bleakeye Reviews

Death Proof (2007)

A Mastery Of Film-making vs.Much Hyped Nostalgia Piece

[9/10 · 7 February 2008]

After the trio of "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction" and "Jackie Brown", a review of any work from Quentin Tarantino must always be about the director/screenwriter himself. As painful as it is to feed anymore compliments on his abilities in screen writing, he truly did revolutionize the way films are made. Not the non-linear nature of movies nor the stylized violence but the way his characters approach the situations he creates for them makes him an original. It's 'all in the dialogue' for the filmmaker as obviously seen and heard in this film. An interesting observation, Tarantino's forte in his writing doesn't appear to be dialogue but in his character development.

A hugely unfortunate decision then, it seems that this "Grindhouse"/'B-Film' idea would be the way to showcase his latest original work. Had this film not been involved in this project, it would be obvious to most anyone the quality of his work. His films doesn't pander to trends and pop-culture but actually creates them in a seemingly intentional manner. It is annoying, but that doesn't mean were being subjected to a feature-length advertisement. There is content in all his works and it is also here in this one.

Packaged alongside Robert Rodriguez's movie and several trailers celebrating the 'Grindhouse' experience, this film doesn't fit in very well. It looks like the bad second movie of a double-bill show, which it turns out to be... but this complete version, separate from those other works proves very much that he has turned out another excellent film along the lines of his "Kill Bill" volumes.

As with what he's done with "Kill Bill", Tarantino has taken aspects(gimmicks... it seems) of(mostly from) certain genres and turns it into an original, diverting, entertaining film. It's been said that what he's personally 'into' at a particular point in time is what makes it into his films and it seems true. But personal prejudices aside, one sees a mastery of the medium and a deep appreciation for it coming from a talented filmmaker that is truly impressive. This is the quality one hopes to see from future releases.

Seen as a work amongst traditional 'Grindhouse' movie, "Death Proof" apparently fails with it's excessive dialogue-ridden scenes and inappropriate 'homages'. Seen as another piece from Tarantino's 'canon' it's something else entirely and it's actually, genuinely great.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Deep, Infectuous and Extremely Complex

[10/10 · 16 August 2002]

Re-reading my first comment on "Lawrence Of Arabia", I felt as if I had been shamelessly promoting a movie. Yet, somehow I would never want it removed for it was truly one of the greatest movies I have ever had the viewing pleasure. Overwhelming yet still seemingly down to earth, "Lawrence Of Arabia" proves to be just like the title character, an enigma. How talented the cast and crew are to have crafted such a magnificent and intense experience that will live in this and many other viewers' mind for as long as I can remember.

I don't want to comment on the acting, historical accuracy, story, screenplay or film-making aspects of this movie because I might just end up ruining the essence of what I and some others see as an incredible biopic. I certainly don't believe this movie fails on any aspect as far as I can see. If anybody hasn't seen this before, has four hours to spare and an open mind then please go see it. You may not get as much satisfaction as I did but as long as you keep an open mind you will find some good things worth seeing.

FINAL NOTE: Do not watch any other version except the Widescreen version for the reason that it was made for, in and only for Widescreen. Also the Bigger the display, the Better.

Out of the Past (1947)

Few Are As Excellent As This One

[10/10 · 28 January 2002]

"Out Of The Past" is a film that surpassed all my expectations. Few films have satisfied me as much as this. Believable characters with a great story makes this and other films like it good, but what separates this from all other 'Film-Noir', detective stories is it's dramatic mood. This is the only film I've ever seen where I know what's likely to happen yet somehow I find myself deeper and deeper in it's story. I find myself amidst all of the danger, disappointments and betrayals and still wanting more. No other movie will probably surpass this one's greatness (though some may be as great).

Eerie yet provocative, "Out Of The Past" is handled with seemingly great care by it's director, Jacques Tourneur. From the great camera shots of the trees in the forest location to the shots of San Francisco full of shadows at night, I was already impressed. Acting by Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, and every one of the cast only cemented the mood that made this movie so easily watchable. I consider this one of my favorites and one of the best movies I'll ever see in my lifetime.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

A Disturbing Masterpiece

[10/10 · 10 August 2001]

Stanley Kubrick's film of "A Clockwork Orange" is quite possibly the most apalling, sadistic, disgusting movie ever made. At the same time, it is also an intense, meticulously crafted, creative masterpiece. It is difficult to admit in our society that this film is a masterpiece because it's main character, a psychotic criminal that routinely exercises in rape, violence and Beethoven, can encounter injustice from a social group that we support and trust... government. Although 'Alex' (the main character) perform disturbing criminal acts, what the government did to him in this film was worse. It is extremely difficult to watch, yet it contains the film makers' brilliant observation of society. It is a film that demands to be seen (several times to be near-completely understood). Hopefully, the people who have not seen it should try to keep a very open mind while watching this. Not for the weak-at-heart.

