Reviews by Lexi

''My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." ''

Forrest Gump, while not intelligent, has accidentally been present at many historic moments, but his true love, Jenny, eludes him.

Tom Hanks: Forrest Gump

What best sums up good old Forrest Gump? Is he a simpleton? An idealist? A moral paragon of innocence? In this movie it's more appropriate to describe him as what he isn't. Forrest lives in a world that derides him as stupid but, as Mrs Gump states, "stupid is as stupid does", and in this, it's the other characters who seem endowed with stupidity.
From acclaimed Director and film maker Robert Zemeckis, utilizing and adapting Winston Groom's novel and a terrific display from Eric Roth's original, humourous screenplay. Forrest Gump is simply an innocent captivating story told in the most remarkable way. By a seemingly random man sitting upon a bench reminiscing.



The characters all seem to have their fair share of problems: For instance Jenny stumbles from one bad trip to another, Lieutenant Dan loses his legs, then his mind at war, while everybody else seems to engage in acts of relentless and tragic idiocy. All through this Forrest is the pinnacle and rock that anchors all the proceedings, the unchanging element.
He sees the world in simple terms, intent on doing the right thing. In this movie it's not Forrest that's retarded, it's indeed the rest of the world.
Forrest Gump mentions and addresses many of the crucial American wounds of the 20th century such as: Vietnam, relationships with African-Americans, drugs, capitalism and the mistreatment of women. Naturally Forrest himself takes the morally upright line on all of these, he fights in Vietnam then rejects war as hell, makes best friends with the African-American Bubba, rejects drugs, becomes a national sporting hero, makes a million without even trying, looks for love with Jenny but loses her despite treating her better than any other man ever did. The interactions and contradictions between Forrest and his more worldly, more cynical cast-mates is the source of much humour, some of it quite dark. Integrating Forrest into various bits of historical footage was quirky and interesting, though played no significant part in the story.

''What's normal anyways?''

The acting is strong, the narrative is compelling enough and its semi-documentary style direction is consistent and provides clarity and pace. However Forrest Gump is little more than an ideological fairy story, partly to keep viewers believing in the cause. Would that we could have a world where the best-intentioned half-wit could pop up at opportune moments in history, winning hearts, amassing a fortune, becoming famous. Sadly, the world generally belongs to those who have screwed over someone else to get there - and that isn't Forrest, he's too nice a guy.

The movie opens with Forrest sitting at a bus stop, waiting to go see Jenny after being apart from her for years. Who is Jenny, you ask? We'll get to that in time. Forrest strikes up a conversation or two with the people that come and wait for the bus with him. Or, more accurately, he keeps talking regardless of whether anybody is listening or not. The movie plays out as a flashback, with Forrest taking us through all the major events of his life and narrating them.
The flashback starts when Forrest is a little boy, about six years old or so, just at about the age where he should be starting school. We get to take a look at Forrest's childhood as he gets leg braces to straighten out his back, as his momma (Field) fights (and does a few other things) to get him into public school, and as he meets for the first time the love of his life. Jenny. He meets her on the way to school, sitting next to her on the bus, and they strike up a friendship immediately.

''One day it started raining, and it didn't quit for four months. We been through every kind of rain there is. Little bitty stingin' rain... and big ol' fat rain. Rain that flew in sideways. And sometimes rain even seemed to come straight up from underneath.''

Eventually we progress to the point where Forrest and Jenny are in high school, and we travel along with Forrest as he makes it onto the football team and gets to go to college. Forrest and Jenny never date, but he's always there to protect her. Anytime he thinks she's in trouble, he rushes to the rescue, ready to beat the ever-loving snot out of anyone who even looks at his Jenny wrong. I think one of my favorite scenes in the movie is when someone is dumb enough to slap Jenny. The film goes slow motion, Forrest's eyes go wide, and he starts charging at this guy like a runaway locomotive, and has the striking force of one too. He is pure and innocent protecting the one he loves even though she doesn't seem to love him in quite the same way.

The movie is a tour through American history of course, but I don't think the special effects detract from the basic simplicity of the story. It is basically a morality story. Not a very deep or complex one, but just very simple--do the right things, and your life will turn out okay.
There aren't very many of these movies made anymore, and so it's somewhat satisfying that this one was, and that it was so successful. It's as if American society had finally had its fill of beautiful alienated youngsters who rebel, do drugs, hate their parents and act like all around jerks (see American Beauty).
It is so unique because of the character Forrest Gump himself, whom has a low IQ of only 75. Although he is 'mentally challenged', he finds himself in historic and troublesome situations and like that he manages to in a sense 'Forrest Gump' his way out of it and end up a hero or role model for the people around him. The real beauty in this film for me was his ability to simplify the complexities regarding the world we live in and somehow do what some war movies fail to do; Show the importance relating to achieving world peace or what romantic satires can't deliver...the importance of love.
I love that Forrest doesn't lose his innocence and purity throughout the story, or maybe he just can't but either way, this shows you don't need to be evil or really intelligent to be recognised or successful. Then again it is just a film...or is it?.
So maybe it doesn't work like that in reality. what that simply means is that the acting and story of this film was incredibly touching on an emotionally connecting level. In that we can relate to his exploits and him as a person and character.
Gump isn't the best film ever made in my opinion, but it could be considered to be among the best films made.
"Stupid is as stupid does" may not be poetry or very deep, but it ends up being true, and more than enough to fill up a book or flick, thus making you feel as free and light as the feather floating up into the air at the climax.

Forrest Gump: What's my destiny, Mama?
Mrs. Gump: You're gonna have to figure that out for yourself.

''Mai? Oh, yeah. Little Asian chick, likes to kick people? I don't think she's gonna be talkin' to anybody for a really long time. Last time I saw her she was at the bottom of a elevator shaft with an SUV rammed up her ass.''

John McClane takes on an Internet-based terrorist organization who is systematically shutting down the United States.

Bruce Willis: John McClane

Live Free or Die Hard is quite a refreshing piece of entertainment this summer in the wake of so many effects-driven computer simulated action/fantasy films. With its silly title, smart-alleck lead character (Bruce Willis as Bruce Willis doing what he does best, that's right, John McClane.), and loads of old fashioned stunts involving cars, SUV's, elevator shafts, big rigs, helicopters, fighter jets, and collapsing highway bridges, this flick is a great piece of shattered-glass entertainment--a throwback to the late 1980's and early 1990's when movies like the original "Die Hard" changed the face of movie action.
There is some frustration to be had when you start to realize how much they toned down to achieve the friendly PG-13 rating. There's far less profanity flying, and while the body count is astronomically high (the collateral damage in this film in terms of human life and damaged property is tres magnifique), there's little blood and guts to be found. Still, Die Hard action fans should rest assured knowing there will be plenty of funny one-liners, hot chicks (a wonderful Maggie Q as the bad-ass female villain and the scorchingly feisty and cute Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane), super smart bad guys (a very intelligent Hitman star Timothy Olyphant), and jaw-dropping death-defying stunts.

