Reviews

Not trying to give this movie an actual review, I just want to say a few things. Yes, this film has some thrilling action sequences and, for the most part, is entertaining. However, similar to the final chapter in The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson seems to drill his points home as if he's making movies for a slow-witted audience. How many moments do we need Naomi Watts to look into the ape's eyes and "see something beautiful." I think we can ascertain what Jackson is trying to convey more quickly than he thinks we can.

I bring up The Return of the King because I thought that was a fine movie with overt flaws of the same kind. I think we realized the Hobbits were happy in the first ten seconds of their celebration after discovering they all had survived. We didn't need two more minutes of it. Peter, do you think we are all stupid? Another example of this kind of thing is when we are learning that Adrien Brody and Watts are falling in love. Instead of a few subtle glances, we are subjected to a scene where they are locked in a stare that borders on foolishness.

Larry David is not your typical television star. When I saw an ad for "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO, I thought the guy was milking his status as Seinfeld co-creator and trying to place himself in the spotlight. I was probably right for the most part. I wasn't right in thinking that this show could not be as good as Seinfeld. CYE is not as overtly funny as its David created predecessor, but its more subtle. As observed by others, it has innate qualities that distinguish it from the forerunner, and make it just as enjoyable, if not more interesting. The most obvious of these being that on HBO, you have much less censorship. CYE also takes from some of the awkwardly funny moments from Seinfeld and amps them up. If Seinfeld used some uncomfortable scenes as segues into sociological banter, CYE gets the comedy directly from these scenes.

It is true that in many episodes, the supporting characters' actions toward Larry seem absurd. Many of these characters are confrontational to the point of complete foolishness. The way that Larry handles these adversaries is where the real hilarity lies. Instead of avoiding these obviously irrational people, he becomes as nutty as them in his retaliations. So, while many of the happenings that result from these conflicts are far-fetched, we must remember, this is still a situational comedy. These situations generate the comedy.

One strength of this show is the improvisational aspect. You get the idea that the characters are performing off-the-cuff and responding more like real people in real situations. While there is an outline that the actors work with, the actual lines are pretty much made up. This, coupled with the documentary type camera work, makes the show feel more unpredictable. Having famous comedians like Richard Lewis and Rob Reiner as well as actors Jason Alexander, Ted Dansen and a host of others play themselves, also gives the show an unusual element. These actors, especially Richard Lewis, are probably playing themselves fairly accurately, while embellishing their quirks to poke fun at themselves as well as the preconceived notions the audience may have of them.

Overall, this is one of the better sitcoms out there. That may not be saying much since, by design, sitcoms are formulaic. It is something to note the transitions these popular programs have made over the years. CYE is a long way from "Leave it to Beaver". Think about 50's television. Almost all the shows concerned a family. Usually a mother and father dealing with the parenting of several children ranging in age. Mostly more of the same in the 60's, with perhaps more emphasis on the lives of the youthful like in "Happy Days". The 70's brought about shows like "Threes Company" focusing on single roommates living an "unconventional" lifestyle. The 80's reverted back to family scenarios such as: "The Cosby Show", "Family Ties", and "Growing Pains." In the 90's we saw the popularity of shows dealing with single people without families rise. "Friends", "Seinfeld", and others garnered the most viewers while family based sitcoms dwindled. Now, in the beginning of the 21st century, family based shows and "alternative lifestyle" shows try hard to keep up with "reality" TV. Of course, in each era, there were exceptions, and these are only a few examples amidst the plethora of television series' throughout history. The history of sitcoms - what an arena. Its actually kind of disconcerting that I can ramble on this topic for so long. Lets end it now before I embarrass myself even more.

*assumes knowledge of film - contains details of plot*

2001: A Space Odyssey is just that: a long wandering voyage of the body and mind. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark collaborated brilliantly. In examining both works, the film and the novel, there are certainly differences, yet the theme and overall idea coincide thoroughly. That this was made in the 1960's augments both accomplishments. The visuals, seen in 2004, are still captivating. What they must've seemed like in 1968! I flout those who received this movie poorly in those days. Would I have received it as well without having a preconceived idea of its greatness? I can only hope I would have known what I was watching.