Hannibal (2001)

'Silence' and 'Hannibal': Two Brain Films

[9 August 2001]

"Silence of the Lambs", the film that preceded this film starred Jodie Foster as "Clarice Starling" and Anthony Hopkins as "Dr. Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lecter" in Academy Award winning roles. "Hannibal" stars Julianne Moore as "Clarice Starling" and Anthony Hopkins back from Silence as "Dr. Lecter", the title character. As I write this, there haven't been any awards given to "Hannibal" nor award nominations so any future readers, bear with me.

First off, "Silence" is a good film from many standpoints. Story, acting, direction are all excellent. Unfortunately, "Silence" suffers "age-wise". As time goes by more and more viewers should realize what a negative effect time has had on this film. From the technical facilities, hairstyles, even the character's idealisms become outdated. I suppose we should wait and see what will become of this film 50 years from now. Still, no one can deny the marvelous work done by all involved in this film. The sequel definitely had big footsteps to follow.

"Hannibal" (even though many try to deny) is truly horribly done. The blame really must go to the director. Ridley Scott, who directed "Thelma & Louise" has forgotten what was good about his earlier films. Myself, not being a fan of his, saw some great things in his direction of "Blade Runner" and "Alien". Maybe, he wasn't responsible for those films after all. With "Gladiator", "Hannibal" is a capsule of his 'money-making' best but his 'creative' worst. There are enough plot holes, one-dimensional characters and confusing editing to annoy the most patient viewers of this film.

*POSSIBLE SPOILER*

While "Silence" lets you use your brain, "Hannibal" shows theirs and eats them. Uninvolving and plotless (A 'Psychological Thriller' without a plot?), it eventually become annoying. Showing off does not make for a good show.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Spielberg's Best Creatively

[9/10 · 9 August 2001]

"Schindler's List", "Saving Private Ryan", "Jaws", "E.T.", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", are just some in the list of movies that Steven Spielberg made as a director. They are great films in their own right yet somehow they don't seem suited for the director. "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" seem too intense for the director who made "E.T." and yet "E.T." seemed like it had a rather adult theme not suited for younger children. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is a standout among his most creative works. It was made when he was younger and in a time when his creativity meant success. A fantastic fantasy that has something to offer for everyone and special effects used to dazzle and not to overwhelm.

This is the film which truly should be considered his greatest for it expresses the director's talents and doesn't show them off. Spielberg's honest ideas seem ridiculously simple minded in "Saving Private Ryan" and too complicated to be understood by the target audience of "E.T.". The speeches and mannerisms of the soldiers during the quiet moments in "Ryan" feels out of place and takes away feelings of distress that the battle scenes had. The whole adults versus kids routine in "E.T." feels right but gives a negative view of adults to the children watching.

"Close Encounters" is by no means a perfectly executed film. The scenes with Richard Dreyfuss' character's family seem uneven and unexplained. Nevertheless it is Spielberg's best work for it's amazing depth and wonderous nature.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Scary and Heartbreaking Landmark Film

[7/10 · 9 August 2001]

The Manchurian Candidate is a tense and dramatic political thriller. Released in theatres in 1962, this film hit hard amongst the American public which saw it before it was promptly banned due to the events which soon followed. "Life...", I suppose "...imitates art." (art, of course being a loose term). It is as difficult a film to watch as it is to get away from. Except for a few racially stereotypical elements, 50's TV show style cinematography and rather odd moments and scenes, this is still a great film. These are most the details that I can say about the film without ruining the enjoyment for the others who have not seen it.

