Reviews

I just finished watching this incredible movie and I can't believe the rating is this low.

It was absolutely terrifying - I was on the edge of my seat throughout. On top of that, it was very well-acted, shot, scored and edited. All three actors did a very convincing job. The first act provided just the right combination of laughs and suspense needed to hook the audience in and to get them emotionally involved with the characters.

What's most incredible to me is that the actors were kept in the dark as to what's going to happen - it's all detailed in the "Making of" feature on the DVD, and it's quite fascinating to watch.

Overall, I'd say it's one of the most intriguing, engrossing and enjoyable horror movies I've seen in the past few years. It's very minimalistic in its style and in the types of scares it contains, but that just makes it all the more frightening.

This was one intense movie-going experience. Throughout the entire running time of the movie, the suspense never lets up.

The director masterfully weaves the haunting atmosphere, and I was at the edge of my seat. The plot is a wonderful puzzle, unraveling slowly to reveal hidden layers of depth and complexity. The acting was wonderful, emotional and nuanced, with some unforgettable moments (The two leads - Gyllenhaal and Jackman - give their career best performances, but the biggest achievement in my opinion is Paul Dano's). The musical score contributes to a sense of dread, as well as the rich sound design and the chilly color palette of the breathtaking cinematography.

All those parts add up to a rare, gut-wrenching, dark and fascinating masterpiece - the kind that lingers with you long after the credits roll.

What a ride. "Sherlock Holmes" left me giddy. I absolutely loved it. It was thrilling, funny, stylish, fast-paced and brilliantly acted.

Downey Jr. is a delight to look at. He eats up the screen. He gives the character all sorts of mannerisms and nuances which really bring Holmes to life like never before. The chemistry and interplay between him and Jude Law is hilarious.

I wasn't a big fan of Rachel McAdams's performance, but it didn't detract from the experience. I felt she just didn't bring as much to the table as the others. (Kinda like Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.)

Guy Ritchie really outdoes himself here. The way he uses the camera, the motion, the fluidity, the snappy pacing - I loved every minute of it.

A really fantastic movie. Well done.

Synecdoche, New York is one of those rare movies that make you re-evaluate your life and that can change the way you see the world.

The script is sincere, heartfelt and brutal in its uncompromising preoccupation with the most painful elements of our existence. Having said that, the movie is far from depressing and is in fact hilarious. The humor is balanced out by moments of what I can only describe as pure cinematic poetry, the likes of which I haven't seen since, well, since Kaufman's previous film, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

The cast is unbelievable; there are so many great actors in this movie, and they all do an incredible job. Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers what in my opinion is the best performance in his career (excluding Capote which I haven't seen and cannot comment on). Samantha Morton and Michelle Williams also stand out among this remarkable ensemble. And Sadie Goldstein, who plays Hoffman's four-year-old daughter, is just so adorable!

The score is also phenomenal, and the end credits song was so beautiful it broke my heart.

All in all, this movie has had a huge emotional impact on me and is definitely the kind of movie you have to see more than once. I give it my highest possible recommendation.

After the first 30 minutes I felt like the film lacked energy. The pace was a little too slow for my taste, and the intensity too low. I wanted it to be snappier, more sizzling.

But then, about halfway through, it got really interesting. The second half, although it still suffers from some pacing problems, makes up for the first. And then the third act is one of the most brilliant and satisfying third acts I saw in a long time. The ending brings together all of the elements and themes that were planted throughout the movie (our obsession with the way things look, the line between art and real life) to form insights about our lives that are as brutal as they are true.

I am generally fond of Neil LaBute's work - most of the time his works contain more than what they initially seem to be (I haven't see "The Wicker Man" remake yet, but I heard it was horrible). Here, what starts off as your run-of-the-mill romantic comedy/drama, develops into a cynic's paradise, presenting insights into our lives which are as brutal as they are true.

Three of the four actors do a splendid job (Weisz, Rudd & Mol). I especially liked Paul Rudd's performance, and the way his character changes throughout. All three, and especially Rachel Weisz, are convincing in their roles, and deliver multi-layered performances with lots of subtext. Fred Weller's performance leaves something to be desired, but the fact that his role is well written somewhat makes up for that. LaBute has successfully made all four characters three-dimensional and they feel like real people.

