Reviews

A first time director. Known but 'not-spoiled-because-of-their-fame' actors, and a clear vision ... that's all you need to make good cinema.

When Hayley meets Geoff at a coffee-house after a couple of weeks of online chatting, the tension can be cut with a knife. The problem is, she's 14, he's 33. But, he's a photographer and she's a willing model, so the action quickly moves to his (really nice) house.

And that's where it gets dark, really dark. SO dark, it's hard to find the balance between genuinely gruesome and psychological, and just plain grotesque. So, as always, it's going to be a personal thing whether or not you completely lose yourself in the, sometimes very, over-the-top storytelling.

The camera-work and overall design of the film did remind me of "One Hour Photo". It's very calm and cool, and the camera only goes berserk when the action is driven up.

No bad comments on the acting either. Patrick Wilson (who I'd only ever seen before in "Angels in America") does a terrific job of making us doubt about the nature of his character. Ellen Page goes slightly overboard as a 'tough' (understatement of the year) 14 year old but still delivers the goods in a believable way. Perhaps Sandra Oh deserved a little more screen time, but that's just a detail.

If you can look beyond the slightly over-stylized setting, it's an extremely well-made debut that deserves all the attention and word of mouth it can get.

The fabulous "The Sixth Sense" introduced us to the phenomenon that is M Night Shyamalan. His slow but certain storytelling and his original camera viewpoints were loved by both audiences and critics. But his rising star soon took a hit when it turned out he overused his already trademark 'surprise ending'.

Now, he's back, with nothing more than a bedtime story. No big plot-twists, no kids seeing dead people, no blind girls spectacularly avoiding almost every tree in the woods ... but that doesn't mean he isn't relying on our suspension of disbelief.

"Lady in the Water" is one of those films you either love or hate, there's no in-between. If you can't open your mind to a movie that's nothing more than a modern (and pretty funny) fairytale, then you're hopelessly lost from the beginning. However, if you can make yourself believe in mysterious creatures and magical beings again, then you'll probably enjoy this little 'mainstream' movie.

The Music (as in Signs) is once again a perfect contribution to the images. The casting (even though Shyamalan definitely has revealed his God complex) is spot on. And the well built up mood and cinematography (a grey apartment block never looked so attractive) are sublime.

so in conclusion: open your mind, and you'll have the opportunity to experience an enchanting little fable. If you choose to keep it closed, then don't even start watching this.

I love movies that both unnerve me beyond reason and also make my toes curl with cinematographic pleasure! And this film is one of those.

It's safe to say that Sam Mendes has delivered his third wonderful movie in a row. It's categorized in the rare genre that Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" is in, or even Schumacher's "Tigerland". It's a war movie, without really being a war movie. It's actually a profound drama disguising itself as a war movie.

Gyllenhaal, Sarsgaard, Foxx ... everybody in this film deserved to be cast in it. The visuals are both simple and stunning *(no way am I ever gonna forget the oil horse!)* Thomas Newman is one of the finest artists in the soundtrack business and somebody should give him an Oscar already!

I'd recommend this to anybody with an open mind to offbeat/mainstream cinema! Oh, and just a warning: During this film your testosteron levels will rise dangerously ... but since there is so little action in this film, you will feel equally frustrated as the soldiers did ... try to survive it :)

8/10

I want to be brief about this film, but I need to have 10 lines so ...

1. the film is inhabited by stereotypes, not characters. there's the loving but ill mother. The strict but kindhearted father. The inappropriate sister. The doped up brother. The successful but hating life brother and his uptight big city desperately-needs-to-get-laid-good-wife. Oh, not to forget deaf gay man and his black lover ... At one point I thought Jerry Springer was gonna walk in and we were going to witness a big b*tch fight ... sadly Jerry refused to participate in this film.

2. the director is also the writer. Which is only a good thing if the writer/director has a clear vision of what his film should look like. Clearly this guy doesn't quite know what he wants his film to be. It's either a bad drama or a bad comedy. Let's just call it a bad 'dramedy'.