The Big Sleep (1946)

Suspend Your Disbelief And Be Confused

[9/10 · 9 August 2001]

Quite possibly the most complicated detective film ever made, "The Big Sleep" is can be definitely called a classic. This film proves that a movie does not need an understandable plot to be good. All those viewers who berate films because of the plot (lacking or complicated)should realize that just because a certain film does not fit into a mold like so many other films does not mean it's terrible. All it means is that movies can be good no matter how different. "The Big Sleep", a great film from great director Howard Hawks is complicated but good enough to be entertaining without understanding the plot. Considering how big Bogart was during the time this was made in Hollywood, we should all try and suspend our disbelief about all the women falling for him instantaneously. All in all a great fun movie.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

Defining Moment Of The 20th Century

[8/10 · 5 August 2001]

"Star Wars" is perhaps the most successful movie franchise of the 20th century. From movie ticket sales alone, it has made George Lucas a very wealthy man. Add the toys, games, t-shirts and other merchandise and it should establish Lucas as part of history. A person has just got to start wondering how this movie ever become so incredibly profitable. Although this movie is watchable and even innovative, I really cannot put "Star Wars" in the same categories as impressionable films like "Sunset Boulevard", "Stagecoach", "Casablanca", "The Bridge On The River Kwai" and even "Pulp Fiction".

My reason for saying that pertains to one factor, director George Lucas. Although many would argue, I think that Lucas is not a good director. He always seems to be lacking focus with Star Wars' story, in which was almost the case with "American Graffiti" (Thankfully, he didn't). I'm very impressed with the innovative visual effects of "Star Wars" as I am with any film afterwards that ever utilized it justifiably in connection with the certain film's story (it's sequel, "The Empire Strikes Back" is much better in many aspects). Unfortunately, outside of it's visual delights, it just doesn't have anything that other films hadn't already shown (even if this was made for children). From the whole "boy leaves home" beginning (Mickey Rooney has done it before with more feeling) to it's much appreciated "bar room scene" (straight out of many westerns and even some war themed films), there isn't anything we haven't seen before. Although the whole galactic twist on which the movie is based is totally original, majority of the ideas are still pretty much re-hashed from greater films (Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress", Errol Flynn/Michael Curtiz movies, etc.).

To re-evaluate, the bad parts consists of lack of originality. The idea's, topic's and situations' originality in which a film's greatness lies are sadly missing. The good parts which are visual design in terms of special effects and costumes definitely proves it's place in being a great landmark picture. I just don't recognize it as the one of the greats. This reaction could be the result of years of watching movies again and again and unexpectedly realizing a certain film's depth and lasting capabilities. A good, not great movie full of innovation yet lacking any depth that is only realized when seen again.

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)

Flawed Above-Average Mystery

[8/10 · 3 August 2001]

"The Lady From Shanghai" is known better as a film studio mishap than the good movie that it is. Orson Welles, one of the most celebrated film makers in history, directed, acted, as well as wrote this movie like he did so many others. Unfortunately like many of the others, in regards to the film studio's rights and ownership advantages, it was butchered. Sure, the film is in circulation on home video and such means but you're not getting the original Orson Welles film. What you get is a studio version of the Orson Welles film.

The film is a good mystery nonetheless but one who knows these facts about the film can not help but feel a bit unsatisfied. One can certainly appreciate that whenever a person's work is disassembled and taken away, one has to feel a certain loss and dismay. Orson Welles is one of the very best in his craft as his "untouched" films show. Though even in flawed studio treatments of his films like "Lady From Shanghai" it is still apparent that it came from the gifted hands of a talent.

This film may be a bit difficult to follow but a mystery should be. The manipulation of the viewer is the key to the greatness and therefore essential to any mystery film. If a mystery film doesn't make sense then it takes some entertainment out of a mystery and this movie does make sense after some observations on a second viewing. With extra viewings, hopefully you should see and appreciate bits of talent that only proves that Orson Welles deserves the accolades that he received in the latter half of his life. A film with a story not to be told but seen.

"The Lady From Shanghai" - Flawed yet still entertaining.

Sabrina (1995)

Remakes

[31 July 2001]

'Sabrina' was originally, a charming film made by Billy Wilder & crew and starred Hollywood legends Humphrey Bogart, William Holden and Audrey Hepburn. This 'Sabrina' is an updated version directed by Sydney Pollack that stars Harrison Ford, Greg Kinnear and Julia Ormond. Considering that this was a movie based on another movie, one cannot comment about this without the shadow of the original. I understand that many viewers have different opinions about both movies and I respect that. My opinion about it, is that both films have their pluses and minuses (for the lack of a better term) and those facts should be realized before attempting to insult either film. This is why I will try to be unbiased when writing about these films (I can only try).