Director Len Wiseman orchestrates the complicated stunts very well like a masterful puppeteer, which is a shock considering how god-awful his "Underworld" films were. The hand-to-hand human match-ups still bear some of his annoying hallmarks, but he's learned how to blow things up really well and has learned a thing or two about scope and editing in big action set-pieces. The excellent pacing and preposterousness of the stunts (especially the climax involving the fighter jet and the big rig) certainly put a grin upon my face.
There's a whole lot of computer hacking related mumbo-jumbo involved in the story, and there's a lot of downtime for male bonding and "explanation" of the finer plot points that slows the film down some but is actually nice to see in a world now ruled by Michael Bay-style non-stop action. Plenty dumb, plenty thrilling, and plenty of fun, Live Free or Die Hard is a pleasant surprise considering how unnecessary this sequel seemed from conception.

''You're very impressed with yourself, aren't you?''

''I have my moments.''

Speaking of the rating, while the film is light on blood and one particular swear-word, the violence hasn't been toned down at all. If anything, McClane is actually more hardened and brutal than before. Enemies are often dispatched with an efficiency and a ruthlessness commensurate with a man who's done this before. There is also a calm resignation in Willis' body language at times. McClane is a man who has found no solace in being a hero; post-divorce and struggling to maintain a relationship with his daughter, (His son is barely mentioned) he feels he has lost the things that matter most to him. This is the single most notable change in the film. Gone is the wild-eyed, heavy-breathing, frantically pacing McClane of the original Die Hard.
The man rapping on the windows, desperately trying to signal the fire brigade. Willis communicates this malaise subtly and effectively, prompting the Justin Long character to ask at one point, ''Why are you so calm? Have you done that kinda stuff before?''.
The direction is astonishingly controlled and confident from the man that bought the world Underworld(He may be one to watch after all.) and, for my money, offers the best spectacle possible for John MaClane.

There is a weight and an impact to the stunts and the fight scenes that comes from using actual stunt-work; so often eschewed these days in favour of scenes built entirely on disk.

''You know what you get for being a hero? Nothin'. You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah, blah, blah, attaboy. You get divorced. Your wife can't remember your last name. Your kids don't want to talk to you. You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me, kid, nobody wants to be that guy.''

As mentioned, the tone is slightly subdued for a summer actioner (despite a good number of amusing lines and a healthy amount of self-awareness) which differentiates it from the others in the series. There is a world-weariness amongst the chaos. A meditation on being 'that guy' is one of the more inspired exchanges, and the greatest insight into McClane's journey through the missing years. As a result, the audience is not left to enjoy the sense of good triumphing over evil at the end without at least a little remorse about the meaning of it all (It reminded me of one of the great strengths of '24' in that regard.). As the credits roll, all may not be right with the world as would be more typical of the genre, but there are other, more personal triumphs to savor. This gives the film a little more depth than the previous sequels, though it takes some of the edge off the 'octane buzz' that the film injects you with.

Nevertheless, this remains significantly the best blockbuster of the Summer Season. It is the first to truly deliver on all it promised (and probably surpasses realistic expectations) It would require a second viewing to determine where it might rank in the series, but it is more than worthy of the name and Die Hard remains, for my money, the undisputed champ amongst action franchises. I humbly request one more installment in which Bruce et al pour heart and soul into creating a worthy send-off and then suggest that Bruce lets McClane retire undefeated. He's earned it.

Matt Farrell: ''You just killed a helicopter with a car!''
John McClane: ''Hundreds of thousands of people get killed by cars every year. That's just like four more.''

''Oh man, I can't fucking believe this. Another basement, another elevator. How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?''

John McClane is forced to battle mercenaries who seize control of an airport's communications and threaten to cause plane crashes if their demands are not met.

Bruce Willis: John McClane

In 1988, Die Hard became a surprising success with only a 28 million dollar budget. Less money was spent on Timothy Dalton's two Bond movies, and they are not as daring as their immediate preceding installments. With more money and confidence from 20th Century Fox, the writers and producers went to work on the sequel. Die Hard 2 is bigger and better. It is not better because it is bigger, but because Renny Harlin is the director and writer Steven E. de Souza shows more self-discipline.

Die Hard is well constructed and conceived, with far above average action, witty dialogue, a menacing villain, sets that augment the mood, and Michael Kamen's daunting music. It would receive an instant recommendation if not for the gathering of idiotic characters led by Paul Gleason's police chief. Here, we have police Captain Carmine Lorenzo (Dennis Franz) and returning news reporter Dick Thornburg. Lorenzo is not as omnipresent as Gleason's Dwayne T. Robinson. de Souza exerts more control over Thornburg's interfering powers and makes his actions slightly more reasonable.
Die Hard 2 succeeds in making Bruce Willis look better and better. The role of John McClane is one filled with the fight for right and to trying to stop the bad guys. Again a lot of the stunts would have been done by Willis considering the professionalism of the man. Running all over an airport in a fierce snowstorm, fighting scenes on the wing of a real 747 jet and trying to save lives he has no attachment to, L.A. cop John McClane puts his body on the line, so justice is served and so did the actor Bruce Willis in my view to bring a great action movie back for a second time. Willis is one of my favourite actors, but I have only started to watch his movies in about the last 2-3 years and what a mistake that has been.

''Motherfuckin' motherfucker!''

This film has more freedom as it is held at an airport. McClane is like I have said all over the place. The freedom and space this story has makes this film much easier to watch. Another thing which is impressive about Die Hard 2 is the effort to put more thrills in the movie. The snow (which of course is man made) has a major role, so do all the planes making quite a crisis on their hands. Not only do they fight on the wing of a 747, but also fly a real helicopter on the wing of the plane also. The scene where McClane ejects himself from the exploding plane is another favourite scene of mine. Other parts of this movie which stunned me I wont tell you about as it will give too much away, but trust me they are exceptionally done.

Again the bad guys have a major role in this one. William Saddler is Colonial Stuart, a heartless leader, who only cares that a drug lord escapes and can get in on all the money making scheme. I loved his role in this. Another face that I remember in Die hard 2 who was a bad guy is Robert Patrick. I loved his role in Terminator 2. But the conflict between the good guys is extremely tense. Especially between McClane and Police Officer Lorenzo played by L.A law star Dennis Franz. It is hard to understand if this character is on the side for good or not.

''Take the Twinkie out of your mouth and grab a pencil, will ya?''

Here comes another analogy on Die Hard 2, do you ever know who is on the side of good or bad? Well for at least three quarters of the film it is unsure. The storywriters need to be commended because the story left me intrigued and when you think you know what is about to happen, the circumstances change. Also having a different director, gave this sequel new prospective. Director Renny Harlin threw his hand into the ring. What a gamble? An unknown director, but to my surprise I say that it worked more or less.
In the above, it becomes clear that maybe the problem isn't real-world believability but internal logic, although to an extent, some of the internal logic is extremely difficult to separate from facts we know about the real world that aren't mentioned in the film. But Die Hard 1 was an extremely taut film that had impeccable internal logic. The film itself gave reasons for the dilemmas that arose, and they were justifications that made the dilemmas inevitable. It doesn't matter that some of the "facts" or situations in Die Hard 1 were contrary to our beliefs about the real world. The film defined things to be the fictional way it defined them, and the logic was consistent and valid (in the formal sense) from within the film.

