Change Your Image
Seikan
Reviews
WWF No Mercy (1999)
A great WWE event highlighted by quite possibly the best match in WWE history...
Without a doubt, the Tag Team Ladder match here was arguably the greatest feat to ever grace the eyes of WWE's faithful fans. Flying about, dominating one another and destroying themselves, the match without a doubt blew every other event on the card right out of the water, putting both teams of Edge & Christian, and the Hardy Boyz (in particular, Jeff, who put by far the most effort into the match) on the map. The latter helped to revive tag team wrestling, this being the first stepping stone to do so.
Looking back at this one match, I wonder to myself "where did tag team wrestling go wrong?"
The answer is simple: The Hardy Boyz split, and this match here is enough of a reason why they never should have done so.
Kokoda (2006)
The new Gallipoli? Don't even compare this mess to that masterpiece.
For all its wonderful images, for all of its good intentions, this just comes off as yet another disgustingly one-sided, over-glorified, self-promoting propaganda.
The message is simple, "All Japanese fighting on the Kokoda Track were sadistic, malicious f*** sticks who enjoyed gutting every last Aussie troop, cutting their throats before beheading them." Not only does Kokoda pick up on "Gallipoli"'s only flaw (that the enemy are faceless, nameless, and apparently inhumane), but manages to prove quite the opposite to Weir's masterpiece. Instead of giving us a perfect film with one flaw, we have a horrible mess with one redeeming feature.
Let's start off with this: we're, without any comfortable adapting to the characters, introduced to these apparently quite laid back, two-dimensional people who we never... EVER get to sympathize with. We're kept at such a distance that even when we could so easily relate to the characters, they find a way to keep us away. That alone is a sickening feature, as it drives us from the very plot, helps the horrible pacing to leave us with a lasting impression, and makes it so much easier to see the contrast between an overtly sentimental ending and an otherwise lackluster body of a film.
In other words, it drags us through a painful journey (not just for us, but apparently for them) and just as it should end, we're thrown into another eye-roller of a skirmish that ends faster than it began. So, for the as yet STILL uninformed: when it should end, it starts up again, only to end when we expect more. S***! It's just a confusing and agonizing pace!
Which brings me to the ultimatum: this is meant to educate us on the events of the Kokoda track. It doesn't come close. Not only does it detail a very small, insignificant part of the campaign (sprinkling a little "mateship" on top in an attempt to make it relevant), but it succeeds in doing the one thing a film as important as this should be does, it makes us NOT care.
Honestly, my eyes were constantly glued to my watch the entire time. The audience around me, all proudly Australian, bickering as they came in about how great the film is going to be, groaned, moaned, and whined in disappointment as every one of the painful ninety-five minutes droned on (for a short running time, it felt like Apocalypse Now: difference being that Apocalypse Now was a good film and deserved the three hours it got) and on to the point where suicide could wholeheartedly be an alternative should it be mandatory for this film to be watched.
Though, considering how much the TV has been advertising this trash, I'd say it is mandatory, in a subliminal sense of the word.
Watch if you like pretty images. Though you'd do better watching The Constant Gardener or Gallipoli anyway, since they have superior cinematography and ACTUAL plots.
Overall: *
The English Patient (1996)
The Best Of All Best Picture Winners For Reasons Hidden In Their Poetic Triumphs...
In a critical scene, as Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas) lies in the Cave Of Swimmers, she writes something read aloud by Hana (Juliette Binoche) in which she proclaims that "the light has gone out now, and I'm writing in the darkness..." A sentence of such poetic beauty could not be more perfect for the cinematic brilliance of the far from tiresome The English Patient. With such a dramatic sweep that keeps one firmly on their feet, and a strength about the film that doesn't let up, this film proudly celebrates the mysteries and romances of World War II, taking elements of Casablanca and Lawrence Of Arabia along with some independence in the form of Tuscany.
The English Patient unabashedly pulls the heartstrings and takes us through a mysterious first act, a romantic second act, and a beautiful... beautiful final act, and it isn't just the wonderful pace and setting, it's the performance of Ralph Fiennes, who keeps us sympathetic even when Count Almásy, from the very start, proves to be a thoroughly unlikable character. Usually typecast as a villain, he shows tainted, but ultimately human colours as a man taken in by a desperate love that he must fulfill.