I only heard that 'Sabrina' (1995) was a remake after viewing it. I have personal ideas that have had negative effects on my watching/enjoying remakes yet I am reluctant to hate this one so I went out and saw the original. After seeing the 1954 original, my perception of remakes changed. Not to say that this new version surpassed the original nor vice versa but I have a more positive view of remakes now that I have seen both. Since 'Sabrina' is a title role, I must say that both actresses fit into their roles rather nicely and in my attempt to justify both of everyone, will say that favorites depend on a certain individual's perceptions. Both are definitely enjoyable films.

My reasons for enjoying the original is first of all the direction of Billy Wilder. He is a great director that is definitely going to be (if not already) known as one of the best of all times. His work on the original is superb. Another reason is that this was made with well known actors and each at a high point in their careers. Even though I liked this version, I must say that the story wasn't that well developed (I understand that the script was being written as it was being shot) and there is where the newer version excels. The 1995 version featured much more developed sequences and additional dialogue that contributes to the solidity of the film and although I don't believe in computer coloring (horrible!), I think that 'Sabrina' looks better in color.

These are my personal opinions which I can only hope that others share so that they can enjoy these films as much as I did.

Stalag 17 (1953)

In Defense of "Stalag 17"

[8/10 · 24 July 2001]

In defense of this great film "Stalag 17", I would like to say a few things. First of all, William Holden's performance in this film gives this film a very big lead against many other films like it. Holden is a very good actor given a very good role here as Sefton, a soldier that uniquely accepts his situation. The other supporting, and even prominent roles are good but seems "intentionally" underdeveloped for the benefit of not complicating viewers with unnecessary information. The story, consisting of a "whodunit" plot, wartime ordeals, and amusing dialogue between the characters is superb for it's time. All in all, watching "Stalag 17" is at least a fine way to spend your time.

I've read many reviews that say that they were disappointed with this film. Some were annoyed because it wasn't as realistically gritty and tense like "Saving Private Ryan". Well, that's the effect of the Hays Offices (censorship officials of American produced movies during the past). I have to say that although it may have lacked the grittiness of Spielberg's film, it still surpasses "Saving Private Ryan" for it's honest approach to it's characters such as the POW that responds to his wife's letter ("I believe it.") with a certain kind of feeling that can truly be described as honest and the German "Wake up caller" Scherbach's constant joking around with POWs while remaining true to his kommandant's wishes. The 'Animal' and Shapiro characters were obviously created for comic relief but it should only be taken as that, comic relief (Hell, everyone's a comedian and at least they tried). Most anybody that was disappointed with this film were probably disappointed for it's strange association with the TV show "Hogan's Heroes". I must say that I don't care much for that certain show but I do like this film.

I really don't think that any film should ever be compared with another film or a TV show (unless it's a spinoff, then they're just asking for it) no matter how related they are. A movie is a movie on it's own and never with the help of another, no matter the similarities. This is a classic film, worthy of it's praise yet unworthy of it's negative critique. Nobody should let personal opinions be considered flaws. Just watch it, when you have the chance, with an open mind.

Born Yesterday (1950)

A seemingly neglected, wonderful movie

[9/10 · 9 July 2001]

A hidden gem (I say 'hidden' because as this comment is being written, there are only 400+ votes here in the ImDb for this movie) of a movie from 1950 is "Born Yesterday". Nominated for several Academy Awards and won Best Actress for Judy Holliday's performance of a "not-so-bright" fiancee of another "not-so-bright" but rich and powerful "junkman" played by Broderick Crawford. William Holden also shows another of his fittingly played performances as the newspaperman who teaches Judy Holliday's character the better things she's neglected to even try to learn. Another fine "Broadway Hit" that is preserved on film. Great acting and dialogue does enhance the quality of a movie and this proves it. It also tells a simple story of intelligence that should be heard once in a while. It is not perfect (probably as a result of because of the movie's age and contrast with modern society) but the imperfections could be ignored for it's truly wonderful feeling that reminds me of "Mr. Smith goes to Washington". A movie that should be seen by many politicians and anybody in power. It's just too bad that this movie came at the time of "Sunset Boulevard" and "All About Eve" because it seems to have been neglected as of late. Also, I would like to say to those who say Judy Holliday's performance isn't as deserving against Bette Davis' in All About Eve and Gloria Swanson's in Sunset Boulevard to figure out which one of the roles were the most difficult to play for each particular actress and in fact for any actress. I'm sure that Gloria Swanson's performance was difficult, but it was seemingly so close to her real life that it doesn't seem so difficult (Although that well known fact made 'Sunset Blvd' a greater Masterpiece). As for Bette Davis in 'All About Eve', it was also great but not very difficult for her (She never had a bad performance in her movie career).