It is rare a movie inspires me to read the novel it is based on. Here is one occasion. On my first viewing of the film, I was baffled by the special effects so my appreciation was attained. This was done when digital effects did not exist. Scenes of the space station, the moon, Jupiter, Earth from space, and the sun are model works at their finest. However, I thought I did not fully grasp the story. After reading the book and seeing the film again, I realized I comprehended more than I gave myself credit for on that first watch. This is a work that was meant to raise questions rather than give solutions. At any rate, I was extremely pleased with the book, which brought about a need to see the film again.

My second viewing heightened my reverence for Stanley Kubrick. What he chose to include, change and eliminate is crucial to the film's success, as well as a tribute to his discretion. Clarke's novel does disentangle some details. There is no better way to completely realize the ascent to the Star Child than to read Clarke's final chapters. Still, cinematically, with no dialog or voice-over, Kubrick gives enough clues for an intelligent viewer to take in the concept. To a lesser extent, the trek Dave Bowman takes to another dimension/galaxy, which is explained in great detail in the book, cannot be fully construed visually. Still, you know what's happening when Bowman enters the "wormhole". Your eyes are lucky, too. If you ever wanted to experience true psychedelia and haven't the stomach for hallucinogens, here's your chance.

2001 originated from Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel." This, in no way, takes away from the originality of the film. An obvious benediction of the movie is Kubrick's use of music. The classical pieces intensify the sense of awe. From the ape man to the starchild, the music detaches us from the events. We view them as we would events in a documentary. Kubrick deliberately adds, deletes and modifies. Hal never reads the lips of the astronauts in the book. This is a stroke of genius in the motion picture.

We are not as far along in space exploration as 2001 predicts we would be by now. It's eerily accurate nevertheless. With the Hal 9000 computer, we see humans as secondary in astronomical research. In today's actual space missions, humans are rarely even along for the ride. While technology is not capable of the malevolence seen in Hal, it is certainly as, if not more, important to the furthering of our knowledge, as Clarke envisioned in his writings.

The movie, coupled with the novel, awakened my interest in astronomy and particularly astrophysics. It also made me aware of the importance modern media and people in general place on somewhat trivial events, while our planet rotates on its own axis at one thousand miles an hour, and revolves around our sun at around sixty-six thousand miles an hour. These types of facts may seem trivial, but does the latest reality T.V. show, or the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger called some other politician a girly man blow your mind?

Arthur C. Clarke was a forward thinker. His ideas on astronomy were far ahead of his time. Stanley Kubrick was extremely gifted at finding challenging pieces of literature and turning them into spectacular films. The film and the novel are transcendent. They evoke emotions beyond the everyday. Of course, if works of art like this were in abundance, they wouldn't be masterpieces.

Rushmore is a movie about Max Fischer(Jason Schwartzman): a young man who is enrolled in the prestigious prep-school bearing the movie's title. He is far more ambitious than most. His problem is that he spreads himself too thin. He is the founder or president of half a dozen clubs and involved in many others as well. He is in so many clubs and organizations, in fact, that his grades are horrible. He's obviously smart enough to get better grades. When the school's headmaster tells him he's about to be expelled if he fails one more test, Max thinks of ways to get around it, without ever even considering buckling down and studying.

The story gets interesting when he becomes friends with a rich Rushmore alumnus named Herman(Bill Murray). Shortly after, Max falls for a teacher at Rushmore, Ms. Cross(Olivia Williams). From here, Max and Herman's friendship is thoroughly tested when Herman realizes he is also in love with the timorous Rosemary Cross, despite being a married man with two children.



The movie certainly has its funny moments. I especially liked Murray's speech in an early scene. He urges the students that aren't already rich to "take dead aim on the rich ones." I also enjoyed hearing all of Max's embellishments. He tells people his father, a barber, is a brain surgeon.



When the movie gets too serious is when it looses its way a bit. Max becomes sinister in his actions against Herman during their dispute over Ms. Cross. A scene involving Max and Ms. Cross also is quite staid and seems like it belongs in a different film.

