is minimal and there are loose ends, but then the vast majority of horror films often suffer from these traits, and sometimes purposefully, but with REC it doesn't make the film any less enjoyable. It is also evident from the plot and the methods employed that the film is very low budget, but this does not do it any harm, instead it complements the narrative and increases the films appeal.

I believe the true quality of the film lies in its ability to cleverly use the history of the genre and the bare minimal of resources to its maximum potential, there's little room to doubt the reasons for the cameraman to continue filming and this is due to the fact it's his occupation. He is there to film a documentary and in true cameraman style his instincts take over. The acting on show here is also a lot better than some in Cloverfield and the people all look genuine, some are even unattractive, which is realism, not a Hollywood cop out.
To put it simply [Rec] features some of the most fear inducing and scariest scenes to date. It achieves a level of fear that's rarely experienced in cinema and if watching the film carefully it can be seen how. REC has been made by people that are incredibly familiar with the horror genre and fans will recognize the homages and the inspirations used, from classics such as Evil Dead, to The Shining, to 28 Days later and many more. With such a wealth of horror-viewing-experience combined with inspired film-making they are able to draw upon some of the best moments in horror history.

Towards the final reels the film plays like an amalgamation of ideas and inspirations. One of which is the influence of contemporary video gaming as some scenes allude to how certain computer games work ( such as first person shooters) and this is supported by the POV technique as we, the viewer, live the character of the cameraman much in the same way a gamer lives the character he/she is in control of. This notion is furthered by the different levels in the apartment building, the films use of rooms, the final scenes and several allegories to various computer games including the mentioned Resident Evil, Alone in the Dark and Silent Hill.

For a feature film it is incredibly short, at a mere 75 minutes, in fact it is closer to the length of a TV documentary which is possibly its goal. I cannot recommend this film enough and have even attempted to script my review in a way as to not give too much away of it's genius masterful strokes, as it is a [Rec]comendation that needs to seen. Watch it with the lights off, alone, if you dare...

''It's nearly 2 A.M. and we're still sealed in this building that we came to with the firemen earlier this evening, to assist an elderly woman who later attacked a policeman and a fireman. They're both in critical condition. The police won't let us leave and are giving us no explanations.''

''We are supposed to be righteous. That's a beautiful thing. And we're losing it. If I lose that, that's everything. That's my soul.''

Based on the true story of the Black September aftermath, about the five men chosen to eliminate the ones responsible for that fateful day.

Eric Bana: Avner

''There is no peace at the end of this.''

What should have been an uneventful Olympics in Munich, 1972, became the bloodshed that unfolded like a Moebius strip and unleashed even more blood unto the world. On September 5, 1972, eight Palestinian terrorists killed two Israeli athletes, kidnapped nine more, and asked for safe passage out of Germany and the subsequent liberation of Arab prisoners in Israeli and German prisons. Once at the airport they encountered resistance from the German authorities, and in a scuffle, all of the other nine hostages were killed.



This led to the Israeli government to have the Mossad -- Israel's intelligence agency -- track down and kill every terrorist responsible for the killings. For this they hired one of Golda Meir's bodyguards, known as Avner, put him in a special ops team, and gave them minimal information about these terrorists. Avner on his own is able to strike back at the "supposed" terrorists via the appearance of a shady Parisian named Louie, but as the assignments become more and more difficult, he wonders if it is all worth it, and once his own team gets decimated by counter-agents, he wonders if behind every terrorist there is a even more dangerous one just waiting in the wings with ways to get back at him and his family.

''The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood.''

Steven Spielberg is at his best when not directing Blockbusters. The world of 1972 hasn't changed much to this day, when one sees the events of September 11, 2001(and the World Trade Center inserted into the New York City skyline right at the final scene for a final blow of realization), and the political interests which led to their horrific result on American soil, it becomes food for thought if behind every Saddam, every Osama, there aren't just tens or thousands of replacements, but a countless number, waiting, biding their time, with more reasons to hate the Western world for butting their heads into their affairs. Avner, while a minion of Israel, ponders these things, and is himself terrorized when he comes to America to live a life away from the madness he was involved in: namely, the never-ending conflict between Israel and Palestine, both fighting for what they consider home. As one plo member effectively says, Home is all we know.
But what indeed, may we ask, has home become?