Anyway, I recommend this movie to anybody who wants a meaningful movie for a change.

The Great Escape (1963)

Deserves it's popularity

[9/10 · 27 June 2001]

I wouldn't have given a review if I hadn't read a certain review from one of the previous reviewers. It's funny that the certain reviewer described "The Great Escape" as an example of Hollywood fluff and then recommends "Saving Private Ryan". I don't want to say anything bad about 'Saving Private Ryan' because I consider it a masterful, realistic piece of modern cinema but it does suffer from perhaps the cheesiest dialogue ever for a modern film. Unnecessary Speeches and unintentionally comical moments (such as several 'helmet' scenes in the middle of the 'Invasion' sequence) prevents 'Saving Private Ryan' from becoming a timeless classic.

"The Great Escape", which was released in 1963 may seem dated by today's and future standards but is nevertheless a joy to watch and definitely has a proper sense of dread for a war film. We must realize that a movie, whether based on real life or fiction, should be entertaining. If some uninvolving facts have to be altered for entertainment, then it has be done just as long as what is important is put to use (In this movie's case, the hope that one day they will escape). If a movie doesn't entertain, does it have much of an impact?

The characters' involvement with each other is remarkable considering how many of them are there. From the ways prisoners deal with each other, to the German Military and the Gestapo, it was an amazing feat for the cast and crew. This a "Great" movie and a remarkable achievement in editing, screenwriting and directing.

On that note, I have to say that I enjoyed this movie thoroughly, for it showed me a positive way to look at life and entertained me the way that no other war film ever has.

A Night at the Opera (1935)

Possibly the Best of all the Marx Brothers' Movies

[9/10 · 22 June 2001]

I consider "A Night At The Opera" the Marx Brothers' overall best movie for the reason that this is the most polished (production-wise) of all their movies. Another, and perhaps more important reason is that they are in a place were they could do the most damage, the opera. What better place for Marx brothers chaos and anarchy than a place in which the majority of the people are the conservative "upper class". Groucho, Chico and Harpo are put into situations in which they are in the middle of a rich woman trying to get into society, two singers in love, the meddlesome star of the opera, and the New York Opera Company. Like the earlier Marx film "Duck Soup", the musical parts of this movie are relevant and does not seem forced into the movie. The scenes have got to be seen to be believed so I don't even want to mention any. A great comedy that is perhaps the "greatest".

The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Good, but it seems like it was rushed

[8/10 · 17 June 2001]

I enjoyed watching this movie just as many did, but I don't think that it's the best that it could've been. I felt that this film lacked a cohesive structure and wasn't sure what it was trying to be. Was it "Film Noir"? Was it "Suspense"? A "Melodrama"? A "Comedy" even? Entertaining yet not entirely satisfying. Maybe it was a rushed production. Maybe it was Charles Laughton's direction. Whatever the problem was, it left the movie incomplete.

As far as acting is concerned, Robert Mitchum and Lillian Gish are excellent. Shelley Winters and the others were fine but had such awkward characters to work with. Mitchum is unforgettable in the role of the scariest villain I've ever seen. Anybody can play a psychotic preacher, but no one with more believability as he portrayed it. It nearly typecasted him. Only with his preacher character can you understand why so many people are using God's name in the way that they do (cults/hate groups).

The dialogue does have some laughably bad moments but does not take away much from the better ones. My real problem is with the pacing (a plus factor for some, yet another problem for me). There was just not enough time spent on making sure the characters were developed into characters to be appreciated. One hour and thirty minutes is just not enough time to involve the most important part of film... the audience. Maybe this was one of those films that defies classification or genre. Maybe it's supposed to be some kind of unique masterpiece. What ever it is... For what it is it's untapped potential to me.

'Til There Was You (1997)

Simple story made for hopeful romantics

[6/10 · 27 May 2001]

I do not know what reviews some critics gave for this film but it was probably horrendous because critics seem to have their own definitions of what a movie should be about from the films they've enjoyed early on in their lives/careers. I also bet that the reviews are horrible because they have seen these actors in other performances and have been somehow annoyed by them therefore becoming slightly biased. I myself am biased towards/against some actors, directors and even certain film critics.