Overall, I'd say it was a pretty great movie, certainly entertaining, and an important one to watch and analyze if you are into writing, directing or acting. Somewher, though, I feel like it didn't live up to its full potential. This script, if directed with more intensity, could have become one of my favorite movies, up there with films such as "Closer", "Glengary Glen Ross" or "Oleanna". Maybe it's the transition from the stage to the screen that made LaBute feel like he should make everything more minimalistic and restrained. But it's definitely worth checking out.

Call me crazy, but I really enjoyed it.

I thought the atmosphere was very well crafted - taking a lot of inspiration from David Lynch/Twin Peaks(check out the alternate opening on the DVD and tell me that it doesn't remind you of the Twin Peaks opening credits sequence), but still managing to be interesting and effectively creepy. The music was also great and very Angelo Badalamenti-ish.

Some reviews categorized it as part of the Torture Porn sub-genre, but I disagree, I think the gore wasn't too gratuitous. Whenever there was gore it was effective, it wasn't overused to the point where the audience becomes apathetic to it.

I especially liked the art direction, and overall I think it was very aesthetically pleasing. Some interesting surreal imagery. Yes, the color symbolism was overdone, but what can I do, all those lush blues and reds appealed to me.

I also thought the script was clever in its "plants" & "pay-offs" and in terms of foreshadowing. And Lindsay Lohan's acting, though not brilliant, was adequate and convincing.

The directing in some of the dramatic dialogue scenes could have been tighter, with a bigger sense of urgency, especially towards the end, but I will be interested to see what director Chris Sivertson does next.

7.5 out of 10

La Marche de l'Empereur (2005) is a french documentary that features the habits of penguins during the course of one year: their mating rituals, their migrations, laying of the eggs, searching for food, etc. It also shows them facing a danger or two, and (what for me was the highlight of the movie) the moment when the baby penguins break out of their shells! The movie is visually astounding. The cinematographer has managed to capture extreme close-ups where you can see the pattern of their feathers, as well as breath-taking longshots of hundreds of penguins marching on the beautiful icy backdrop. There is also a suspenseful underwater sequence.

The movie is accompanied with poetic voice-overs that tell the story from the penguins' point of view, and gentle ambiance music. There are also a few laughs here and there, as penguins bump into each other or slip on the ice.

The movie could have been handled better from a dramatic storytelling stand-point, but it seemed the director was aiming to create a sort of poetic new age nature movie, and as such, it works perfectly. Admittedly, there are points where the style starts to wear on you, and some parts seem to be repeating themselves, but at 80 minutes long the movie doesn't overstay its welcome.

All in all, the movie is a memorable experience, and manages to be informative and entertaining at the same time, and even manages to be moving on occasion. And penguins are simply the cutest animals!

What a train wreck of a movie. Seriously, you have to see it to believe it. What the hell was Pacino thinking???

This movie was hysterical. The script had some moments that were so ridiculous that I thought to myself that this has to be a parody.The plot was so contrived and lined with the corniest clichés in the book, such as a news cast that happens to relate directly to the story which comes on just as the main character enters a taxi.

The dialogue was laugh-out-loud funny, especially in moments when the film tries to pass off as an intelligent psychological thriller - then the characters utter illogical, superfluous arguments in favor of and against criminal psycho-analysis.

The acting was embarrassing. I love Pacino, but it felt like he was just frustrated with how lousy the material was. I don't understand how he found himself in this movie, let alone why he's making another film with the same director. Hasn't he seen the result?

It's awful that a hack like Jon Avnet is set to direct what might be the last collaboration between Pacino and De Niro. If "Righteous Kill" ends up sucking as much as "88 Minutes" it will be a damn shame.

Steven Soderberg is a hit-or-miss director. Either his films are acclaimed and loved by most, or they're infamous and hated. Having read the reviews, and having heard the negative buzz, I was expecting a miss. Boy, was I pleasantly surprised.

The film was mesmerizing. Say what you will about it, you have to commend Soderbergh on his cinematography skills. Black and white hasn't looked this good since "The Man Who Wasn't There". It was so rich, with so many textures. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. Definitely some of the best looking cinematography I've seen this year.