However, it becomes clear, not too far into Die Hard 2, that perhaps looking at it for things like real-world believability and logical consistency/validity is misconceiving it. My belief is that this film is meant to be a spoof of action films as much as it is meant to be a serious action film. _That's_ why John is standing out on the runway waving around flaming poles like a maniac. That's why baddies can easily shoot and kill 20 or so highly trained, highly armed S.W.A.T. team members wearing bulletproof vests but can't hit John, who is wearing street clothes and rolling around on the floor with a pistol. That's why the planes are stuck over D.C. with no options and the film doesn't even try to justify this. That's why there are scenes of John riding explosions like a cowboy (yippee-ki-yay mf'er indeed). That's why there are a number of "wink-wink" cracks about being in another Die Hard film. That's why there are a few scenes that look oddly similar to Airplane! (1980). That's why the film so frequently, joyously embraces silliness.

Director Renny Harlin and his bulletproof vested army of scriptwriters and producers apparently set out to make a cartoonish satire of action films, while still making a serious action film. In 1990, action films were just at the tail end of their domination of the U.S. box office, so it was a ripe time to spoof them. Harlin and company succeed fairly well. It might have been even more artistically successful if they had more firmly committed to one angle (cartoony satire) or the other (serious action packed escapade), but the performances are pretty good, the fistfights, gunfights, explosions and chases are very good, and the film is frequently funny if you have a taste for the absurd.

''Yippie-kai-yay, motherfucker.''

''I guess God has a plan for all of us.''

''God's a kid with an ant farm, lady. He's not planning anything.''

Based on the DC/Vertigo comic book Hellblazer and written by Kevin Brodbin, Mark Bomback and Frank Capello, Constantine tells the story of irreverent supernatural detective John Constantine , who has literally been to hell and back

Keanu Reeves: John Constantine

Constantine was the Roman emperor who recognized Christianity and made if possible for the Church to move from the underground into the public arena. He did it out of convenience, thinking that it would be easier to work with the Christian church than try to fight it. He lived most of his life as a ruthless leader who gave the orders to kill even members of his family. Constantine accomplished much good in his life, even though he had what most would say were impure motives.

But the Roman Constantine is not the same as the same-named title character of the new film, Constantine from DC-Vertigo Comics and Warner Brothers Pictures. Or is he? John Constantine, from the comic novels Hellblazer is doomed to hell when he dies. His situation may be hopeless, but he operates as if he could buy his way into heaven by doing enough good by removing enough evil from the world. He's a chain-smoking, hard-drinking, rude and uncaring man who is the hero of our film.
His motivation is mysteriously shrouded. He's constantly being told that what he's doing has no effect on him going to Heaven or not, but he does so anyway, as Gabriel so eloquently puts it, ''You're Fucked!'' .
It's not like we're talking about helping old ladies do their shopping, he's fighting demons and the forces of darkness, having to lay his hands on holy water and appropriate weapons in a holy war of havoc. This is dangerous work, Gods work that has already earned the residence and number of Hell's populace. Since that's where he's destined to go, why honk off the locals who are already going to torture you for eternity anyway?
We're to believe that he is developing certain feelings towards Angela through the movie. We know this because he kisses her once. And he considered asking her to get naked, sigh. That's it, that's the lengths of the character development in this direction, and I think its a bold move, to give him a sense of humour.
I always love the part also where he traps a spider under a glass, then blowing smoke into it's confines, wittingly says, ''Welcome to my life..., it's priceless and it never ceases to crack a smile on my wryly curving lips.
Also supporting him in his adventure, are powerful greats including my fave Rachel Weisz (Angela), Djimon Hounsou (Papa Midnite), Tilda Swinton (Gabriel), Peter Stormare (Satan), and even Shia LaBeouf (Constantine's sidekick Chaz), all delivering turn up performances that range from strong to excellent.

''Angels and Demons can't cross over onto our plane. So, instead we get what I call half-breeds. The influence peddlers. They can only whisper in our ears. But a single word can give you courage, or turn your favorite pleasure into your worst nightmare. Those with the demon's touch like those part angel, living alongside us. They call it the balance. I call it hypocritical bullshit.''

Constantine packs a punch at it's respective target audience.
Perhaps also a direct relation can be made to relapsed catholics and moderate Christians. I found the story fascinating and one of depth even though I know of more extreme constituencies that would readily claim to be offended by everything portrayed within the movie.
It speaks to the daily struggle that believers have to reconcile modern lifestyles with their fledgling faith and their own state of health and mind. Even though the believer's reality is cast in a more literal, exaggerated form, the main points are not lost in my opinion. Here are some of the important ones: No one great or small should claim to know the true will or pretend to understand God. If they cross that threshold where they truly believe they have a personal understanding of God and His wishes, they are rightly deemed to be quite mad and should be confined to a small padded room as soon as possible. No exceptions.
There is a purpose and direction in everyone's lives. Death is not necessarily the final goal or destination but one where the Journey ultimately is valued more that the end conclusion.
Attentions are still bestowed upon us all on an individual basis even while globular events both bad and good are occurring all the time. The individual pieces of the world mosaic are not overlooked or forgotten. An accounting will inevitably be made of each of us because that is the way of this world. If we allow the fear of personal failures to overwhelm our lives and let addictions however insidiously fixate us to the point of complete immobility, the cost may still be our very soul, in this case John's soul, who he fights to gain a place for his soul in the afterlife to come.
John, let's face it is a cynical exorcist who only does his job to reach heaven by banishing half-breed demons that walk the Earth back to the fiery chasms from whence they came. When he is summoned upon by a LAPD detective investigating the apparent suicide of her twin sister, the two stray between this world and the next, realizing the balance between good and evil is upset and in a kind of upheaval state.

As flimsy as that premise sounds, and with no apparent villain until the third final Act, Constantine still blasts across the screen, with Director Francis Lawrence unafraid to get his hands dirty, he unrelentingly puts the camera in the middle of the action. Some scenes are simply beautifully executed. The opening scene springs to mind, or the slow-motion sequence in the bathtub, challenging the realm of acceptability in what's essentially an action movie with supernatural overtones. Of course this means some things get murky or diluted, we could without a few needless special effects, for example, or lose a silly voice now and again.

''I used to pretend that I didn't - that I didn't see things.''

But let's just say John Constantine is one hell of an anti-hero. Exorcising demons is one thing, sticking your feet in cold water and staring at a cat to go to Hades for a casual acquaintance is something else entirely. Think what you like about Keanu Reeves' acting abilities, he's always there to make your time a cool slick one, and here he makes the unlikeable likeable, despite pronouncing every syllable he's given. His tone is offhand and bleakly hilarious (shades of Neo) and keeps us distanced enough to stay rapt for the duration. Rachel Weisz however is something of a revelation, her quiet, introspective role is the best in the film and she really keeps us anchored throughout.

The hard sell of switching former blond Liverpudlian John Constantine into a well-toned LA denizen is no sin, the vast backdrop adding much-needed depth to a thin story which needs to be layered with caricatured priests, sidekicks, and wacky side characters to maintain any form of lucidity. Still Constantine is very much a love/hate movie, and even those on the negative side of the camp cannot fault it for it's artistic vision and ideologies.

''This is Constantine. John Constantine. Asshole.''

''I don't know about Heaven, but I believe in angels.''

Coming together to solve a series of murders in New York City are a DEA agent whose family was slain as part of a conspiracy and an assassin out to avenge her sister's death. The duo will be hunted by the police, the mob, and a ruthless corporation...