No right, no wrong, but a grey murky haze is the prevalent tone in Munich. While re-enacting a swift retribution against those who destroy order would be the thing to do, what does it solve? Spielberg doesn't say, probably doesn't know either. What he does do is create an increasing, nail-biting suspense, that Hitchcock himself would have loved and this film, reminiscent itself of sabotage, is proof that terror and mayhem at the hands of subversives is still a thing of now as much as then and that innocents are always on hand to pay with the intended victims. One sequence, as the foursome wait for their first target to pick up the phone but find that his young daughter has not left the house yet, is incredibly powerful. Another one is when Avner waits for a bomb to go off in the room beside him. Nothing is ever clean and easy in the real world, and even bombers can never really know what to expect from their toys, and all one can do is wait and become paranoid, frozen with fear.

''We have 11 Palestinian names, each one of them had a hand in planning Munich. We want them all dead.''

The evolution of Avner is fascinating, as the film progresses we see this man eaten up by paranoia, guilt and fear of reprisals.
We have a scene in which Avner makes love to his heavily pregnant wife with tenderness, love and devotion. Later Avner is changed when he is making love to his wife. We see the effect it has had on him and his mindset, but cleverly we also see the reason behind this man's torment and guilty inner demons. The killings of the Atheletes at the Munich Incident are shown for the first time, the cause, and catalyst of Avner's demons. This is the moment in which we see how the ball was set in motion, how the five men were sent on a quest which would equal a never ending turmoil. As Avner makes love to his wife we, we take it all in, along with him, while his wife can only comfort her husband with three resonating words, I love you.

Another conversation that Avner has with an Arab man on a stairs is very revealing and faceted. An age old hatred over land and religion, this conversation basically sums up the whole diluted mess of blood and soil. A never ending war, until the other is eradicated from the earth. This scene holds a chilling resonance and harrowing message, yet Daniel Craig twiddling stations on the radio, with an Arab, shows differences can also have similar tastes. Yet Avner's statement involving these delusions being a dream, a fiction, are the more rational, temperant answers we receive. Spielberg wants us to think about this issue, and he gives us plenty to think about.

''Every man we've killed has been replaced by worse!''

Overall, Munich has strong performances all throughout and unrivaled directing from Spielberg. Eric Bana is harrowingly tortured as Avner, a man who only wants to be with his wife and young daughter and cannot escape the horrors he has witnessed and participated in. Geoffrey Rush, Ciaran Hinds, Daniel Craig, Mathieu Kassovitz, Lynn Cohen, Hans Ziechler, Michael Lonsdale, and Mathieu Amalric all supply great support in a well-rounded cast and flesh out great characters in this excellent, if morally ambiguous story.
Munich captures the inner turmoil and hesitation of his character in the most believable striking way possible, making this piece, into a worthwhile adventure for its performances, story and cinematography. But most importantly, it dares to ask questions and to answer our past so we can avoid a bloody future.

Avner: Break bread with me. Come on, you're a Jew in a foreign land. It's written somewhere I should invite you to break bread with me. Break bread with me, Ephraim.
Ephraim: No.

''This happens. This is something that happens.''

An epic mosaic of several interrelated characters in search of happiness, forgiveness, and meaning in the San Fernando Valley.

Tom Cruise: Frank T.J. Mackey

''Sometimes people need a little help. Sometimes people need to be forgiven. And sometimes they need to go to jail.''

Lets just say, Paul Thomas Anderson has succeeded in putting into film a rather clever interpretation of a butterfly effect.
Anderson creates a vast canvas of barely-related and briefly overlapping storylines and characters that come together under the blooming flower concept of a single major theme and a few minor ones. Anderson's concern is to explore the ideology of forgiveness and to examine the part it plays in the redemption of ourselves. In this film, dying characters have inner demons and turmoils to face and to make amends with the loved ones they will soon leave, while estranged characters grasp tentatively to establish bonds that must link them to other members of humanity. Anderson humbly denotes a tremendously wide range of characters, though for a film set in the northern areas of Los Angeles, Magnolia provides a surprisingly non-diverse sea of American Actors. However, in terms of the ages of the characters, Anderson's crew seems more comprehensive, running the gamut from a pre-teen wiz kid to a terminally ill man in his mid-60's. Many of these characters seem to have created any number of facades to help them cope with the miseries and disappointments of life – and much of the redemption occurs only after those masks are stripped away revealing the emptiness and hurt that, in many cases, lurks so close to the surface.