Finally, director Wes Anderson gives us a trite ending that detracts from the overall tone of the movie. I guess I did want everything to work out for Max, but things get hunkydory to the point of silliness. Anderson's film is mostly offbeat and should have stayed that way for the duration.

City of God is a vivid, compelling work of art. Not only do directors Katia Lund and Fernando Meirelles tell an amazing coming of age story, but they also graphically display the violence and danger of life in the slums of Rio. This is a place where one certainly does not have to look for trouble to find it. Children grow up with a gun in their hand and a nonexistent conscience. School and work are frivolous activities reserved for the weak and meek. Hoodlums, as they are called, can become revered for their crimes and "getting out" is something frequently discussed but rarely done.

Rocket(Alexandre Rodrigues) narrates the film as one of the few characters who does not fall victim to a gangster lifestyle. This is one case where each character is truly victimized, whether they are killing, being killed or just trying to stay out of the way. The film shows, with unparalleled clarity, how incredibly young children can become murderers. It also depicts the innate differences in people even in this environment.

Rocket's brother Goose, along with a couple buddies, get the story going and set the foundation for what will become a horrible cycle. Children start out idolizing the current hoodlum leaders and "grow up" to become killers, thieves and rapists. Long before their wicked florescence, what innocence they had is lost by constant exposure to grotesque violence.



As leadership is fought for constantly, and drugs become the most important commodity in the city's economy, Rocket tries to have a much more subdued adolescence. He isn't that interested in taking up the family business of selling fish, but he also does not want to be a hoodlum like his brother. He smokes pot and hangs out with the groovy crowd. He does consider crime. On a bus and at a diner he tries his hand at robbery, but never gets the gun out of his pocket. People he encounters seem to be "too cool" for him to steal from. Later on, he gets a job delivering papers, hoping he can eventually use his interest in photography to escape his abysmal surroundings.

Subplots abound and they are wonderfully thought-out and executed. Things we suspect are substantiated and things we never thought of are uncovered. Its all so tightly wrapped and succinctly told with such velocity that I was astonished to find that I had just watched a two hour movie. City of God is an amazing movie thats a surefire classic.

21 Grams is an excellent film. Marked by raw, emotional performances, a caliginous atmosphere, and a dissevered timeline, this is one of the best films I've seen for some time. Director Alejandro Inarritu is certainly a talented filmmaker with style galore. Many have questioned the relevance of telling this story in a non-chronological order. Others have said it adds value to the narrative by forcing us to pay attention, thus helping character development. I have to agree more with the latter. This film would have been moving told in a traditional fashion, but placing the events in a strange pattern heightens emotion in certain scenes. We see something happening that we don't understand, then we are taken back to an earlier time, then we're told more about that earlier event in the film that actually happened later in the lives of the characters. We sometimes know what is going to happen, we sometimes do not know what happened. It sounds confusing, but it isn't that bad. By the end, we know everything important and even tidbits that are quite endearing.

Each of the headlining actors are incredibly passionate in this film. Namoi Watts especially does a wonderful job exemplifying pain and anguish. Sean Penn and Benicio Del Toro each do outstanding work as well. The supporting cast is also top notch with Charlotte Gainsbourg playing Del Toro's troubled wife who struggles to hold her family together, and Clea DuVall does great as a friend to Watts.

The story revolves around Penn, Del Toro and Watts. It is fairly easy to start to see how they are interconnecting. This is another reason why I think Inarritu decided to use a skewed order. The story is fairly simple and relies on coincidences for much of its interest. The disorder adds interest. I was reminded of Magnolia, a movie that seemed to be about coincidences but was ultimately about forgiveness. 21 grams ends up being a movie about redemption, although it really drags you around to get there. I would rather not reveal any specific plot details, because a little information can go a long way in a film like this.

This was a reminder to me about the influence Christopher Nolan's Memento has had on movies. Since that film there have been many attempts to use a disjointed sequence of events to add value to a film. While this film does not measure up to Nolan's masterpiece, it was a brave attempt. More people are taking from Nolan than any filmmaker since Tarantino released Pulp Fiction, and you'd have to say Nolan was probably influenced a bit from Quentin, too. Memento stands as a landmark and will only grow from here.