3. the acting ... OK, the acting is pretty good all over. Especially from Rachel McAdams (who suddenly seems to be in every film I see) she has played so many different characters over the course of her last few films that I actually might accuse her of having some real talent. She's followed closely by Diane Keaton, who's actually on auto pilot in this one, but still manages to deliver a believable mom.

4. wow, never thought I could write so much about this film.

5. to sum it up: rent this on Valentine's Day with your girlfriend, so you can later explain to her why you won't be taking her to meet your parents any time soon. Because it will be like this film: the intentions are good, but the aftertaste is sour.

5/10

I stumbled upon this film at the DVD store and rented it out of pure curiosity. I hadn't heard anything about it, but the story on the back cover and the interesting lead actors made me take a chance on it.

The story is simple but engaging enough. A man, living alone with his two sons is visited by his fresh-out-of-jail brother who's come back to claim his part of a family treasure. That's the kick-start to a strange kind of film.

It's almost as if 4 different directors worked on this film. There are very surreal sequences that have a dreamlike quality to them. But then suddenly they're interrupted by in-your-face-reality. The editing is also pretty offbeat, but strangely enough, it works!

There are no bad things to be said about the acting. No annoying child actors, a very promising tour de force from Jamie Bell (Billie Elliott), and Josh Lucas actually scared me with that intense look in his eyes.

It may be a bit uneven in places, and not sure about what kind of film it wants to be. But overall it's a very satisfying film that deserves more attention than it's been getting. 8/10

I don't quite know what to make of this film. Because I'm from Belgium myself, I enjoy the fact that more and more domestic filmmakers are trying to make their films seem more international. But as a movie-lover I can't make myself overlook the fact that this could've been so much better.

Let's face it: although well made, this film is utter rubbish. Aside from offering a very unsatisfying back-story it delivers no real substance to its characters. And the leading role is portrayed by such an unappealing, unsympathetic looking actor that I actually didn't care what happened to him. The shocking events that follow still leave you disgusted enough, but because there's no real emotion coming from the characters it doesn't really grab you by the balls. It just unnerves you without really getting under your skin.

I would however recommend this film to people, because you can be sure of the fact that it will boost interesting conversations that will last throughout the night.

So to sum it up: interesting, well made film that would've been so much more engaging if they fleshed it out a whole lot more. 6/10

first off: this movie is the biggest waste of money ever! just because mister lost-half-a-person-in-bodyweight wanted to realize his childhood dream, some poor kids in India don't get to eat for a year.

On the other hand, this movie, though overlong, is one of the most spectacular cinematic treats since the invention of ... well, can't think of anything.

It's pure b*llocks from start to finish, but we all know what Peter Jackson can do with b*llocks (LOTR anyone?) he turns it into magical movie history.

The relationship between Kong and Anne was never this realistic. The visuals were never this spectacular ... it's a visual treat in every possible way. And if you're not moved in any way by the ending (even though you know it's coming)you're simply not human.

It may be idiotic brain-dead b*ll sh*t, but at least it's brilliantly made b*ll sh*t. 7/10

I can't possibly believe that anyone would rate this movie over 5/10 ... and that would only be for the effort of making it.

I have to be honest and say that I had my mind made up about the film even before my friend dragged me to the theatre to see it.

The opening shot was promising, I didn't expect the movie to start with a war scene, but that was about the only unexpected thing about it. From the point the kids leave their mother behind and travel to far off places it all turns to bloody sh*te.

The casting agency did a dreadful job and chose 4 of the most annoying actors éver! With one of them even surpassing Home Alone's Macaulay Culkin! At one point of the film I was actually rooting for the Witch to actually kill him, or at least torture him or something.

The visuals are lacking in imagination and are plain dull with a laughable final act that has no suspense whatsoever. And someone should inform Adamson that night scenes need to be lit too ... they were pitch black!