Mark Wahlberg: Max Payne

Let's start of by saying I rally loved the Max Payne video games, in their simplistic nature of fast paced shooting accompanied by an interesting concept of Matrix styled Bullet Time shoot outs. Also a hero with so much pain and anguish, so much so he has to take pain killers to numb himself from the experience. So how does the film live up to these expectations everyone asks? Well quite frankly it does not in the slightest match any of the games. The script is appalling, for it's genre there is no action, there is no decent dialogue, there are no similarities to the game for us to latch onto apart from the superficial visual ones we gained from the trailers.

Recalling my mind back to the action sequences in question, I can only recall only two main ones of consequence. Director John Moore succeeds in giving us no wish for any sequels and a comical rendition of Robbie Williams Angels song on the Credits, just to put salt upon the wound.
The Score and music on Max Payne is poor and executed to a point where it is hardly memorable or effective, some scenes being totally void of any music that would emphasis a standard fare of happening to a higher perspective of sorts. Yet no, we are given chaotic alternative loudness of no specific genre that gives the film no soul or resonance that it sorely needs. To say the least what I expected and what I was given on teasers was mysteriously missing from the proceedings.

So Max Payne begins with a segment that is such a rip off, of the Bourne series, its untrue. Underwater and a growling excuse for narration, we are pummeled into boredom before things even begin to take flight. It starts to look up when we have a cool looking 'One Week Later' motto on a building come up, then some cool angles and shots, which happen to tell us the rooms of the Police Station, for us dumb Viewers which we assume the Director assumed. When we see Max Payne in his office, I'm scrambling my brain trying to decipher this filth...I mean how can this BE Max Payne when he resembles nothing of the games magnetism. If the story, plot and action had been the same as the game, there would be no problem. If it had some of the frantic action that drowned the first Max Payne, if it had the flaming romance and passion of Max Payne 2, then we would have a fine film in the bag, but it's worryingly void of all these, even bending the plot out of context. When we see a film that has nothing to keep us glued to the Screen we ask ourselves why? Maybe if the age restriction had been higher then the Makers would have had more reign to do more, but yet, I still doubt it.

Max Payne may look like a variety of different films, but unlike Hitman, Constantine, or Bourne Ultimatum it falls flat on it's face regarding originality and keeping its audiences interested. This film will anger fans of the game and non-fans in equal measure in all likely hood, with it's uneven threaded story that results in a jigsaw thats unfathomable.

The actual cast actually display some of the worst acting I've seen in a fair while. Mark Wahlberg emulates his The Happening choice of film, with this dud to follow.
Mark Wahlberg refused to play Rockstar's Max Payne game before performing in this film, but, in addition, I must assume that neither the director nor the screenwriter ever played this game before either. If there weren't so many shots of the background scenery that tied in with the game (although they were never fully or, in some cases, partially explored, such as the Subway, the absent dream sections, or Police Station or even Ragnarok), I would assume that no one involved in the movie had even seen cut scenes from the game. I would have assumed that they got a one paragraph synopsis on the game, with character names, and just made up their own story that barely connect to the games.

So the first problem with Max Payne is heavy handed and droning attempt to develop a two dimensional character… Why? It's not like Max Payne needs alot of development, he's a dude with a vengeance on, shut up and let it happen. Instead you're walked through all of these really bad scenes filled wit the worst dialogue put to page. It's like watching soft-core blue movies without a nut to bust. That's just the first 20 minutes. The movie continues, but first let me tell you how they open the film, because it really set the bar for the rest of really badness of it all.

We open on a man walking down a hallway towards a door cracked open and light bleeding through it… A baby is crying in the distance. The man moves closer to the door and on that door a big sign reading "Baby" is hung on it. If they're assuming that an audience is that dumb; they didn't just put a big old title on the screen, or put an interpreter up there to point and say ''Baby Come back'' I know it ties with the video game, but this is an adaptation, some changes for the sake of not raping the audience's intelligence have to be made. And, believe me, it doesn't stop there, the film is filled with some of the most heavy handed art direction, really bad sound design and some of the worst editing I've seen since Happening. It's that crud basically.

Later on in the film Max and the Mila Kunis, playing a Russian girl, supposedly to move the plot forward, but ultimately becomes a tragic and unfulfilled, unresolved and disjointed piece.
They stop into a goth tattoo parlor, where they go through a catalogue of tattoos and stop on the reoccurring one they see. They question the proprietor and at the drop of a hat, he pulls out an old book about Norwegian mythology and starts talking about Valkyrie's, the symbol and the significance of the mark/tattoo. This brief wikipedia presentation ends with such a blatant inconsistency with Mark Walberg/Max Payne asking one more question and then the shop proprietor responding with a really big and dumb "Huh?" So in one single turn he goes from Mythology and theology expert into dumb goth guy.

The movie spends so much time building to a conflict, but without any tension, just trivial scene after scene.

There were points in the movie that we were really laughing, but they really weren't supposed to be funny. Dramatic tension was the goal, but the exact opposite occurred. In particular Mila Kunis talking to Max about how much of a dark time bomb he is. The dialogue is all, poorly written that the scene becomes comedic, a piss take.
Beau Bridges(Podge) is also laughably bad.
Other miserable notes… Chris O'Donnell(Robin) is awful.
Nelly Furtado's cameo… Was one of the most laughably bad moments on the screen and the first shot of Ludicrous, was also really funny. Like ludicrously laughable.
It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that Payne tramples the detective genre for clichés that only someone who has never seen a movie before would be surprised by. Someone dies after ripping off another character and thus pinning suspicion on him, another leaves a frantic phone message about meeting up to discuss new details in a cold case and is found murdered in that other guy's home, and it turns out that you can't really trust anyone(obviously). Again, obviously the filmmakers tried to study the works of the detective genre of old, they just didn't bother to do anything new, which means it fails.

Thorne's script is so short on explanations that it barely holds together. The movie throws drugs, hallucinations, a murder mystery, attacking birds, a devil's army, and the cover-up by a pharmaceutical company and for the most part I felt like an ass for even trying to make sense out of anything this silly. The rest of the plot can be seen coming a mile away and the dialogue said is some of the most ridiculous I've heard all year long. A character says of Payne, "He's looking for something even God wants to stay hidden." What will probably disappoint fans, however, is how few scenes of actual action are really in the movie, and how utterly devoid of excitement those few scenes are. Moore is a hack director in every sense of the word, relying on senseless, video-game style shootouts (accompanied by vile mood lighting) that don't thrill as much as glorify the violence. Is there a more overused action shot than turning to slow-motion to present a gun battle? Most of his computer visuals smack of being stolen from Francis Lawrence's far superior "Constantine," except they look messier and far too overdone to really respect. And how many times can we see digitally created snow falling on the city in the dark night? This movie is style over-drive at its worst.

And the actors don't seem to care. They seem to be approaching this movie with all the subtlety and dramatic weight of a porno. Wahlberg walks through the movie with a bored puss on his face, never digs deeper to show the character's tortured soul, and throws out lines like he could really give a crap what he's saying. I don't really blame him either cause I felt the same way. Milla Kunis (That 70's Show) is in the movie for some unexplainable reason, and she puts on her tough face in a performance that can only be described as laughable. Chris "Ludicrous" Bridges seems to be playing a detective in this movie but for the most part he just seems to be playing Chris "Ludicrous" Bridges. Amaury Nolasco (Prison Break) is a charismatic young actor who I wish could string together some decent movie roles, but that string isn't going to start here with his performance in the role of "crazy guy who likes to stare at people and sometimes look down on them from stairwells and rooftops." I have no idea what happened to Chris O'Donnell but he's taken a sharp decline since Batman and Robin. Clooney seems to have surpassed it and made up for it, as has Arnie. And Beau Bridges comes off the best here but that's like saying that a half-eaten hamburger(Podge) in a bag full of soiled nappies, is the best.