Big Fish is a unique and fascinating movie. While the comparison to The Wizard of Oz may be a little high-reaching(in 1939 The Wizard of Oz was a landmark film beyond what Big Fish is today), I can see why people may make that connection. They are both whimsical tales of adventure. Visually, it is fictive, but not in the way the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies are. The chimera in Edward Bloom's mind is understated. We see what we are meant to see: an embellishment of what really happened. Yes, many of the scenes representing Bloom's stories are impossible, but they are not as incredible as other stories and fantasies.

William Bloom(Billy Crudup) is a fellow who started viewing his father as an extraordinary hero, then a tall tale teller and finally as a liar. During his wedding night, William is perturbed when his father tells a story about catching a gigantic fish with a wedding ring. One he's heard since childhood. William feels he is only a "footnote" in the story and his father is telling it merely to stroke his own ego. After this event, William and Edward(Albert Finney) do not speak for three years. When William's mother, Sandra(Jessica Lange), calls to tell of Edward's poor health and ensuing death, he decides to see his father and find the truth about the man he knows only through the outlandish stories he's heard.

The opening scenes show that William is not only upset with his father for telling him these stories, but he's tired of hearing them told to his friends, dates and anyone else old Edward can get an ear from. Flashbacks abound throughout. We soon delve into the visual presentation of these stories as they are told. As William makes it home to see his dying dad, we go back in time to see Edward as a young boy and then as a young man, played with jocund bravado by Ewan McGregor.



As we begin young Edward's adolescence, he is talented at basketball, football and baseball. He, in his own words, is the biggest thing the town of Ashton had ever seen. We are immediately taken into the fictional parts of the tales. First, Ed Bloom encounters a witch, a giant: a man as big as a two story house. An enchanted forest is next, then a werewolf and on and on we go. The town of Spectre is seen like everything else: through the embellishing eye of Edward. This is an important part of the film because it is a place like many may stop in their lives. Its a town that seems like a great place to stay. Yet something is calling Edward somewhere else. It is looked back on with nostalgia and as a would-be wonderful final destination, but not a place to be when you are young and filled with ambition and adventure. This resonates deeply with anyone who has ever found themselves in an unexpected town or city that seemed terrific, yet they knew they had to leave.



One of the most remarkable things about the film is the resemblance between Ewan McGregor and Albert Finney as well as Alison Lohman and Jessica Lange(young and old Sandra). This is simply perfect casting. Many films lack this. They use the same actor for young and old roles. This works much better.



Another of the endearing qualities of the film is that as William slowly realizes his father isn't the liar he thought, the flashbacks become less fairy tale and slowly seem more realistic. This intertwines beautifully. Finally, we see the giant as just an abnormally tall man of about 7'6". We see that the twins from his military exploits aren't really conjoined, but simply identical twins. So in the end, William sees his father for what he is. He's not a liar, and he's not the hero he was to William as a child. He's a tall tale teller. A man who romanticizes his stories and embellishes them so that they are a bit larger than life. The question is, is there any real harm in that, or does it just make life a little sweeter?

Oh yeah, its about revenge.

Negative comments about this movie seem to pertain to there being a lack of plot and dialogue. Some critics think that the film is incomplete. Everything about it, however, is intentional. Less dialogue gives more time to action, the plot is simplistic on purpose, and the movie may be seen as incomplete, because it is the first half of a two-part story.

The film reminded me more of Lock Stock and Two Smokin' Barrels than Pulp Fiction. But, then again, Barrels reminded me a bit of Pulp Fiction when I first saw it. At its worst Kill Bill Vol. 1 is Matrixy, with its huge fight scene involving The Bride(Uma Thurman) against the countless foes of the Crazy 88. At its best, Kill Bill is a fantastic action packed movie that takes on the look and feel of Japanese Anime(and there is even a short section that is animated).

The fight scene pitting The Bride against O-Ren Ishii looks like a state of the art fighting game on the XBox gaming console. So much style and pop-culture references arise throughout that I don't know if this is on purpose or not. Tarantino keeps the movie in its own world where Japanese steel is used to make a sword that is the ultimate weapon. The world is similar to ours in the 21st century, but it follows different guidelines. We see guns used, but only in certain situations. The sword is the honorably weapon of choice.