(minor spoiler) And for God's sake, if you're going to kill off a character, LET IT STAY DEAD! Don't create a boring weepy scene only to magically revive the corpse 5 seconds later.

The only good thing (and that's still arguable) about this film was Tilda Swinton. She is and always will be a good actress. But even good actresses can suck in lousy movies ... and she came very close to sucking in this one.

Perhaps all is not lost for the other possible book adaptations. But Walden Media may want to find another director, actors, CGI department if they ever want to compete with the Harry Potter series.

I'm going to be extremely brief about this one (how unlike me) ... it's one of the top 10 movies of 2005 and needs to be seen by anyone who can enjoy a film that's both gut-wrenching, heartfelt, moving and full of suspense. Pure, brilliant cinema! ... damn, I need to have 10 lines of text ... Well, I didn't care much for Ralph Fiennes in The English Patient (though I loved the movie) but in this film he hits all the right buttons. As for Rachel Weisz, somebody please save her from idiotic blockbusters such as The Mummy (I'll excuse her for Constantine because I happened to like that one ... sorry) and cast her in more of these parts. Because however small her role may be, she really does leave her mark on the film. Once again : fantastic movie.

Iain Softley isn't the most productive moviemaker of all time, but he does choose his projects carefully. Hackers was perfect for the zeitgeist, K pax blended drama with the extra terrestrial and for once did not offer an easy plot solution. And now here's The Skeleton Key.

It's a genre movie, so it's bound to some rules that have to be obeyed in order for it too work. There are easy scares, mysterious goings on, lots of thunder and lightning and so on and so forth ...

Skeleton's strength doesn't lie in it's plot, but in the steady build up of suspense. Slowly but surely allowing the viewer to discover the pieces of the (not too difficult) puzzle. The only reason the ending comes as a surprise anymore, is because it is so rarely seen in main stream movies these days.

It's far from original, but it delivers the goods in a very convincing and entertaining way, never allowing your attention to drop away. Nice. 7/10

why oh why do I keep going to these over-hyped plastic products that pre-expose their "plot" in the trailer?!

why oh why do I keep going to see Michael Bay movies?

why oh why hasn't anyone told mister Bay that a good action sequence isn't based upon how "shaky" the camera movements are?

... I could go on and on.

Once again I was tricked by the big Hollywood machine to go see this film. I enjoyed about 45 minutes of it. And then the script runs out of worthy dialogue and we're left watching the same escape/explosion scene with that tired old word "RUN" being shouted now and then.

The visuals are fine, but that shouldn't be a problem when you're spending the deficit of a country to make a mindless action flick. The acting is reasonable, but once again it has been proved that actors need a good script to deliver a good performance. Ewan already failed to do so in the Star Wars prequels and isn't doing a better job this time around. And now Scarlett Johannson is down to Natalie Portman's level when she played the irritatingly wooden Amidala.

Did it suck big time? No, the build up is fine. But then some idiot producer decided that he didn't want the audiences cerebrums stimulated any longer. No no, keep 'm dumb, make stuff go boom now *drool drool*

If you know what to expect, you'll be able to live through it just fine. If you think Michael Bay has finally figured out how to make a decent film ... you probably forgot your medication.

5,5/10

So, imagine you're Doug Liman. You've made some enjoyable smaller movies (Swingers, Go) And your first venture into the blockbuster zone was a welcome relief that already spawned an even better sequel (The Bourne Identity/Supremacy) So then, what is your logical next step? Well, considering that you've proved your bank-ability to the people in Hollywood, you can now have loads of fun with other people's money, and make pretty much any movie you damn well please. And that's exactly what Dougie did!

Two elite assassins, working for separate employers are married to each other without having a clue about their better half's secret life. When their next mission blows both their covers, they have to decide whether to kill each other, or team up against a mutual enemy.