Thematically, then, Anderson's film is a compelling one. Dramatically, however, it suffers from some serious flaws. Many viewers and critics have called `Magnolia' an artistic advancement, in both depth and scope, for Anderson, whose previous film was the similarly dense, moderately freeform `Boogie Nights.' I tend to disagree. If anything, `Boogie Nights,' by limiting itself to a much more narrowly restricted milieu – the 1970's porn industry – and focusing intently on a single main character, managed to connect more directly with the emotions of the audience. `Magnolia,' by being more expansive, paradoxically, seems more contracted. The pacing is often languid and the screenplay, running a bit over three hours, often seems bloated given the single-mindedness of its basic theme. Certainly, a few of these characters and storylines could have been dispensed with at no great cost to the film as a whole. By lining up all his characters to fit into the same general theme, the author allows his message to become a bit heavy-handed and over-emphatic. Anderson seems to want to capture the whole range of human experience on his huge, lengthy movie project, yet because the characters seem to all be tending in the same direction, and despite the fact that the details of their experiences are different, the net effect is thematically claustrophobic.

''And there is the account of the hanging of three men, and a scuba diver, and a suicide. There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, "Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it." Someone's so-and-so met someone else's so-and-so and so on. And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." ''

The controversial ending, in which an event of literally biblical proportions occurs, feels generally right in the context of this film, though with some reservations. It seems perfectly in tune with the quality of heightened realism that Anderson establishes and sustains throughout the picture. On the other hand, the ending does pinpoint one of the failures of the film as a whole. Given that the screenplay has a strong religious subtext running all the way through it, one wonders why Anderson felt obliged to approach the religious issues in such strictly oblique terms. None of the characters, not even those who are dying, seem to turn to God for their forgiveness and redemption. In fact, one wonders what purpose that quirky ending serves since the characters are well on their way to making amends by the time it happens.
Perhaps in doing so Anderson finds another way to connect his characters together with the event happening, being something that happens. Adding to another line up of threads and debates.
When it does happen, theres no way your expecting it, granted you maybe expecting something unexpected, but what that said thing is, turns out to be a wondrous surprise.
So the questions pile up, answers and speculation seem far in the distance, while Magnolia succeeds in doing in my mind what many other films in this era have done before. Whether it be Donnie Darko, 21 Grams, or realistic Babel, to me Magnolia seems to be another film following the trend. Perhaps if I'd seen it sooner I wouldn't question it's originality, but I do, and I have. Having said that it's a great film regardless and it tries very hard to be clever and ambitious, which to me is commendable.

Director Anderson has harnessed an array of first-rate performances from a talented, Hollywood drenched cast. Tom Cruise provides a wrenching case study of a shallow, charismatic shyster, who has parleyed his misogyny into a lucrative self-help industry. Yet, like many of the characters, he uses this visage as a shield to hide the hurt caused by a father who abandoned him and a mother whose slow, painful death he was left to deal with. The other actors, too numerous to mention, turn in equally worthy performances. Particularly interesting is the young boy who, in counterpoint to one of the other characters in the story, manages to save himself at an early age from the crippling effect of identity usurpation that it has taken so many others in this film a lifetime to overcome.

In many ways, Magnolia is the kind of film that could easily serve as the basis for a lengthy doctoral dissertation for a student majoring in either filmmaking or sociology. The density of its vision would surely yield up many riches of character, symbolism and theme that a first time viewer of the film would undoubtedly miss. Thus, in many ways, Magnolia is that rare film that seems to demand repeat exposure even for those audience members who may not get it the first time. As a viewing experience, Magnolia often seems rambling and lacking purpose, but it does manage to get under one's skin, and, unlike so many other, less ambitious works, this one grows on you.

''Why are frogs falling from the sky?''

Emperor Pu Yi: This isn't a school; it's a prison. A real prison.

He was the Lord of Ten Thousand Years, the absolute monarch of China. He was born to rule a world of ancient tradition. Nothing prepared him for our world of change. The story of the final Emperor of China.

John Lone: Emperor Pu Yi / Henry

One could easily state Bernardo Bertolucci creation of a masterpiece; regarding an era of history that would definitely change the relationship of nations throughout the era forever. That he did it with such artistic flair and factual film-making is to say his success was close to the divine heights of cinematic bliss.
You may conclude that would be a quite accurate statement about The Last Emperor(1987), especially for American film-making whom greatly capture a time and place without having their own agendas in translating history.



To amass such a huge cast today would put many studios into immediate expenditures and losses, much less movie-producers. Every scene is detailed to utter faultless finesse; the reign of the last emperor of China wasn't that long ago, so there were unlimited sources to be utilized and put forth. That they were made available and especially shooting on location in The Forbidden City with the approval of the communist government of Peking in the 1980s is even more fantastical. After centuries of the Qing emperors' rulings, for this gigantic nation to change its manner of governing is mind blowing. One would assume China would just as soon deny that year of its history, mirroring Japan denying a fair few if not all, Asian atrocities.