Thurman, Liu and crew do a great job at doing what they are suppose to do, which is: look tough, act cool, seem passionate about what's going on, and be beautiful.

North by Northwest is a highly touted Alfred Hitchcock film. Ranked among his classics such as Vertigo, Rear Window, and Notorious, N.b.N. is generally thought of as one of the suspense master's all-time greats. It is an overall appealing film but is not on the same level as the aforementioned flicks. There are terrific moments, but the film doesn't come together as well as these other Hitchcock thrillers. The ending is not quite up to par, either.

The movie deals with Roger Thornhill(Cary Grant) as a cool, witty advertising executive in Manhattan. He is wrongly identified as an agent for the government by a crime organization. He is setup and narrowly escapes his first brush with danger. The police do not believe his story, and everyone, including Thornhill's own mother, thinks he is out of his mind. From here, Grant goes on a wild ride to clear his name and find out what the hell is going on.

This ride involves planes, trains and automobiles and he meets up with Eve Kendall(Eva Marie Saint) who is very forward with him, and we can tell right away that she's up to something. Their conversation reminded me of a conversation Frank Sinatra has with Janet Leigh in The Manchurian Candidate. Unlike the latter, which can be seen as having several different meanings and subliminal messages, Grant and Saint have chemistry in their teasing, but it stays rather one dimensional and more formulaic.



Scenes like the one where Grant intentionally gets arrested at an auction to escape a couple henchmen are comical and clever. Even now with computers and high-tech special affect the cropduster and Mt. Rushmore scenes are exhilarating, to say the least. The cinematography is wonderful throughout the picture, and except for the 50's automobiles and attire, looks remarkably fresh and modern.

While Vertigo's ending was one of the most shocking, Rear Window's the most suspenseful, and Notorious' perfectly fitting, N.b.N.'s didn't thrill me quite the same. Perhaps I am being overly critical because of my expectations. The three Hitchcock movies I've compared to North by Northwest are all 10's in my book, while this one gets an 8. I enjoyed watching it and recommend it to anyone, especially suspense/thriller or Hitchcock fans.

Oskar Schindler represented a snippet of hope and optimism for an otherwise beleaguered people. The fact that one man could be responsible for saving well over 1000 people is astonishing in itself. The story Schindler's List tells magnifies our astonishment. How a man who seems so self-absorbed and moneygrubbing could end up sacrificing his fortune and risking his own life to save others, is what the film principally deals with. This interesting subject, shown in the midst of the Holocaust, and combined with other interesting subplots, makes for a stirring movie experience.

One detail quite noticeable and frequently discussed is the occasional use of color in this black and white picture. The most obvious of these being a small girl in red coat. We see the girl and follow her path for a short time in the film. This is symbolic on many different levels. I see her mostly as a glimmer of hope in a tenebrous world for the Jews. Later, her red coat looms on top of a pile of dead bodies. Here, we see her singled out among the dead to remind us that while 6 million died, each individual's death mattered.

The cast is wonderful. Liam Neeson plays Schindler subtly but with the right emotion at the right time. Ralph Fiennes plays a pertinacious German officer with zest and complexity. The rest of the cast, especially Ben Kingsley as an intelligent Jewish accountant who starts out helping Schindler but finds a way to help his people, too, all play their roles accordingly. Certainly, anyone who enjoys film should add this to their collection.

This review may reveal plot details undesirable for those who have not seen the movie.

Has anyone compared Johnny Depp's last three performances in The Pirates of the Caribbean, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and now Secret Window, to Marlon Brando's in A Street Car Named Desire or On the Waterfront? The two do not necessarily share the same individualizing characteristics(although they do have a few inherent similarities), but both brought something virtually unidentifiable to the screen for these films. Several other actors have peculiarities that are intriguing and help account for their appeal, but I think these two share some common element I have yet to define.

Secret Window banks on Depp's charm for most of its allure. It turns out to be a good investment. While the film lacks originality, it is entertaining. The story borrows from previous movies, especially Fight Club. Still, the plot is not vacant, and some memorable moments are presented in a glib manner that adds uniqueness.