It's a simple storyline, perfect popcorn movie fodder. Mr and Mrs Smith delivers exactly what the audience expects. Now even tough that is a plus, it's also a slight downside ... you KNOW what's coming, so that's half the fun gone. It's only originality lies in the exquisite way it feeds off of Pitt and Jolie's star power. It's a joy to see them on screen together delivering one-liner after one-liner in a "plot" that grows more and more ridiculous towards the end. And on a technical note: the editing seems rushed and unfinished. Maybe Liman has a whole bunch of deleted scenes he's keeping for the DVD release.

I enjoyed it very much, but where "Bourne" sticks to the retina for a couple of days, this one is too volatile and dissolves from the mind too quickly. But if you're like 90% of the world's population, and can't get enough of a well made Hollywood flick then this is without a doubt your thing.

By now everybody knows the HG Wells story, and everybody knows about Orson Welles's radio play that shocked a nation. And even the first movie has become a textbook example of 'how-to-make-a-sci-fi-B-movie'.

So I didn't quite understand what drew Spielberg to this project. It's like Van Sant remaking (or rethinking or reinventing, or whatever they want to call it) Hitchcock's "Psycho" or Jackson doing "King Kong" all over again. But I have to say that I'm surprised what the summer blockbuster 'meister' has done with this one.

I absolutely loved the first Spielberg/Cruise team-up (Minority Report) so it's safe to say I had high expectations for their next project. And most of those expectations have been met. Spielberg has made another great movie. The only flaws this film has have to do with Koepp's screenplay reworking.

Strangely enough he stays quite true to the original. Now some would say that's a good thing, but you have to understand that some elements from the old movie simply don't have that much impact anymore in this century. And that's where the film's main problem lies. Spielberg tries his best to make everything feel real. It seems getting older has made him more cynical, and this film has several scenes that are gut-wrenching simply because you don't expect them in a 'popcorn' movie. But however gritty and painful he seems to want to make it, Koepp's B movie script prevents credibility in any way, drawing more attention to the ridiculousness of the whole thing. And by the time we're introduced to Tim Robbin's character in the last half hour, the movie seems to have run out of steam, dabbling along to a sudden and anticlimactic ending. Probably because Spielberg had run out of money turning the first hour and a half in such a roller-coaster ride.

But in a time where all of Hollywood seems to suffer from a permanent writer's block, this is a relief. Despite its faults it's a more than decent 'reworking' of a well known story. The visuals are superb, William's score is almost 'invisible' to the ear (knowing that he's used to over-scoring every single frame you see) and the Cruise/Fanning team-up works beautifully, both of them proving once again why they're hot and wanted in LaLa land. It may not be another "Minority Report" hit, but it's definitely a close second. 8/10

stephen

I've loved the Batman franchise ever since Tim Burton introduced us to his stylized-comic book-art deco-prince version. And he's one of the few directors who pulled off the difficult task of making their own sequels better than the original (Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi also succeeded with their comic book adaptations). To me Michelle Pfeiffer (and not Halle -why the f**ck did I win an Oscar- Berry) will always be the only Catwoman, purrrrr!

Then gay kitsch lover Joel Schumacher came along, glued some nipples to the batsuit and damned it all to hell. I'll allow Batman Forever to be considered decent, but Batman & Robin was a downright shame.

The introduction of Memento/Insomnia helmer Christopher Nolan was a big surprise to me, but turned out to be the best decision Warner Bros ever made. His Batman Begins is exactly the breath of fresh air this series needed. And I'm sure there's air enough to last us a few sequels (or prequels, whatever)!

The story takes us back to the years when Bruce was still just a spoilt brat who saw his parents killed in a dark ally (people should really start avoiding those). His anger and fear lead him down a path of self discovery and training, which ultimately result in the birth of the Batman. A winged avenger with a hood and a cape taking on crime in the streets of Gotham City.