Many will criticize this film based on its so called "glorification of adulterers", but those who do know nothing. The contrasts between the two periods (before and after the plane crash seen at the start) are spectacular, as the patient is the regretting man who suffers because of what he did, the evil that was once in him now absent, whereas the man of before the crash is an individual like anyone else. He wants this woman but he cannot have her, Fiennes brings the human-like qualities out of Almásy in a way absolutely NO OTHER actor could. There couldn't have been a better actor for the job.
So please, take these comments to heart, see the film, those who call it "boring" or "despicable" know nothing, and should be ashamed of such a one-dimensional view on the film, a view that they have neither studied nor corrected, and probably don't plan on correcting. The English Patient is the best of every film to have ever won the Best Picture Oscar, and for so many reasons, hidden in their poetic triumphs.
The Warriors (1979)
A Wildly Entertaining, Vivid Retelling Of Greek Mythology Spoonfed With Modern Ganglife.
The Warriors was undoubtedly the biggest Cult phenomenon of the 70s. It was unheard of and unappreciated for many years until it was discovered on the shelf of forgotten treasures and re-released in the brilliantly crafted and extravagantly superior Director's Cut.
The film is based around a Coney Island gang, The Warriors, as they join multiple other gangs at a city-wide meeting with a Modernized peacemaker, Cyrus. He gives a thunderous speech that convinces all the gangs in the city to band together. But the moment the cheers hit a climax, a gunshot seals Cyrus' fate, and the perpetrator immediately swaps the blame over to The Warriors.
The leader of The Warriors is swamped by the onslaught of vengeful hooligans as the rest of the pack rushes off, unaware at the time that every gang and every policeman in the city is after them. They battle their way home, with the odds stacked against them, and as they are double-crossed and toyed with by gangs the whole city over, we are treated to a number of entertaining scene bridges consisting of a radio announcer declaring the latest news in the hunt for The Warriors.
Without a doubt, the flashiness and the fast paced action is let down by some questionable editing and extraordinary repetitiveness in the spontaneity of the gang running into police at the countless train stations they infiltrate attempting to get home on.
This is independent film making at its finest, no doubt, and the performances hold up rather well. Though, the villain of the story, who shall remain nameless, is without a doubt, the most convincing. With his guttural undertone in his voice accentuating his cheating, conniving manner as he hunts The Warriors not to gain revenge on Cyrus, but to keep them from telling the truth about who really did it...
A film with some indy flaws, ultimately held together by the sheer fun of it all, The Warriors is "A Wildly Entertaining, Vivid Retelling Of Greek Mythology Spoonfed With Modern Ganglife." I thoroughly recommend.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
It's a sad and haunting reflection on society gone amok.
It's not every day that a film challenges not only the emotions and standpoints of absolutely every individual who views it, but the censorships and guidelines of so many governments.
With an unhealthy record of recutting and revamping that has left Darren Aronofsky more insane than he was before he went into making the film, and an Academy Award winner headlining, Requiem For A Dream has had its share of ups and downs, raking in little at the box office due to its initial NC-17 classification, and yet has come out on top with an immense cult following.
RFAD tells the tale of four individuals being torn apart by their drug addictions, in what is a depressing downward spiral seeing the dreams of all involved ruined by their senseless addictions.
In all honesty, I have never seen a film that made me break down until I had seen this one. The final montage of the climactic moments left me haunted by the results, and in the moments that followed after the credits rolled, I wasn't able to hold myself together. It's not hard to see why if you actually watch the film, and while many would be so modest and "cool" to say they never cried, it'll affect everyone, and you'd be a god damn junkie yourself not to be affected in one way or another.
I think they should cut the Classification for society's sake and show it to all who know the meaning of what goes on in this film, because it's movies like this that have the ability to change the messed up world we live in.
And as a side note, Ellen Burstyn deserved that damn Oscar, hell, she gave the greatest female performance I've ever seen in my life.
The Constant Gardener (2005)
Fiennes goes beyond Weisz' brilliant performance and brings us to tears...
John le Carrè's novel, "The Constant Gardener", was a haunting epic of a read that put a true perspective on just how corrupt the world as a whole truly is, and the greed put into focus when money is involved.
With Fernando Meirelles' brilliant Epic, "The Constant Gardener", comes a visual adaptation of possibly one of the greatest books in literary history.