What really bothers me about movies like this is that it's all just violence and how best to package the violence in enticing, simple-minded wrapping paper. The villains are a collection of junkies, prostitutes, pimps, killers, and thugs who wallow in the gutter and the hero isn't that much better because all he wants is vengeance and blood. Both shoot their guns with as much care as if they were shooting in a video game. Both savagely beat on other people, sometimes doing it till death. Is there a difference between the two? Are we supposed to care here or just watch the bullets fly? Why is it that a movie featuring characters that are just violent and bloodthirsty can get a PG-13 but a movie that dissects the violence and ideas of vengeance like "Unforgiven" gets an R? It doesn't make sense to me and it sends out the wrong messages. I wish the MPAA would learn that.

Overall, the real problem of this project(and why I was so disgusted by it) lies in the fact that they took a deep, layered and emotional story and made it into a big, dumb, boring action movie. Well, at least to a degree. On one hand, you've got ridiculous Matrix-indulgent action sequences. I realize this was part of the game, but at least in the game they were entertaining. If this had been done years ago, maybe it would've had some sort of impact. As for the other side of the movie, it tries to capture the game's mood-setting film noir storytelling, but ends up one big bore. Few of the important details at all are revealed in the entirety of the film, leaving a sort of Lost effect stagnating the air. But who knows... maybe they intend to save that for the sequel, God help us.
Best thing about this film was that they had the Watch-men Trailer at the start beforehand, which pretty much says it all really.

''There's an army of bodies under this river, people who ran out of time, out of friends. I could feel the dead down there, reaching up to welcome me as one of their own. It was an easy mistake to make.''

''Have you been followed at all during the last few days? Any suspicious phone calls? Any kind of surveillance at all? Anything?''

''Well, now that you mention it, I have, sort of, been feeling this burning sensation between my toes.''

John McClane and a store owner must play a bomber's deadly game as they race around New York while trying to stop him.

Bruce Willis: John McClane

Die Hard With A Vengeance is probably the most fun film of the definitive action trilogy of the 80s and 90s. While Die Hard was certainly a gripping adrenaline-fuelled action thriller, and Die Hard 2 stuck closely to that formula, the third film decided that, whilst retaining the action, to cut loose and have fun.
The third Die Hard film sees John McLane (Bruce Willis) tearing round New York trying to solve riddles set by the maniacal younger brother of Hans Gruber who he threw off a skyscraper in the first film. Meanwhile the rest of the NYPD are trying to deal with more real threats posed by the terrorist. In these kind of action films, common sense seems to go out of the window in terms of plot rationale anyway, but this time the 'as if' factor is tempered by a great sense of fun.
The main source of entertainment however comes not from the plot itself but Samuel L Jackson, who plays a manic fast-talking wisecracking stereotypical black New Yorker named Zeus, with liberal use of the word 'ass' and other more colourful profanities. Jeremy Irons plays this round's bad guy, and plays a slightly more comical version of the first film's Hans Gruber. It seems that British actors have a monopoly on playing the bad guys in American blockbusters, but then again they do seem to do it so well. Meanwhile Bruce Willis faces little challenge in reprising his John McLane action role that, since the first Die Hard film, has become the template for virtually all action heroes, white vest and all.

John McTiernan, the director of the first Die Hard movie, was unable to film the sequel due to scheduling conflicts with The Hunt for Red October, but came back to do number three, which follows the Hollywood tradition of being bigger, louder and more ambitious than the previous installments. Alas, this doesn't mean it's necessarily better, in fact Die Hard: With a Vengeance is weaker than the first two films in the series, although it remains a watchable piece of violent, profane entertainment.

''As I was going to St. Ives, / I met a man with seven wives. / Every wife had seven sacks, / Every sack had seven cats, / Every cat had seven kittens. / Kittens, cats, sacks, wives, / How many were going to St. Ives?''

Unlike other franchises, the new Die Hard has almost no connection with the films that precede it: apart from John McClane (Bruce Willis), not a single character from the first or second movie is still around. And McClane's situation is not one of the best: he's got a drinking problem, is separated from his wife and has been suspended from the NYPD. However, when a man named Simon (Jeremy Irons) starts bombing certain areas of New York, he demands explicitly that only McClane be allowed to try stopping him. Why? Because Simon happens to be the brother of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), the German terrorist our hero threw off the Nakatomi Towers in the first film. With this comforting knowledge, the former cop, along with reluctant helper Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson), sets out to solve the various riddles his opponent has left around in the city. One mistake, and many lives will be lost. Or is that so?

Not only is Die Hard: With a Vengeance larger in scope (the action takes place in an entire city, as opposed to just one building or an airport), the writers also try to make it more complex (the first two movies were rather straightforward) by suggesting Simon's primary objective may not be what it seems. This provides a few neat twists throughout the movie, and they are quite good. Unfortunately, the villain himself turns out to be the weakest link in the movie: instead of making the character his own, Irons prefers to merely imitate Rickman, turning Simon Gruber into a pale reminder of what an intriguing opponent his brother was. There are problems with the so-called "money shots" (action and sex) as well: some of the set-pieces, no matter how spectacular, look too contrived to fit in the Die Hard universe, and there's a sex scene involving Irons and a female villain that is completely gratuitous and unnecessary (by the director's own admission, it was included just because the film was going to get an 18 anyway, and it shows).

''Hot in here, or am I just scared to death?''

The plot is more topical that one would expect (the first two becoming more topical as time went on). The bombing plot appears to be ripped from the headlines, but the film is entertainment and as the film goes on we realize that Simon, like his brother, is not a mere terrorist, but an exceptional thief, with the twist being that Simon is after the gold of Fort Knox. McTiernan once again casts an English man in the villain role, with Jeremy Irons playing Alan Rickman's brother. Irons is great, although, like William Sadler in Die Hard 2, Irons is in the shadow of Rickman a tad, but he rises to the challenge enough playing a character of sheer genius and evil.

Also Vengeance was made at a time when action movies really rely on special/visual effects and explosions, Die Hard With A Vengeance is something uniquein alot of ways. Yes there are plenty of spectacular action sequences (the train bombing and the Central Park trip being highlights) but McTiernan knows that these films rely on nice character development and humor as well as an entertaining plot to make the film work and that is what we get here. There are some interesting twists to the narrative and the chemistry between Willis and Jackson is great. If the fourth film ever gets made they should bring back Zeus as this could put the franchise into a new gear. The buddy element works fantastically as the bickering and bantering between the two characters makes the film so much fun to watch.

I love these films and the third one is terrific. Of course there are many debates over which of the sequels are the best, but I believe that they are both great. The third one ensures that this will remain a classic series and I hope that the fourth one (if it gets made that is) will retain the integrity of this entertaining and fun series.