The movie concerns a writer who has recently discovered his wife's infidelity and is now living alone in a secluded cabin. The writer(Depp) is having trouble coming up with ideas for a new story and spends much more time lying around on his couch, in cloths that have not been changed for quite awhile, than he does actually writing. These scenes would seem empty without Depp there to draw you in.

The conflict begins when a Mississippi dairy farmer(John Turturro) shows up accusing Depp of stealing a story written years earlier. From here, Turturro becomes more threatening and Depp becomes more scared and confused. The antagonist assures Depp he will involve his wife. Depp acquires help from the local sheriff and a bodyguard. There is a major plot twist that becomes apparent at some point in time. The moment in which it does depends on your level of attention.

There are several references made to other stories that are correlative. There is deliberate foreshadowing throughout the film. The director(David Koepp) is obviously not going for a total shock with the ending. Suspense is gained because once we figure out bits of the mystery, we are surprised by something off the wall. Johnny Depp is certainly thrusting the art of acting somewhere new, which elevates this movie above its otherwise mediocrity.

The Manchurian Candidate is a political thriller to match "Notorious" and nearly as taut a satire as "Dr. Stangelove." The latter has more black humor, but The Manchurian Candidate has quite a bit of dry wit beneath its tense exterior. Expertly made, this film presents several plot twists but manages to make the surface story easily manageable.

Beneath the suspenseful story of Sgt. Raymond Shaw and Major Ben Marco, underlining concepts become apparent. Along with there platoon, the two men are captured during the Korean War. The men are brainwashed by Russian and Chinese doctors and officers. Shaw is the focus. He seems to have qualities desirable for an unconscious assassin. The plot swerves from here, as Marco becomes both advocate and opposition to Shaw.

Senator and Mrs. Iselin(Shaw's stepfather and mother) are tools for lampoonery. McCarthyism is attacked by comparisons of it and the unsubstantiated accusations of communism made by the Senator, who is probed to make them by his wife. It is a direct attack on a known fallible idea but also assails other less obvious evils of politics: Especially those associated with elections.

The subplot hardest to understand completely is the love affair between Major Marco and the woman he meets on a train, Rosie. The scene in which they meet hints at the idea that Rosie is an operative for the enemy. This theory never materializes, but this may be purposeful, to add mystique to an already remarkable movie.

Angela Lansbury is quite dislikable as Shaw's mother, Lawrence Harvey is a perfect brainwashed zombie as Sgt. Raymond Shaw, James Gregory plays a drunken puppet well as Senator Iselin, and Frank Sinatra surprises with a complex role as Major Marco. The supporting actors give stellar performances as well. The Manchurian Candidate thrills, enthralls, and stirs imagination.

Fortunately for Mel Gibson, when a film is talked about as much as this one, people will go see it. Unfortunately for the people that go see it, Mel Gibson has made a controversial film that teaches little while torturing a lot. Unlike some films where violence plays an important role in the film's intention, The Passion isn't bringing something fresh to the screen. This story is familiar to most people. Retelling a story that has been told so many times before, only telling it in more graphic detail, is arguably irrelevant.

For those who know the story, seeing Jesus tortured for a dismal length of time does not move nor does it educate. Worse, if you are not acquainted with these events, The Passion is so confined to the arrest and execution of Jesus that virtually none of Jesus' teachings and life are depicted. Therefore, what are we to gain from this film: a better appreciation for Christ's pain and agony? Any Christian who has had even the smallest teaching should be mindful of this. Does it help us to see shreds of flesh and streams of flowing blood?

Personally, I wish I had not gone to see this film. I feel like one of the many sheep who flocked to the theater because of hype. One idea the movie really drives home is how horribly cruel people can be to another human being. I already knew that, though.

Following is an intriguing thriller that requires constant awareness to be completely understood. The plot has many twists and uses displaced chronology. The event sequence complicates following Following. If you are willing to pay attention, it is an exciting movie full of noir earmarks. With the running time at 70 minutes, there is a lot to take in, but the fast pace helps to keep the viewer enthralled.