Also the score is great. It evokes just the right noir-ish atmosphere. The editing is crisp and clever. All of the technical elements of this movie are flawless.

I heard people complain about the story and the acting. I thought the acting was great. Clooney looks like he just came out of the 50's. He reminded me of Cary Grant. Cate Blanchett is perfect as the femme fatale. I can't think of any better casting choices for an old school film noir than these two.

I also thought the story was engaging, even though it was sometimes confusing. I loved the way the information was dispersed, and the fact that the film changes perspectives, and at different points it's narrated by different characters. Some of the revelations in the plot were really sophisticated.

Making this film the way it was made, using old school techniques, lighting, camera lenses, etc. was a gutsy move. I applaud Soderbergh for his experimentation. And I thin it's a successful one - it really feels like a 50's film noir classic. I wouldn't say it's Soderbergh's best film, but it's certainly one of his his most unique ones, and a return to form after a string of failures. I highly recommend it.

I don't know if it's just my personal taste - period melodramas are not among my favorite genres - but I found the movie to be quite boring. The only reason I went to see it is because I am a die-hard Edward Norton fan, and I watch all of his movies.

The first half hour or so I thought was laughable. The acting and the dialogue were so melodramatic that at points it felt like a soap opera. The scenes were well structured - they contained real drama and not just small talk, like in a lot of movies nowadays ("Little Children" for example). Each character had an objective, and a set of actions to match. But the dialogue itself was horrible - a lot of the time they were saying out loud what should have been their subtext. That's the first half an hour.

After that, it gets significantly better, and I do believe that if you're the type of person who enjoys such movies (like "The English Patient" or "Memoirs of a Geisha" for example) you will be entertained and maybe moved. I wasn't.

The ingredients are all there: stunning cinematography, a beautiful soundtrack, three-dimensional characters, and very strong performances by both Norton and Watts. I did get a kick out of Norton's coldness and apathy towards Watts, and it even got a few laughs out of me. They were both a pleasure to watch, especially during scenes where not everything was said out-loud, and you could feel the tension under the surface. It's the story that was the problem - I just wasn't engaged by it, and the whole thing seemed to move too slowly.

All in all a decent effort, but not an entirely successful one. 6 out of 10.

I have been a fan of the first game since it came out. As with most video game adaptations, I expected this to be a piece of sh#@. Instead, I got an atmospheric, haunting thriller that slowly creeps into you and doesn't let go.

True, the game was scarier. Way scarier. And there was something appealing about the vagueness of the story - the fact that it was never fully explained. And some parts (especially in the third act) could have been edited down and made more intense. And I wasn't fully convinced by Radha Mitchell's acting. But seriously, folks, this goes above and beyond your standard fare horror flick.

Speaking visually, the film is breath-taking. Some of the best conceptual designs I've ever seen. The creature's design and effects are top notch. Pay attention to one very creepy scene that revolves around a flash-light. It is brilliant.

The score is perfect. Disturbing and melancholy at the same time, just like the themes the movie explores. It has depth and its meanings are relevant to our current existence.

One thing I wanted to see used more was the radio static that signifies when a monster is approaching. That was to me one of the scariest elements of the game, since you knew the monster is close, and yet you couldn't see it. Also, with such a tightly woven, dense atmosphere, some boo moments could have been super scary, although the movie doesn't use them. That is a plus and a minus. The result is more sophisticated, refined, working more on psychological horror rather than shock value. On the other hand, on a superficial level, the film is not as scary as it could have been.

To conclude, a very pleasant surprise. Hopefully this is not the last we've seen of Silent Hill.

From the moment all the main characters are gathered inside the conference room, you know you're in for a rare treat. The first part plays out like a classic, Agatha Christie-like whodunit, where you know just as much as the rest of the characters, and are as qualified as they are to make your assumptions.

The rest of the movie is just as interactive. The method of restricting our point of view to that of the character's makes you as much a part of what's going on as they are. It almost feels like a reality TV show, where you get to be one of the judges.