John McClane: [to terrorists in a tunnel] Hi, fellas. Mickey O'Brien, aqueduct security. Hey, listen, we got a report of a guy coming through here with, uh, eight reindeer.
[shoots the terrorists]
John McClane: Yeah, they said he was a jolly, old, fat guy with a snowy, white beard. Cute little red and white suit. I'm surprised you didn't see him.''

''Yippie-kay-yay, motherfucker!''

New York cop John McClane gives terrorists a dose of their own medicine as they hold hostages in an LA office building.

Bruce Willis: Officer John McClane

Without a doubt one of the best known action movies ever made, Die Hard, did receive negative attention from critics upon its 1988 summer release, but the audiences unsurprisingly loved this diamond in the rough, charismatic John Macleane brought to life by Bruce Willis.
Overall action movies are always very similar and predictable, and this movie is too predictable, perhaps that is the only big weakness of this movie, because who can deny there is something special with Die Hard. Die Hard is simply a very progressive, accelerated and perfectly paced action movie, not only does it tell a good story, and even comes with a few complexes, it also brings some of the best and most solid action ever to be seen.

John McTiernan has proven to be a solid action director over the years, after the breakthrough with Predator he made this classic action flick, that never seems to be getting old, even now. 17 years later, it still works as well as it did 17 years ago, brilliant.

''You throw quite a party. I didn't realize they celebrated Christmas in Japan.''

''Hey, we're flexible. Pearl Harbor didn't work out so we got you with tape decks.''

This is just what I suppose we can call a perfect popcorn movie, the kind of movie where you lean back and just let the thrill ride begin, you know things will end happily, but still it entertains for the 2 hours it lasts, and it entertains at a very high level. Perhaps one of the weaknesses of the movie is the happy ending, I would have loved a darker ending, leaving something to think about, especially since there obviously is the problematic climax involved in the movie, there are some good side stories, especially the dramatic with John and Holly's marriage. Strangely that works out perfectly and we get to know everything about it, even though the movie actually doesn't spend much time explaining, it's just done so well and perfectly direct that we basically know everything about these two when the movie ends.

I am not sure if this was a final breakthrough for Bruce Willis, but he definitely shows in this movie what great actor he is, we see a lot of different sides of him, the tough guy, the soft guy, and even better, the funny guy. I like to have a laugh time to time in movies, and I hate movies taking themselves too seriously at times but the jokes in this movie are spot on, especially the one signed by Bruce Willis, I loved his attitude, a grand performance!
Die Hard was most often praised for the production at the time of release, with the brand new shiny Fox Plaza office tower serving as the fictional Nakatomi building. DH also attracted attention for the energetic and skillful direction of John McTiernan, whose most notable credit was the action-sci-fi thriller scorcher Predator, which was released the year before with amazing Arnold Schwarzenegger.

'' "And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer." Benefits of a classical education.''

Bruce Willis was the perfect actor for this performance in Die Hard, since he brings the wit and vulnerability to a role which has become iconic. If Stallone or Schwarzenegger were in this movie, I'm sure the effect would have been a lot different, in their own personified style.

On a personal level I think Die Hard is one of the greatest action movies ever, up there close to my fave Last Crusade.
Like Indiana Jones, Die Hard had an Everyman that we could relate to, or see ourselves as, was cast in the role of Macleane. He isn't a larger-than-life musclebound typical monster, he was a real guy that you cared for, who got hurt, and had real feelings like any of us do.

''Who's driving this car, Stevie Wonder?''

Another mention goes to Alan Rickman who shines as the Villain, Hans Gruber. The old cliche of an English bad guy playing the role of a German terrorist. Let's face it, us English play some of the classiest, evilest, crazy yet darkly amusing, bad asses around providing an ultimate villain to any American hero.
It is Rickman that dominates the film hands down, like in Prince Of Thieves, he is a delightful sneering bad guy who has great lines, great presence and gives his character believability mixed with memorable resonance.
Alan Rickman commented that he didn't view Hans as "the villain", but more as a guy who "has made certain choices in life, wants certain things in life and goes after them." All the same, Alan is the perfect villain for Bruce's wise cracking McClane, who is neither weak nor super human. Bruce worked very hard on this film and allegedly did a lot of his own stunts and really brought a lot of life and warmth to a character who could very easily have been just another grim loner. It's a shame that he's had to spend the majority of his career trying to get away from this character (kind of like Sean Connery trying to live down his glory days as James Bond). And to think that Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds and Richard Gere all turned this part down (probably better that they did).

''I promise I will never even THINK about going up in a tall building again. Oh, God. Please don't let me die.''

Also should be mentioned that Die Hard is based on the counterpart novel by Roderick Thorpe. Bonnie Bedelia is Bruce's wife, and the late Alexander Godunov is Karl, who's vendetta with Bruce turns personal. Bonnie does well as the sympathetic wife with a bad haircut and Godunov, in a role very different from his debut part as an Amish farmer in Witness, is surprisingly menacing in spite of his pretty boy looks. Of course, it helps that his career as a ballet dancer gave him more dexterity than the usual hulking henchman. His knock-down-drag-out brawl with Willis is one of the best.
Die Hard overall manages to equal heart pounding and nerve shredding action, every single time viewed. If you are one of those many uneducated action-movie wise individuals who haven't experienced it yet, then now is definitely the time to rediscover a thrill ride classic and action masterpiece.

It's non-stop action, non-stop cliches, non-stop formulaic plots and villainous men with German accents, you've got to love it. Bruce Willis is at highest form in a role which needs nothing but highly toned abs and occasional smart alec NYC one-liners. Alan Rickman is the really lovable part of this film.

John McClane: You'd have made a pretty good cowboy yourself, Hans.
Hans Gruber: Oh, yes. What was it you said to me before? "Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker."

''I was staring through the cage of those meticulous ink strokes - at an absolute beauty.''

The incredible story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, told in flashback mode by Antonio Salieri - now confined to an insane asylum.

F. Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri

Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Amadeus(1984) is a masterpiece of music and a haunting tragic story of Mozart with a complex duality to his character.
Simply beautiful, musical and a genius study of two men. One hell bent on destroying the other in a haze of jealousy.



F. Murray Abraham as Antonio Salieri is fascinating as the man who idolizes Mozart, who burns with jealousy at him, at a talent and creativity he can never possess or muster. We first see him in his old age in a squalid state of madness and memory, in the confines of an asylum.
His pain is wonderfully conveyed, there's a blur between who you feel for, the jealousy burning in his eyes, I love it!
He refers to Mozart as a creature, a plague upon the world and his life, a misery with his talent he inflicts, his talent that should of been Antonio Salieris, but is denied by the obnoxious yet inspirational faceted Mozart.
Antonio Salieri is the mirror reflection of Mozart twisted in the shadows, unlike Mozart's crazy unpractical way Antonio is humble, craving the very thing Mozart possesses, what he takes for granted and uses for his own benefit.
He admires him from afar and later helps him to write when he falls ill. Them writing a masterpiece is a wonder to behold.

Father Vogler: Oh, that's charming! I'm sorry, I didn't know you wrote that.
Salieri: I didn't. That was Mozart.

Tom Hulce as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a wonder to behold, a genius in music but his character, his laugh, his mannerisms are a vast contrast to his intellectual artistic musical vision. He has controversial ideas that he successfully executes much to the disgust of Antonio Salieri.
Arrogant, childish and very rash in his way, which wasn't my image of Mozart yet shows a talent for musical genius isn't everything.
Tom Hulce I've seen in other films before but this is the best ever performance I've seen him achieve yet.