''The Emperor has been a prisoner in his own palace since the day that he was crowned, and has remained a prisoner since he abdicated. But now he's growing up, he may wonder why he's the only person in China who may not walk out of his own front door. I think the Emperor is the loneliest boy on Earth.''

The Last Emperor is an epic that delves into the seas of time and history addressing the ensuing effects it has on a being and his culture as time transitions through his lifetime. The Last Emperor of the Qing dynasty, Pu-Yi, was appointed in 1909 at the age of three and due to his youth ended up being a puppet to his administration. Bertolucci successfully shows us a young man who while understandably spoilt by many luxuries of monarchy, is in truth, a tender hearted, independent thinker, whom is passionate about his homeland(Manchuria) while also having a ravenous desire for experiencing life in the outside world.
His caged lifestyle in the Forbidden City (Beijing) is definitely a major contributing factor in his need to escape his royal prison. From his infancy the director takes us through a chain of historical events that ultimately lead to Pu-Yi being an ordinary man (we know this from the beginning, however flashbacks explain his situation at the start). However, it is not the desired lifestyle that he sought as an Emperor in childhood.

The Last Emperor is breathtaking in its cinematography, scope and vision thus Bertolucci's direction results in being flawless like a newly cut diamond. Upon research, droves of criticism was directed at his film 1900(1976) due to its sheer length. The Last Emperor runs in at 215 minutes(DIRECTORS CUT) and barring 10 minutes of a marriage related scene, it never relinquishes or refrains from storytelling and bringing history to life. Bertolucci seamlessly interweaves the flashbacks with Pu-Yi's situation in post-WWII China by providing us with a real life tragedy that epitomizes human weaknesses, vices, love and loyalty. Here is a film that is a true story but goes beyond mere narration or simple depiction means; it is a three and a half hour, non-stop attention grasping journey through the spectrum of humanity that defines our lifetime through the eyes of an unfortunate soul who was a victim of circumstances like many are. Any questions that the viewer will have concerning an event in the plot will be immediately answered through the rich tapestry that Bertolucci shows us when depicting Pu-Yi's imperial life.

Reginald Fleming 'R.J.' Johnston: Words are important.
Pu Yi, at 15: Why are words important?
Reginald Fleming 'R.J.' Johnston: If you cannot say what you mean, your majesty, you will never mean what you say and a gentleman should always mean what he says.

On a technical note, the acting in this film is brilliant. John Lone deserved at least an Oscar nomination for best actor due to his seamless portrayal of Pu-Yi. He makes his portrayal of a 21 - 60 year old Pu-Yi seem like an effortless feat achievable by no other. Through his performance the audience feels an even greater compassion for the last emperor as we come across a man who despite all the hardships he endured was very compassionate and soft centered underneath layers of enigmatic stillness. The sheer down to earth nature of his character as a 55-60 year old who walks with a tired smile, forever accompanied by his loving brother, is a testament to Lone's ability to portray any age and move the audience.
Once again, it takes a Hailey's comet like event for the Academy to nominate someone from the eastern world (or non-British, non-American when it comes to best actor). The rest of the cast is also brilliant barring Ryuichi Sakamoto (who portrays the one-armed Masahiko Amakasu) whom, for the most part, presents us with a classic display of Japanese overacting. Although I wouldn't call it overacting in a Kurasawa-esque/Japanese film environment, it becomes overtly amusing in a production such as this.

The film won a number of Oscars, including the awards for Best Picture and Best Director.
What surprised me most is that it did not receive a single Oscar nomination in the acting categories, although in my view it could have had three or four, Best Actor for John Lone as Pu Yi himself, Best Actress for Joan Chen as his tragic, drug-addicted Empress Wan Jung, and Best Supporting Actor for Peter O'Toole as Pu Yi's Scottish tutor Reginald Johnstone (and possibly also for Ying Ruocheng as the prison governor). Around the time this film was released, the lovely Joan Chen was widely tipped to become a major Hollywood star; that she has never really did achieve this state might suggest that leading roles for Oriental actresses are as hard to come by as they were in the days of Anna May Wong.

The Governor: You are responsible for what you do! All your life you thought you were better than everyone else. Now you think you're the worst of all!
Emperor Pu Yi: [sighs] Why can you not leave me alone? You saved my life to make me a puppet in your own play. You saved me because I am useful to you.
The Governor: Is that so terrible? To be useful?