Nolan deserves credit for trying to introduce the Batman saga to reality. And he largely succeeds, but at the cost of his own movie. The build up of the film feels so real, that the sudden exposure to a guy in a batsuit and a freak with a bag over his head seems far-fetched. Even though you're aware of the fact that this is a comic book adaptation, the change in tone is not a swift one. Which brings us to another flaw in Nolan's direction. He's good, very good, at what he does. But when it comes to directing action sequences he's crap ... really crap. Everything's too dark and chaotic, and once again, even though you know you're watching complete and utter fiction, they seem incredible *(when Batsy clings himself to an elevated train, the crossing bars of steel don't seem to interfere with his wire)* So either Nolan brushes up his action skills for the sequel, or hires someone better to do the editing and action directing for him.

The incredible cast all seem like they're having a blast. Bale is a capable Wayne/Batman, and even all the smaller characters add quality to the film.

In closing I might add that the writers didn't quite follow the correct timeline or upheld the continuity with the previous films, but that's something I gladly overlook when the result is this strong. A nice solid 8/10.

I've just come home from seeing this movie, and I'm torn. I can't really decide how I feel about this one. On the one hand, you've got three terribly uninteresting crime stories. All three of them as clichéd as they can get. With characters so void of any emotion, it's impossible to feel for them. And on the other hand, you've got one visceral thrill ride of a movie. A non stop visual treat from beginning till end, that accomplishes what other blue screen movies can only dream of. To me this film is a close second to Tarantino's "Kill Bill 1+2" ... but it also suffers from the same weaknesses. Both films rely on grainy "I'm gonna get revenge" cool talk combined with overwhelming visual treats. Now Tarantino has proved he can pull off violent non story movies, but Rodriguez has always failed to do so in the past (Desperado,...) Luckily with this film he delivers such a feast for the eyes that you almost forget about the non existing storyline ... almost. Let's hope the sequel has a little more depth to it.

I've just seen the film at a digital night screening, and I must say: even though the film is still flawed, it's not the "revenge of the S-H-I-T" I thought it was going to be. It's by far Lucas's best attempt to recapture the magic that made so many people across the world love the original Star Wars saga.

Let's be honest, "the phantom menace" and "attack of the clones" didn't quite do the original series any justice. It seemed like George Lucas was just trying to promote his visual fx and sound studios by giving them a platform that would be widely anticipated. But I'm willing to forgive Georgie boy for his corporate money making decisions, because "revenge of the sith" is a return to form.

OK, first the bad news. The storyline still consists of hopping from one planet to another, the dialogue is still corny as ever, the acting (though improved) is still too wooden (but that's probably due to blue screen work), and the visuals still look like an elaborate video game disaster (come on Lucas, you're rich enough to pay a costume designer, you don't have to paste a head onto a cgi body!!!). But with that said, that's probably the only thing worth bitching about.

Lucas manages to make us feel for the characters for the very first time. And even though the opening sequence runs a little overlong, the dramatic build up of everything else is spot on.

I won't say anything more about it. I didn't really hate the first two prequels, but I didn't particularly like them either. But this one can 'prudently' be loved by Star Wars fans all over the globe. The circle is truly completed.

Stephen

OK, I just saw the Renny Harlin version of "Exorcist, the Beginning" ... and I found it to be an OK movie. The story wasn't too shabby, the visual effects were done properly, Mr Skarsgaard has always been a fine actor, and besides from wanting to blow everything up (and he does also like his snow scenes doesn't he ...) Renny Harlin is a competent director who has proved he can turn any idiotic premise into a fun viewing (Deep Blue Sea, Cliffhanger, Mindhunters to name but a few).

But of course I understand why this film was met with such disdain. Another version by another director (Schrader) wasn't deemed scary enough by the producers, so it was buried. And on top of that, nobody in the world thought it was a good idea to add yet another title to the Exorcist list, because let's face it, the original still stands as a strong film, all the unnecessary sequels just didn't do it justice.

In closing I'd like to say that The Beginning turned out to be a nice popcorn movie, nothing more, nothing less. But it won't stand the test of time.