From the get-go, the movie grips you. It doesn't waste any moment and delves straight into the drama. The actors all do such an excellent job that you can't take your eyes off the screen. The pacing is perfect - here is not a dull moment - and the film's structure is brilliant.

There is one particular recurring motif which first appears in the first few scenes - dividing the screen into thirds. See if you can find similar compositional arrangements in key moments and deduce their meaning. It is the kind of movie where every tiny element serves a purpose (symbollic or otherwise), and it will make you think. Don't get me wrong - you will enjoy the movie as pure entertainment. But those who wish to search for deeper meanings, commentary about human nature, subtle social critique etc. will be far from disappointed.

In my opinion, the movie was perfect in every way (reminding me of "12 Angry Men", one of my all time favorites). I can't urge you enough to go see it. It is one of the best movies of the year.

The main reason I wanted to see Catwoman so bad was because of all the negative buzz; I wanted to see what it is about this movie that was so terrible that it created the biggest "this movie sucks" consensus since Gigli. Having watched it with the lowest of expectations, I have to say - this was not the rancid piece of muck I expected.

To my surprise, behind the stereotypical characters and formulaic superhero plot structure, lies a pretty well made piece of trashy entertainment. True, the script follows the formula to a "T" and borrows heavily from pretty much every other superhero film since Batman, but due to its flamboyant Fifth Element-ish style, its shameless over-the-topness, its slick visuals and some rockin' action sequences, the film somehow worked for me. There was even something charming about its naiveté; I could totally imagine the creators sitting in the editing room, nodding to themselves and saying, "Wow, this is some damn good stuff," only to be caught off-guard later when the reviews came in.

Halle Berry, who I usually dislike, is quite delightful here, going all out and not shying away from the hammy style of the film. Face it, it takes some balls for an actor to deliver a line like "What a PURRRRRfect idea!" while keeping a straight face. She's really giving it all she's got. What's more, I enjoyed seeing the change in her body language from shy nerd to an actual cat - most of the cat-like gestures were extremely convincing.

I think the strongest thing going for the film is its editing and sense of rhythm. Think of the action sequences like really well made music videos, and I think you'll be able to enjoy them as much as I did. I especially liked the scene in the opera (or whatever), with the swinging lights - beautiful art direction. The film's technical aspects alone are reason enough to see it (I LOVED the wacky camera movements!).

To conclude, yes, the movie is shallow, formulaic and predictable, and you can easily make fun of most of the dialog and find the movie ridiculous if you want to. But if you approach it with an unbiased attitude, and you enjoy hamminess and camp, you'll find Catwoman to be an enjoyable and technically superb film.

From the get-go, you'll know that this is a film that relies almost solely on its style and its visual slickness. Low budget in the good sense, Versus resembles early Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson works (Bad Taste springs primarily to mind). It combines good-humored gore with Luc Besson-ish wide lens shots and quirkiness (the characters here reminded me of The Boondock Saints in their flamboyance), along with some very creative martial arts sequences. At some point, in fact, it gets so over-the-top it starts to play out more like a Stephen Chow movie. It then jumps from Night of the Living Dead to Mortal Kombat to Highlander, making a stop or two at X-Men along the way. This eastern/western mix works surprisingly well and the result is highly entertaining, if you enjoy this kind of thing. Just don't go looking for any depth, causality, plot logic, or plot altogether, really. The few dialogue scenes are a mess (excluding the one that takes place when everything turns an orange shade, about an hour into the film), and often serve only as a backdrop for canted steadicam close-ups and multi-character Mexican standoffs. This is not high brow cinema, it's high octane. And it was perfectly fine by me. It is when the film discards some of its humor that it begins to lose its charm, but even then, the spectacularly choreographed martial arts kept me entertained. I would be interested in seeing "The Ultimate Versus" – a director's cut that's ten minutes longer and has CGI special effects, according to IMDb.

P.S. There are few things I hate more than a dubbed movie, but in this case (like in Shaolin Soccer), I found that at certain scenes (particularly ones involving "the runt" – the wacky short guy), the English dubbing actually adds to the absurdity of the film. Anyway, the DVD offers both the American and the original Japanese dialogue tracks.