It is not clear if Salieri the anti-God actually killed Mozart or if it was the natural order of things, but Salieri gets his comeuppance, his own Confutatis maledictis that is helped along by the more savvy Constanze, who knows what sort of man Salieri really is. The scene where Salieri and Mozart hammer out the Mass is one of the most exciting scenes of cinema in the 1980s -- with one man sitting at a desk and the other lying in a bed!

In real life, Antonio Salieri was an accomplished musician, many of whose works remain in print. His stuff fell out of favor -- but Vivaldi predated Mozart and Salieri, and his music was barely heard after his death until the 20th century! Musical tastes change with the times; How many discotheques are open in the 21st century? Not as many as in the 1970s, I warrant. There are ample implications in the historical record that Salieri and Mozart got along quite well. So the story inside the beautiful decor is a libelous fiction -- in fact, it's a lot of spin and inventive storytelling. But when have novels or films cared for historical fact over a cracking good story? And it's probably more correct to call it a parable.
Mozart and Salieri aren't really meant to be embodiments of their real-life counterparts. Salieri is an archetype.

All the performances are wonderful, especially in the Emperor's court. Charles Kay is superb, Jonathan Moore is the epitome of sincerity, and Jeffrey Jones expresses more by his extreme underplaying than many more notable actors do in several movies of bluster. Sometimes you wonder if someone ought to take Jones' pulse, but you're always aware of what the Emperor is thinking.
The costumes perfect, the beautiful ornate locations shown in all their splendor, all effortlessly combined in a dazzling array of bewitchment and enlightenment.
We the audience begin to formulate what will happen and how plotting from madness and hatred begins to surface. When the souls of the music leap forth from the pages, when genius turns to betrayal and madness you know you have a masterpiece of grandeur and wonderment.
Amadeus is a legendary masterpiece of epic proportions.

''What's in the box?''

Police drama about two cops, one new and one about to retire, after a serial killer using the seven deadly sins as his MO.

Brad Pitt: Detective David Mills

Se7en obviously is a very complex and deep movie, while also being quite disturbing. Andrew Kevin Walker created one of the most original spec screenplays of all time, but it is the kind of story traditionally used more as a writing sample than actually made into a movie. But the creative team of director David Fincher believed in this extremely dark, uncompromising story, and made it just the way Walker wrote it.
In the end, it is only John Doe, the serial killer, who can teach Mills and us the truth...that this world is very often shockingly vicious and senselessly cruel. Doe and Somerset actually have similar views of society and the world, up to a point. But while Somerset still cares about his fellow human beings, Doe hates them, and takes out his rage in a series of gruesome murders based on the seven deadly sins.



Se7en is about the investigation Mills and Somerset undertake of Doe's murders, his "sermon" to the world through serial killing. Ultimately, Mills and Somerset can only do so much to try to stop Doe; the killer always seems at least one step ahead of them, and stays that way until the very end of the movie. In a normal Hollywood film, Mills and Somerset would "win" in the end by catching Doe and setting the world right again. But Andy Walker had a quite different ending in mind, and Fincher and his team take the shocking conclusion all the way to the limit of tension and drama.

''If John Doe's head splits open and a UFO should fly out, I want you to have expected it.''

This Se7en, like Fincher's Fight Club, was controversial for being overly violent and gruesome. Certainly there are a number of gruesome and disturbing images of murder victims' bodies, and many aspects of the story are very troubling, to say the least, later emulated by the SAW series. But only one person is shown being killed on screen, and by far the worst of what happens in this story happens in the viewer's mind. Unlike most films that have high level acts of violent means, including, for example, Reservoir Dogs or Silence of the Lambs, this Se7en genuinely attempts to grapple with the moral implications of what is being shown at specific times. In direct contrast with, say Quentin Tarantino, who uses extreme violence for shock factors and to gain notoriety, Fincher actually shows less violence on screen and raises far more psychological warfare in the viewer's mind, giving alot to chew on mentally and alot of appetizing questions to debate about. I cannot think of any movie that contains as much genuine discussion among the characters about crime and human morality as this one does -- while never becoming dull,preachy or condescending for a second.

Whatever you do while watching it, do not see it as empty or hollow. Se7en is far from it. Many scenes study civilization/present civilization. And its evil, absorbed points. Our society we are part of, isn't a pleasant one. Se7en concentrates mainly on the cops search and case, when it comes to the mystery part in finding the killer, we discover the policemen's differences in methods, and how the most obvious one does not actually work. Of course, its Somerset(Morgan Freeman), the one with the most experience who has the best methods. He tries to find out why, not to enact vengeance or revenge but for a true sense of justice. Why some man is killing these people using a specific punishment.
While Mills(Brad Pitt) tries, unsuccessfully, to find out how by studying the crime scene for clues. He ends up bored and frustrated. With the help of knowledge from the library, Somerset gets closer to the killer.
It may seem as though the role of Tracey(Gweneth Paltrow) is a pointless part, but she is more important in alot of various ways. She is the one who brings the men to being more personally bonded to each other. Notice how in the dinner scene she is the one to introduce them by name, making the climax tense and difficult.

''If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he's Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations, but he's not the devil. He's just a man.''

Mills is the kind of guy to pull his gun out before his torch. He has an arrogant, rushed sense of guidelines to follow, though this can be said to be his weakness. Somerset has never even fired his weapon. He sees the evil round him. And he wants to leave it alone and get away from it's unrelenting viciousness, even though, he is a cop, so he has the power to do something about it, but the problem is, he isn't doing anything about it. John Doe is doing it instead. The reason why society is tainted and evil is because we are allowed to fall into the depths of sin. There is now nothing to stop us or stand in our way becoming common-place in our lives, and there should be something. This is why John Doe thinks his behaviour is acceptable and how he can do the things he does,resulting in the problem, that he is being stopped and pursued instead of the crime happening unperturbed, equaling the harsh reality we live in. Perhaps morally how John Doe goes about making a difference is controversial and questionable but it definitely attracts everyones attention making a vast impact on the media, the Police and the people.

There are seven deadly sins. Gluttony. Greed. Sloth. Pride. Lust. Envy. Wrath. And seven ways to die. Reminders of the decadence and complacency of our squalid lives and the laziness we have allowed ourselves to become stuck in. Many may think these Sins are strictly meant in a religious sense, but they are however you want to perceive them as. We learn that our Society or the Society in Se7en has become compromised by all the sins and that our way of life is a serious joke of proportions hard to quit or change.

''People don't want a hero, they want to eat cheeseburgers, play the lotto and watch television.''

Kevin Spacey is amazing as John Doe, portraying insanity laced with cunning genius, perfectly. Equaling one of the greatest supporting/cameo performances of all time already. And he's only in it for half an hour. Brad Pitt delivers a kind of forced performance which adds to the Hollywood effect of the film though I couldn't imagine anyone else for the part. Morgan Freeman played his role with the greatest concentration. Throughout he needed a look of woe on his face. And he did just that.
The writing reaches dizzying heights. The genius, Andrew Kevin Walker took an interesting subject and created an instant classic. But most credit has to go to Fincher. Who took aspects you wouldn't even think of glancing at and filming it with a passion rarely seen. Together they project a film of meaning on our screens that no-one should miss. In one scene near the end, he makes it so when a word is spoken we cut to a character as that gives us clues to their fate. A feast for the brain. One of the most imaginative scripts of the 90s. Fincher also knows exactly how to shoot the film. Whether it be steady-cam for the slow and easy parts or the hand-held camera for the adrenalin pumping scenes. Later filming other extraordinary pieces I love such as Zodiac, Panic Room, and the before-mentioned Fight Club.