Stephen

When I saw who directed this movie (Marc Evans) I was immediately reminded of the way I felt after seeing his other film: "My Little Eye" ... That was a movie that had the potential of being a sleeper cult hit, but it turned out to be a pretty disappointing standard 'shocker'. But I took the risk and rented Trauma on DVD, and I have to say, if anything, Mr Evans has improved. Even though this film doesn't quite know where it's heading half the time, at least there's an atmosphere that grips you and doesn't let go until you've had all the answers.

in a nutshell : Ben wakes up from a coma, after a car crash in which he believes his wife died. He is suddenly confronted with the mysterious murder of a famous singer that his wife used to dance for. When he decides to let the past be, he moves into a new home and meets Charlotte, a young woman. When he starts developing feelings for her his life becomes stranger by the minute. Who is the man in the hooded grey parka? Why is a psychic telling him his wife hasn't passed on, and could he be the killer the police are looking for? Reality and dreams start to mix as Ben loses grip ...

Now to the experienced movie-goer, some plot developments can be sensed a mile off, but Evans makes his audience feel as lost as Ben is, and this way accomplishes to keep us guessing until the last minute. This is not a must see, because there are other (and better) films in this genre. But it's surely not a waste of nice night in.

Stephen

I don't really know what to make of this film. But I do know one thing, it's far better than Troy (Bloody waste of time that was!)

Oliver Stone(d) brings us a film that marches on that fine line that divides excess from pure camp, and it occasionally slips with 'unwanted' comedic effects as a result. But otherwise I have nothing particularly bad to say about this film. it's not Oliver's best, but it's far from his worst.

The cast does a pretty good job (too bad their performances are choked by that annoying Vangelis score that only works when he brings out the percussionists) and the visuals are at times spectacular.

I'd give it a 7 out of 10 ... and I am very curious as to what Baz Luhrman is going to do with the 'bisexual' tone of the film.

ciao Stephen

what are you doing here? sitting behind your computer, staring at the screen. GO SEE THIS FILM RRRRRRRRIGHT NOOOOOW !!!

it's brilliant, fantastic ... even ... (dare I say it) ... INCREDIBLE!

the story, the characters, the design (oooh my GOD, the design), the music. everything comes together in this film. the actors chosen to voice-in the Parr family and all the side characters, are all in the same league as Ellen Degeneres in Finding Nemo. You know what?! I lovvvved finding nemo but i have to say this ... director Brad Bird has just set a new standard to which all cgi animated movies will be compared. shark tale pales in comparison, even shrek or its superior sequel can't hold a candle to this one.

a stunning piece of work. 9/10

just saw this film on DVD. wish i hadn't. the coen brothers have simply lost it. trying too damn hard to be cinematic ally inventive and quirky that they even lose control over this simple - point a to point b - plot. Tom Hanks isn't acting, he's showing off,and completely overshoots what he probably had in mind. the old lady ... well, how can you develop sympathy for a character that is quite simply the perfect example of why euthanasia should be legalized? The rest of the cast : same problem. we all see what kind of performance they want to achieve, but somehow all of it is overdone, thus setting the wrong tone for the entire movie. a word to the coen brothers : take a break. no more remakes, no more "project" movies, try to recapture whatever it was that made you guys make "The Big Lebowski" "Fargo" "Barton Fink" (and yes, even) "The Hudsucker Proxy" because all of those are waaaaaay better than the infantile sludge of a movie i just watched on DVD. 3.5/10

i'll be honest. if i had rented this movie on DVD on a lazy Friday night ... i probably would've enjoyed it more. but we have to be fair. even though Julianne Moore is a brilliant actress (even in this film) her talents are wasted in the forgotten. it starts out with some promising ideas. some moments of tension that undoubtedly will make you jump. but then it fails to deliver when it appears they've run out of a decent plot, and the characters just seem to hop from one 'secret' location to the next, very easily uncovering "whatever the hell it was" (not to spoil the obvious) that made them forget their children. the "sucking" effect is cool but makes you laugh rather than building a sense of unease. if you can tune down your brainwaves (close to non-active) you'll be able to enjoy this film. just don't expect what the cool trailer promises ;) 5.5/10