Bill is a lonely, untidy fellow who takes up shadowing people and seeing where they go-what they do. He is a bit too conspicuous, however, and eventually gets caught by a well dressed, clean-cut bloke named Cobb. Cobb entangles Bill in a world the poor boy is not prepared to live in. Cobb is a smart rogue who seems to have complete control over the other characters. By the end of the film the disjointed story is explained thoroughly. The film is an excellent first effort from the talented Christoper Nolan, who would go on to make Memento, one of the most original movies of our time.

These guys are funny. The thing that really makes this double DVD great, though, is the talent Kyle and Jack possess. You'll be hard-pressed to find a frontman as vigorous as JB. He is humorous, but also positively intense. He has a remarkable vocal range. Kyle's guitar work is highly commendable as well.

The episodes from HBO and other exploits on the DVD are worthwhile, but not as enjoyable for me as the concert. I do recommend this DVD in its entirety. Anyone who dislikes the use of the "f" word may not agree with me.

I have been renting movies from netflix at a good pace for about 3 months now. During that time I have done my best to see films that are critically acclaimed as well as intriguing to me. Among the movies I've received; Citizen Kane, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, A Streetcar Named Desire, Dog Day Afternoon, Vertigo, Rear Window, Casablanca, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, Platoon and Requiem For a Dream are generally thought of as classics or at least excellent films. These are a few choice rentals I really enjoyed. While I still have a long list of classics and modern-day marvels to go, I feel like I have seen some great flicks. The latest movie that was recommended to me by the Netflix gurus(that rating movies thing really works) was Seven Samurai. The only time I had ever heard of Kurosawa was in a Bare Naked Ladies song. After reading a bit about him and some of his other films I will be sure to delve into his large assembly of cinema. Seven Samurai is his best-known film, so it was a good place to start. The movie lived up to or outdid all promises of critics, historians, and fans. I utterly enjoyed this film. I even watched some of the commentary feature on the DVD. Compared to the afore-mentioned films I would have to rank this one atop them. I gave a few of those movies a vote of 10 and I sincerely meant it. With this film I would vote 11 if it was possible. There is really no need for a plot description in these comments as I only want to convey the extreme admiration I have for the movie and all involved in its creation.

Give this one a break. It's not supposed to be a great plot. It's not supposed to have great acting in it. It's supposed to be funny. It is, if you can loosen up a little. Tom Green is funny. I'll admit, there are funnier movies, but this movie has some very hilarious parts. There's no such thing as bad taste in the name of comedy.

Or maybe hate/love. There are moments in Virginia Woolf where you can see the love between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. There are more moments, however, you see the unwavering animosity between them. The movie has two main themes: love vs. hate and truth vs. illusion. Taylor and Burton are terrific. George Segal and Sandy Dennis play their parts to a tee as well. Personally, I rate this movie towards the top of my list. It is tough to watch sometimes, and you are likely to form some opinions about who's more to blame, Burton or Taylor. I actually watched this with my girlfriend and we immediately started taking sides. It's one that will stick to you and make you think.

From reading other reviews, particularly from Ebert, Kevin Thomas, and the like, I'd have to say this is underrated. Al Pacino plays the part of Tony Montana with the sharpness of a mach 3 razor blade. The American Dream obtained with wretchedness: classic story told with zeal.

The colors in Vertigo almost seem brighter than life. Living in San Francisco and watching this movie I couldn't help but wish I had lived here in 1958. The quality of picture is not the only thing noticeable. Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak are outstanding. The premise is made believable by the two stars and the way Hitch continually shows Stewart observing Novak from afar: growing more and more intrigued. The premise? An ex-detective(Stewart) is called on by an old friend to follow his wife. The man is afraid his wife is literally possessed. Stewart doesn't believe this at first, but the more he watches Novak the more uncertain he becomes.

"Rosebud" Arguably, the most famous word spoken in cinema. What does it mean? Citizen Kane is about longing. Similar to how Jimmy Stewart wants an image of a woman(Vertigo), Charles Foster Kane longs for something that isn't there. Humankind is always longing. What you need or want becomes what you have, and so you need or want more, and so forth. Kane is a man who can have everything he wants, yet he still longs for the unattainable.