Wonderful, wonderful movie. A lesson in film-making. I know a lot of people won't be able to see it for what it is because of the supernatural/horror elements (which are usually a turn-off for film snobs), but the movie is just extremely well-made.

Consider the fact that Linney's character's true conflict is not winning the trial, but a satisfyingly complex internal struggle which I will not name so as not to spoil the movie. Or the plethora of food for thought that the movie offers, regarding existentialist issues of perception vs. objective truth, and social issues of liability and responsibility.

Some very interesting scenes that find ways to express things in subtle and creative ways without spelling them out. And an incredible and ballsy performance by Jennifer Carpenter, which takes Linda Blair's possession to a whole new level. Also, notice how a key dramatic monologue is presented, contrary to what we might expect, with no sentimental music in the background. The cinematography is also great. I was reminded of Dario Argento's vivid colors in Suspiria on more than one occasion.

Although it's not the focus of the film, the movie also offers a few very cool scare moments, and seeing Emily possessed is terrifying.

This is my favorite "underdog" movie of the year so far.

This is the first Werner Herzog movie I've seen. I don't really know how to review a movie like that, since I feel I can't judge it by the usual standards. Some parts of it were really sad and moving. Others sent chills up my spine. One scene specifically (about Timothy's watch) was really contrived. But my favorite thing about the movie I think was how Herzog usually left the camera rolling for a few seconds after the interviewees finished what they had to say, just to capture those moments of silence and (sometimes) awkwardness, which felt really authentic. I think Herzog saw a lot of himself in Timothy's tortured soul. Also, one of the most breathtaking scenes in the movie is where Timothy captures an intense fight between two bears.

I just finished watching Suspiria. Oh, my, what a mess. Some parts were SO BAD. The cinematography/lighting and the score were great, but other that that... I found some scenes to be worthy of the Mystery Science Theater treatment. The plot made little to no sense, and the main plot device that leads to the resolution lacks all credibility. While some of the effects and make-up were neat, most of them were extremely cheesy. The acting is really bad, the dialogue scenes are poorly handled and horribly written. Most of the time the actors sound like they're reading out of cue cards or advertising a product on the Home Shopping Network. Plus, the dubbing is really obvious throughout the film. The movie started off really well, I thought I was going to enjoy it, but it became unbearably ridiculous. On second thought, at least I can say this one thing in favor of the movie: even if it's trash, at least it's unique, uncompromising trash. Argento must have been pretty gutsy to submit such a movie (especially at the time). I'm curious to see more of his work, especially recent films, to see how his technique changed over the years.

Nattevagten (1994) (aka Nightwatch) is a stylish thriller/horror from Denmark. I just finished watching it and I was blown away. It's the most edge-of-your-seat thriller I've seen since A Tale of Two Sisters. This guy, Ole Bornedal, plots like a devil! The way he sets everything up is masterful. The script is so tight, practically every element that's established is later on used. Reminded me of early Coen brothers scripts. It also provides the viewer with sufficient food for thought, what with its underlying themes about the connection between sex and death, man's self-destructive tendencies versus his instincts for survival and self-preservation, and more.

There are a lot of creepy sequences, and one or two boo moments. The soundtrack is excellent. There's one unforgettable scene where something hideous happens to the sounds of this cheery, boppin' Danish song that seems to repeat the same verse over and over again. The result is very disturbing.

The style contains a lot of Hitchcockian characteristics, and the movie is done so well that it would have made Hitchcock proud. Everything is pulled off perfectly, and not once do we hear the gears of the plot grinding.

Considering how little known this movie is, I was very pleasantly surprised. I highly recommend it.

P.S. The main actor has a striking resemblance to Ewan McGregor, who reprised the role in the American remake three years later.

Once more, a great injustice has been done by IMDb voters. Dark Water currently has a rating of 5.4, with 16% of the voters giving it a 1! Note that 16% is 251 users, so it's not that a lot of people thought it was bad, it just that not many people saw it and/or voted.