So ultimately what does Pu Yi contribute to his life? His is littered with the bodies of those that have come into contact with him, a morbid graveyard created from deaths that did not come from his hands, but from his ego and his power.
My inability to either love or hate him results in making him quite human and understandable. If he had been blatantly set up as an obvious protagonist or antagonist, the movie would have been flat, shallow and ineffective. Humans are hard things to find in movies these days, and here is a rare opportunity to catch a sight of one. Hats off to Bertolucci for such an intelligent film and a journey of a lifetime that needs to be witnessed on numerous occasions.

''Open the door! Open the door! Open the door!... Open the door!''

''Our people once were warriors. But unlike you, Jake, they were people with mana, pride; people with spirit. If my spirit can survive living with you for eighteen years, then I can survive anything.''

A family descended from Maori warriors is bedeviled by a violent father and the societal problems of being treated as outcasts.

Rena Owen: Beth Heke

''In case you wanna know it's Jake. Jake The Muss.''

Combine Director Lee Tamahori, Writer Riwia Brow and the Novel by Alan Duff and you're in for an explosive treat of immense fortitude. Equalling the most realistic depictions of a life of a family that hits home...and then some.
Once Were Warriors is, in it's rawest form, about a woman named Beth and her struggle to just do what's best for her family. She is of Maori heritage, New Zealand's native inhabitants. Culture is a proud and powerful aspect of the story, as Beth's strengths lie in her devotion to her family and her heritage. But that is little comfort, as her daughter is struggling to accept adulthood, her youngest son is heading towards juvenile detention, and her oldest son is fast on his way to joining a brutal group. Worst of all, her husband Jake is violent, strong, demanding and an alcoholic.



The film draws strength from painting everybody in full 3 dimensions. Each of her children are troubled, but they all have fierce love and respect for their mother. The gang initiates the oldest son, embracing him with violence, the way the Army would do. The juvenile detention center separates the youngest son from his only home, but instills in him a pride in his ancestry. And Jake himself is a beast, a colossus, a terrifying man, built like a demonic tank who will destroy you with anything at his disposal, should you even spill a drop of his beverage...but despite all that, he still somehow, comes across as loving Beth. Sometimes.
Once Were Warriors is a film that you are instantly compelled to watch, simply because it presents a world that most people are not familiar with. I'm sure that most Americans and English people have heard of the Maori, the native peoples of New Zealand but how many can say that they have an idea of what kind of lives these people lead or what the modern day culture looks like. As far as I know, Lee Tamahori is one of the first directors to show us this culture, which many Americans will instantly compare with south central L.A. gang life and the decay of Native Americans lifestyles.
The film's opening scene is very clever. We are shown a beautiful N.Z. countryside of what most of New Zealand must have looked like before British colonization. Then the camera pulls back to reveal that it is just a billboard in the middle of the urban insanity that we are all too familiar with: concrete highways. We are then shown an urban ghetto where hip-hop culture looks as though it has latched on to Maori youth and bar brawling and 40 ounzers are all that the rest seem to live for. Among the latter group is Jake Heke, a macho abusive drunk living with a wife to whom he shows no respect and five kids that he couldn't care less about.

''I bought seafood today - bloody everything! Just wanted to put a smile on her face. Think she'd let me? Not a chance. All I said was that I got laid off. Anybody would've thought I'd told her my prick had dropped off!''

There are many qualities to this film. One of which is the costume design which presents a wide variety of hip-hop and biker gang style clothing bringing the grittiness of the social environment to life.
Another quality is the undeniably powerful, emotional and inspirational performance by Rena Owen as a flawed yet amazingly strong wife and mother. The scene that I was most compelled by was when Boogie's counsellor, whom seems to have been Westernized, in his slacks and collared shirt, proves with a Maori spear that he is in fact an honourable warrior.
However I would have liked it if the story had drifted off in more directions and made me more familiar with the lesser shown subplots such as Boogie's new-found love of his culture and gang member Nig, whose appealing demeanor is given hardly any attention. The film could have been longer to make this possible and it could have scrapped some of the drinking party scenes.

I felt satisfied with the conclusion on all fronts, and thought that each character showed exactly where their strength lies.
Be warned that this film is truly heartbreaking. It's overall tone is one of futility, better lives not received, wanting the best but never quite achieving that level. It is very raw and intense in its portrayal regarding physical and domestic violence, and the easily upset may have a hard time waiting to see if it ends happily enough for their tastes.
There are disturbing scenes of violence against the female characters. However you should not avoid the film because of this. In the end, it can be seen as an inspirational story, how inner strength and love can overcome anything.

''People show their true feelings when they're drunk.''