This movie in particular offers many styles and direction that have been used before in other much more acclaimed films (I will not name any because truthfully nothing comes to mind). What I appreciated about this film is it's simplicity in terms of telling it's story. It runs a straight line that doesn't use much dreamlike flashbacks, dream sequences and it doesn't even try to become innovative. A movie that runs like a well told story with no flashy effects that could deter the watcher from what we're supposed to be paying attention to... the story. I could understand why people should not like this as much as I do and I don't blame them. We each have our own vision of what we want and I like this movie.

Focusing on the movie, I think that all the main characters are well developed. Dylan McDermott, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker have a strange and yet wonderful chemistry together (Although not all of the characters know each other, their scenes are actually realistically acted). Scenes, from the watching of the fictitious TV show by the two leads to the scene which they finally meet is so unexpected that it is realistic.

In conclusion, I have to say that watching this was a pleasant experience (although many cliched dialogue and situations). People should see it with an open mind and try to enjoy.

Gladiator (2000)

A "Sorry" to Russell Crowe's "Insider"

[3/10 · 15 April 2001]

The only reason that Russell Crowe received the best actor award at the Oscars is for "Gladiator" is to make up for not giving him the award for his performance in The Insider the year before. A charismatic actor, Russell Crowe was the only reason to watch this overrated movie. I've lost faith in the Academy for their past choices when it comes to their "Best Picture Award". "American Beauty" and "Unforgiven" were the only winners that truly deserved the award.

Though supposedly historically correct, the story does not offer anything to be impressed about. Russell Crowe's character "Maximus" is unbelievably noble (Spaniard with Australian accent?) throughout this 3 hour movie. Even his brutal killings (to prove what point?) are designed to be admired. All the characters are one-dimensional and dialogue is clichèd to the point of being ridiculously fun (not a good thing).

*POSSIBLE SPOILER*A general wins a battle, loses everything (position as general and family) and climbs up the ladder of success to face the evil emperor to a predictable end... Death.

The story is the least of this movie's problems when compared to the battle scenes. The camera moves too quickly and misses it's aim most of the time (horrible, even if it was intentional). This is what you get when you pace the camera for a gunfight instead of a swordfight. Editing is even worse than the cinematography if you examine it closely enough. A scene in which a sword is taken by Maximus from an opponent is unbelievably screwed up. After all of that, we are exposed to a rollercoaster ride in which the rails have loose screws.

Yet, after all it's flaws, majority of the people like this movie. Why? Add it's box-office competition when it was first released with a barrage of more horrible movies plus advertising and promotion plus DVD with special features designed to make people admire it even more plus Russell Crowe with Meg Ryan equals "Movie of the Year". It's difficult to disagree with majority but this is very overrated.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

The Force

[8/10 · 10 March 2001]

George Lucas' Star Wars is a wonderfully produced film about a boy that wants to find his place in the universe and is placed in life-changing situations. George Lucas' imagination comes to life in Star Wars. A simple yet meaningful story is combined with the futuristic vision of George Lucas along with special effects way ahead of it's time. Along with Episode V and VI, the Luke Skywalker trilogy of Star Wars is a satisfying movie experience. For me personally, I think this is a beautiful movie that gives us many essentials in quality film making. A story with necessary elements (a "coming-of-age" film), breathtaking scenery, a capable cast and an inspired director. A great film overall. Of course, a movie can not be without it's flaws (No matter how much we want it to be perfect, it isn't). I myself didn't feel much of an impact while watching this movie. The story wasn't relevant to what I believed in and the special effects and robots' dialogue do take away from the overall impact of the film. The dialogue was a little weird but I guess that was expected due to the futuristic nature of the film's setting. Overall, the film's slight flaws that I've pointed out can not take away from the greatness of the film and to some people, may give opposite reactions that I've had. To the people that seem to hate everything they see in this movie, I say keep an open mind and enjoy.

The Matrix (1999)

Four out of Ten

[3/10 · 2 March 2001]

I used to think that this was a very innovative movie and is one of the best I've seen. After a few more repeat viewings, I changed my mind. Sure enough, the special effects are one of the best ever seen in film history so far but what at first seems like a brilliant plot became tiresome and unbelievable after further analysis.