It's quite obvious what happened. In what must be the most idiotic marketing move of the century, Dark Water was promoted as a horror movie. Not only is the original Japanese version not that scary to begin with, and focuses more on the drama and the human aspects of the story, but in the remake, the horror element completely gets thrown out the window in favor of an intelligent, mature human drama. I can say that 75% of the people who were with me in the theater had no idea what kind of movie this is going to be. Needless to say, about an hour into it they began shifting in their seats, chatting or giggling. Most of them were teenagers, who came looking for cheap thrills and got a "bore-fest" instead. The same kind of teenagers who, I bet, later voted it a 1.

True, the movie could have been edited a little tighter, and some sequences could have been left on the editing room floor, but it's not boring. It does take its time establishing and developing the relationships and the characters, but since the movie is all about the characters, that's a good thing. It's quite an ambitious drama, and as such, it doesn't always strike home. The script, I think, is the main problem. Since it presents us with very real people with real problems, but doesn't seem to know where to take them from there. As a result, the plot is thin. It's certainly not an event-driven movie. It remains unclear what the main conflict is for the heroine. The writer wasn't fine tuned on what he wanted to say, or maybe the director, Walter Salles, mishandled the material. For me, the story was about learning to let go, and the difference between loving someone and wanting them to be happy, and loving someone so much that you want that person to belong only to you. It's the difference between being willing to sacrifice vs. a selfish and possessive kind of love. I think the movie should have put more weight on that.

Other than that, the film does strike the right chords more often than not, and provides a lot of touching, sad moments. The acting is wonderful and three dimensional. All of the cast does an excellent job, but especially Jennifer Connelly, who proves once more she is the best American actress working today. The cinematography and the art design are beautiful, with a lot of attention to atmosphere. Also, Walter Salles shows some neat directing techniques in playing with the viewer's minds, making us doubt what's real and what's imaginary, and giving visual expression to the heroine's ever deteriorating state of mind.

All in all, I'd rate this movie a 7.5. But 5.4?!!!! That's lower than Fantastic Four, for crying out loud. I just hope that it finds the right audience when it's released on DVD.

I just saw this movie, and I am extremely disappointed. It's another one in a long list of bad decisions regarding comic book movies, the worst of which have not yet been released (X-Men 3, anyone?). What a misfire! And to think that according to the trivia page, Steven Soderbergh was interested in directing, George Clooney was considered for the role of Reed Richards, Naomi Watts for Sue Storm, and Tim Robbins for Dr. Doom. Instead, we get Tim Story, who is one of the worst directors working today, and a cast comprised of B-list actors or television stars. This was the most unattractive cast I've seen since The Dreamcatcher. In particular, I couldn't stand Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffudd). There was absolutely nothing in this film to hold my interest. Where is the plot? The script had the structure of a sit-com. A bunch of semi-amusing occurrences, pasted together with no real development, conflict, character arcs, etc. The effects ranged from bad to mediocre. There was even one shot where you could see the wrinkles of the latex in The Thing's suit, right after Deb rushes off to the street wearing nothing but a skimpy night-gown (!). Even Dr. Doom, which has a great costume design in the comics, managed to look terrible thanks to a corny face-shaped iron mask (instead of the menacing, expressionistic, angular, metal-plate mask of the comics) and a golden shirt which looked like it came from the dressing room of a really cheap children show. The score was also annoying, and reminded me of TV shows like Sweet Valley High or The Flinstones, where whenever somebody slipped there was this "Wee-wee-wee-wee" sound effect to emphasize the comedy. Whenever there was a situation in Fantastic Four that was supposed to make us laugh, the score became unbearably goofy. The look of the movie was awful. Reed's machines looked like tinker-toys, and the whole thing had this plasticized, fake feeling to it. Nothing looked real, yet the style wasn't defined enough to be campy or cartoony. The characters lacked depth, and the only one who managed to bring something other than the obvious traits to their character (i.e. Doom=evil & megalomaniac, Torch=cocky & reckless, etc.) was Michael Chiklis, whose performance I enjoyed. What we end up with is a clichéd, paper thin, hollow product , which walks, talks and smells like a pilot for a TV series, the kind that gets canceled after one season.