The cinematography is what makes this an excellent movie. Everything is dark. The world out there is rough, raw, grim and gritty. It does just that. The effect it makes is astounding and truly works. The sinister music that is added keeps the heart pounding throughout and keeps the audience uncomfortable, in a good way. As that's what the film tries to achieve. The opening credits are upon the greatest segment of film I have ever seen. The jumpiness makes you feel uneasy yet intrigued to keep watching. Every scene, due to the effort put in it, is masterful and is what makes the film a joy to watch and observe.

Se7en reveals the best glimpse we have seen of the disturbing underworld. One of my darkest favourites and always will raise questions and a puzzling after taste in the deep recesses of my mind.

''Ernest Hemingway once wrote,

"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.''

I agree with the second part.''

''You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK.''

A mentally unstable Vietnam war veteran works as nighttime taxi driver in a city whose perceived decadence and sleaze feeds his urge to violently lash out, attempting to save a teenage prostitute in the process.

Robert De Niro: Travis Bickle

Quite simply, Taxi Driver is one of the best films ever made. This is one of those films that you do not get tired of seeing and every time you watch it you realize a little detail that you have not seen before. Excellent actors, a good director, an impressive soundtrack and a real story are the main appeals of this film.



Taxi Driver is about loneliness, about the isolation of a man in a society full of scum. His objective is to finish with the scum of the streets. The story uses a taxi driver as a metaphor of loneliness and it has definitions of irony because we can see that a city which is full of people can be the most lonely place for a man to be. The long nights in the city, the night environment full of whores, junkies, pimps and thieves are the main elements of the world in which Travis Bickle lives. Travis is a misunderstood guy who is seeking desperately for some kind of companionship because as he says ''Loneliness has followed me all my life, everywhere'' but at the same time he seems not to do anything to avoid his situation and it is seen when he goes with Betsy(Cybill Shepherd) to a porn cinema. At the end of Taxi Driver the character makes real his most violent visages and dark recesses of fantasy, with a burning scope of various soldiers from fighting in Vietnam, and he behaves like this because of his loneliness, his alienation and because he does not find any purpose to his seemingly empty life. The violent behaviour evolves and shapes Travis into a hero, although he had killed many people and he could on a whim or for a purpose resort to doing it again. Although he acts with an extreme violence the spectator understand him and the reasons why he acts that way. The soundtrack of the film, which is composed by Bernard Herrmann, inspires that same kind of loneliness and isolation, sometimes mistyfying into an absolutely haunting horror film genre. This music and the slow camera showing the streets all help to introduce the spectator into the world of Travis, to know what he is thinking and to know what he is doing, it's beautiful.

So put into an equation of sorts, Martin Scorsese wisely teams up with one of the most intense actors of the time to create a masterpiece of urban alienation. Paul Schrader's magnificent script paints a portrait of loneliness in the largest city of the world. Travis never once enters into a meaningful relationship with any character anywhere in the material given. He is the most hopelessly alone person in celluloid.

''Loneliness has followed me my whole life. Everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man... June 8th. My life has taken another turn again. The days can go on with regularity over and over, one day indistinguishable from the next. A long continuous chain. Then suddenly, there is a change.''

He is alone with his thoughts, and his thoughts are dark ones. The film fools you on a first viewing. Is Travis an endearing eccentric? Sure, he's odd, but he's so polite, and he's got an enduring sense of humour. His affection for Betsy is also pleasant and kind. But on more viewings, you see it for what it is. The audience comes to see Travis's psychology gradually, but there's actually far less development than one might assess. When he talks about cleaning up the city, the repeat viewer knows he doesn't mean some sort of revolutionary change. This is less a film about a character in development as it is a kind of snapshot into the psyche. To be sure, it takes the stimulus to provoke the response, but does that imply some kind of central change in the character?

Tremendous supporting roles are brought to life through vivid performances by Keitel and Foster especially. Shepard's character, Betsy, is little more than a foil to highlight Travis's utter alienation from society, but she is still impeccably portrayed. With only two scenes that don't center on Travis, it is unavoidably De Niro's show. The life with which the supporting cast imbues their characters is a credit to themselves, and to the director's willingness to let the film develop from the intersection of diverse ideas and approaches. What would the plot lose by eliminating the Albert Brooks character (Tom)? Nothing at all. He makes almost no impact on Travis's life, which is where the plot lives. But his inclusion makes the film as a whole much richer and fuller.

''You get a job. You become the job.''

What makes the film even better is De Niro showing the type of form that makes his recent form such a major disappointment. He is outstanding as he moves Travis from being relatively normal to being eaten up from the inside out. His eventual implosion is impressive but it is only as impressive as the gradual slide he depicts over the course of the film. Although he dominates it, others impress as well. Foster stands out in a small role, while Keitel makes a good impression as the pimp. Shepherd is not quite as good but her character was not as well written as the others so it isn't all down to her. Regardless, the film belongs to De Niro and although the quotable scenes are the ones that are remembered it is in the quieter moments where he excels and shows genuine talent and understanding.

Overall an impressive and morally depressing film that deserves its place in cinematic history. The portrayal of a city and a man slipping into moral insanity is convincing and engaging and it shows how well anyone can spiral into modern madness and the effects of a moral void in certain or all levels of Western society. Scorsese directs as a master craftsman, despite this being at an early stage in his career and De Niro is chillingly effective as he simply dominates the film in quiet moments and quotable moments alike.
Vietnam war veteran Travis Bickle is a lonely, lonely man and I cannot stress this point enough. His mind travels through sleepless nights , but he then takes a job as a taxi driver in New York City. As DeNiro's Travis drives around at night as Bernard Herrmann's beautiful and subtle score plays, you can't help but just stare and gaze at the wonderful cinematography which puts you in the spot as if you are there.

''I think someone should just take this city and just... just flush it down the fuckin' toilet.''

A true milestone and blessing for 70s American Cinema. In essence, one of the greatest achievements ever put into Modern Cinema, a modern Classic. Martin Scorsese's direction is just absolutely superb, he makes it unique and wonderful. Herrmann's score, in which he shortly died after completing the score is by far, one of the best. He was passionate and let his soul pour out here. Paul Schrader's career-defining script is just widely unique and fantastic. So many memorable quotes, incredibly unforgettable. From "You talking' to me?" to "Taking me to a place like this is about as exciting as saying to me "Let's f*ck." Said to be semi-autobiographical of Schrader (paranoia, obsession and porn), Schrader sang his whole heart out as he wrote this masterful creation.

Disturbing, dark, subtle... So many words to describe the wonderfulness that is of Taxi Driver. Beautiful music, the amazing cinematography that makes you feel as if you are there. The acting from our leading man, Robert DeNiro is honest, compelling, dangerous and wonderfully structured. This movie will change your life. Scorsese's masterpiece. Incredibly thought-provoking. As we ground upon the final act, Taxi Driver just leaves you standing still...

''Loneliness has followed me my whole life, everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man.''