Keanu Reeves also shows us how bad acting can affect an otherwise above average movie. Keanu is just lifeless and seemed to look clueless as his character Neo. He makes Neo look like an idiot that is just plain lucky. Even a great supporting cast led by Larry Fishburne, Joe Pantoliano and newcomer Carrie Ann Moss can't redeem Keanu's performance in this movie.

The plot, that of a conspiracy of machines and computers, seems impressive at first because it makes you say to yourself, "Why didn't I think of that?". But when you figure out *(NOW THIS IS A SPOILER!)* that you have thought of this world created by machines in our mind before, this movie will be as horrible for you as it was for me at my 4th viewing. The visual effects can be irritating to the eyes at times but is without a doubt beautiful.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Heroism brilliantly shown

[10/10 · 2 March 2001]

When it come to making epics, David Lean is the master and what better proof than this masterpiece. "Lawrence Of Arabia" was first shown in 1962 and after almost 40 years later, it is still beautiful. The story of T. E. Lawrence is wonderfully brought to us by David Lean, director of another masterpiece called "The Bridge On The River Kwai".

David Lean has shown us a man's long, yet never boring (at least for me) journey into the deserts of Arabia. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) is an ordinary man that becomes a hero (at least in my eyes) during his extensive tenure in Arabia. He becomes a traveler, a great man, and a leader to the people that he has associated with. Only director David Lean could have given us a movie experience like this.

An assortment of phenomenal actors are collected for this movie and what a cast! Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Alec Guiness and so much more portray their characters with intensity and believability. Never have I been so impressed. As Lawrence, Peter O'Toole plays the role of which his name is most associated with and is surprising for me that he made the role his own because before I got a chance to see this movie I imagined a man opposite from someone like Peter O'Toole. Omar Sharif as Ali is one of the most charismatic characters in film history. I will not say anymore about the cast because I'm allowed only 1,000 words to use in my comment.

Will all do respect to classics such as "Gone With The Wind" and even "Bridge on the River Kwai"this is without a doubt the most exciting epic of all time. I highly recommend it!

Fight Club (1999)

Intense!

[10/10 · 22 February 2001]

When I first saw the movie trailer of Fight Club, I thought that this has some potential to be a good movie. But... I didn't get to see this movie because of a hectic schedule that I set myself up for. Exhausted, I stopped following my schedule a few months later. I went out, got myself a membership to a local video store and decided to become an instant movie buff and got a whole bunch of newly released video tapes. Out of all the movies I saw, Fight Club stood out and was the only movie that I repeated over and over. I knew about the great actors, interesting idea and the violence of this movie, but I was shocked to find a thought-provoking and breathtaking film. I have seen hundreds of movies before this and I was impressed to say the least. This is the most relevant movie for me. Like the main character, (played effortlessly by Edward Norton) I also was and still is suffering from insomnia and also from, what looks to be the same reasons as he was. He was suffering and needed something in his life. He meets Tyler Durden (seemingly played with great ease by Brad Pitt) in a plane trip and becomes his new best friend. Together, they develop Fight Club (self-explanatory isn't it?). I will not say more about this movie because I want people who haven't seen this to not know what to expect like I did when I watched this film. The surprise does help give the film the feeling that it needs. Not a film for everyone due to excessive violence, sex and gore ,but for anyone who can stand it all and hasn't seen it yet, watch it!

The Godfather (1972)

Cinematic Masterpiece That Has Not Been Surpassed

[10/10 · 14 February 2001]

A favorite by so many people in the world, Mario Puzo's The Godfather is considered by many, including myself, to be the greatest accomplishment in the history of cinema. Director Francis Ford Coppola has masterfully visualized the ambience and power of the novel. Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Robert Duvall and the rest of the cast has brought to life one of the most acclaimed film of all time. The popularity of this film is not surprising because it contains memorable music, moving scenes, thought provoking dialogue/phrases and extraordinary acting by an extraordinary cast. At the risk of sounding redundant, which in the case of giving thoughts about this movie is a given, it is so much more than what it seems storywise. If I try to even explain this aspect of the movie, I'd lose myself. This film is important to so many people that I recommend it to anyone that haven't seen it (which are some very unlucky people I might add). Unfortunately, no simple explanation could ever compensate for the experience of watching Don Vito Corleone and His Family's Tale of Crime and Family. In conclusion, I wish to say that everybody should see it for themselves and be enlightened to what could be a wonderful journey and learning experience.