Shutter is a new horror film from Thailand, in the tradition of recent Asian horror films like Ringu and The Eye, and it scared the bejeevery-jeezes out of me! The directors are called Banjong Pisanthanakun and Parkpoom Wongpoom (it rhymes!) and this is their first feature, and looking at the movie, it's hard to believe so. It looks very professional and slick, and it excels in every aspect: from shot design to sound use to pacing. The atmosphere is bowl-clenchingly tight, the tension is almost never relieved, and the movie contains quite a lot of scares; they come in all shapes and sizes in this one, folks. This film has its share of boo moments, slow build-ups, genuine horror, and psychological scares following some very creepy and disturbing revelations. I won't spoil anything, but if you like horror do yourself a favor and watch it. I give this gem a 10 on my horrormeter. And I think I'll leave the light on tonight.

OK, first, I have to say I'm not a Star Wars fan. I got a kick out of the original trilogy as a kid, but since then I watched a couple of the original films maybe once more. Episode one I hated. It was boring and pompous, and wholly unexciting. Episode 2 was slightly better, but still, I found it pointless, as nothing really interesting happened. I was just about to write off Lucas as a hack. Enter Episode 3. Here we get all the goodies that Lucas denied us in the previous two films. If in Episodes 1 & 2 the feeling was he had been holding back, this time Lucas unleashes his imagination and lets it roam wildly. Needless to say, the visuals are stunning. CGI has never looked this good. The action and fight sequences almost consistently take your breath away. Apart for a few scenes in the beginning involving Anakin & Amidala (which unfortunately have some of the corniest dialogue I heard), the rest of the scenes are well-written and engaging. I was happy to see the acting has improved greatly since the last time around. This time we don't get the feeling the actors are reciting the lines. We actually get to see some emotion! And as the film progresses, the emotions get more intense, and the tension rises. Hayden Christensen does a wonderful job, and his performance becomes more powerful the darker he becomes. The only weak link, acting-wise, is Ian McDiarmid, whose performance as Palpatine is sometimes ridiculously over the top. Another of the film's strongest points is the intelligence of the script, which presents us with a dilemma about the nature of evil. We are exposed to several definitions of the differences between the Force and the Sith, and what makes a Jedi dark, and to be honest I found myself more than once empathizing with the dark side. The Force is presented as something cold and detached, while the Dark Side is dark because it's driven by the passions and weaknesses that makes us human. Going to the film, I had a lot of doubts, but soon after I was swept up in the excitement. I think I'm starting to get what all the fans are fussing about.

Just saw Hostage in the theatre, and I was really surprised. Since it's pretty safe to call this one a flop, box-office-wise, I went in expecting nothing more than a run of the mill action flick, certainly nothing to write home about. However, as soon as the spellbinding title sequence began, I found myself sucked in. The best thing about Hostage is its unique, enthralling visual style. Almost every shot in the film is carefully designed, and some shots are a work of art. Also, the attention to details in the art department adds a lot - the location of the house on the side of the cliff, and the small details in the kids' rooms, like the Fortune Teller corner, and the dinosaur land or whatever it was that the kid made for himself in the crawlspace. The score is also really effective in weaving the tight, suffocating atmosphere, and, except for the parts where it gets too sentimental, reminded me of Bernard Herrman and other classic suspense soundtracks from the 50's. Bruce Willis was powerful and convincing, and the 113 minutes of the film rushed by like a 90-minutes movie. In fact, I felt it was too short, as some of the plot elements weren't fully explored, and the script could have used a few more twists, and a little less employment of a 'Deus ex machina'. Other than that the film was a great ride, an effective tour-de-force of edge of your seat movie-making, with lavish cinematography. Don't miss it, especially since most of the 2005 releases so far weren't worth the price of admission.

Absolutely nothing happens in this sloooow, annoying, thrill-less thriller directed by Amenabar's usual collaborator Mateo Gil. The film, which in some way deals with the effect of boredom and the quest for thrills, actually delivers none, and seems like an exercise in boredom. The only mildly suspenseful moment is the movie's climax, which takes about 30 seconds of the whole agonizing 100-plus minutes, and is resolved too simply. The plot lacks sophistication or credibility, and while the idea is original, the way the story unfolds is arbitrary and every plot device or twist is a result of outside interference (deus-ex-machina). The hero is always passive, everything happens to him without forcing him to show any initiative or resourcefulness. If you're fans of the genre, watch "Tesis" instead.