Ralph Fiennes, with yet another fantastic performance, portrays the diplomat-turned-freedom-fighter-on-the-run Justin Quayle, in a film that depicts two ends of the story revealing the true corruption of the pharmaceuticals industry in a similar fashion to "The English Patient".
On the other hand, Rachel Weisz, in a career best performance, while she stays in the shadow of Fiennes' superior performance in the second half of the film after her acting is done, plays Tessa Quayle, the freedom fighter wife of Justin, bent on doing anything to expose the corruption in the "Three Bees" syndicate, a corporation built up by KDH Pharmaceuticals to test out newly developed, yet fatal, drugs on the African people, in particular, T.B. and AIDS affected African people, who are seen by these evil companies as "disposable".
Worse yet, as the story plays out, a string of other atrocities committed by the greedy syndicates is revealed, and as the film begins with the viewer realizing that Tessa Quayle was murdered, corporate murder springs to mind... and Justin Quayle is forced to continue his wife's work, with life threatening consequences.
The film as a whole is extremely moving, and while it certainly deserves the Best Picture Oscar, it's doubtful that it will pull through, considering the true height of controversy that will be brought from this movie. But the most effective part, without giving anything away, is the final act, in a crushing blow that will leave the viewer both satisfied and yet in tears, after having watched all that has happened throughout the course of the film, and yet adversely affected by the emotional performance of Ralph Fiennes that is certainly not in any way flawed and stays completely true to the character in the novel.
In short, a masterpiece, superior to "City Of God", and the greatest "Controversial" film of all time.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
I'm sorry, since when was this the third best film of all time?
It's an okay film, epic and all, of course, the fact that it's an epic like Gladiator or Troy doesn't mean it's good, Troy proved that fact, and Alexander continued to prove it with one star antics.
To be quite frank, Peter Jackson is an overrated director, much like the Lord of the Rings movies are overrated movies. If you notice, all three are located in the top fifteen films, this one happens to be ranked higher than greatly superiour films such as Seven Samurai; Schindler's List; and even Casablanca! This is not the case...
With camera angles that make you sick, utilising the, admittedly beautiful landscape of New Zealand, to help push across into our heads the true epic feeling of Middle Earth. But wait! Where are the interesting characters? Every one of them you feel so bored with by the time the first film is up, you seem to hope that they'd be dead by the second one, but no, they come along to the third one to kick some Sauron ass.
Here's my view of Lord of the Rings: A whole load of walking.
Lord of the Rings- Fellowship of the Ring: *points* There! *walks* Lord of the Rings- The Two Towers: *points* There! *walks, trips up, walks on* Lord of the Rings- Return of the King: *points* There! *walks, throws ring into mountain, walks away*
Take those completely identical scenarios and pile them up with useless plot for three to four hours per movie (depending on which one you watch, and I myself wouldn't touch the Extended versions...), you really get the idea that the Academy Awards truly are flawed. Why look! Forrest Gump won best film of 1994 instead of The Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction! Titanic won best film of 1997 instead of L.A. Confidential! And, why, lookey here! LOTR- ROTK won best ****ing film of 2003 instead of Mystic River...
Perhaps next year we'll have The Constant Gardener as the best film of 2005, that may actually redeem the Oscars' failing reputation, a reputation that had truly fallen when they took this half-arsed effort of a movie and worshipped it as "Best Film".
The Crow: Wicked Prayer (2005)
Best of the Sequels, but only barely...
We're all used to it by now, "Man dies with loved one, man comes back, man comes back to wreak havoc on the people who killed him." I don't believe that will ever change, and it was a slightly sad thing to see that The Crow: Wicked Prayer was easily the most thoroughly intended copy of the first, ("City of Angels" was based around a man and his son, while "Salvation" was based around a man who was blamed and executed for his girlfriend's death, and who came back to avenge those who had blamed him and killed his girlfriend)
Yet, with such a Tarantino-esquire style of flow in the first scene (detailed introduction to the characters, in fact at first I thought the director pulled a "Sin City" and nabbed Quentin for a special guest shoot, I was wrong, of course.) it's hard to have thought this would be a bad movie, and yet after you watch it all, it becomes plainly clear, this movie has been diagnosed with the dreaded "Walking Tall" syndrome, this movie moves WAY too fast for us to grasp onto the characters or even reflect on the events.
Edward Furlong acts brilliantly, however the person responsible for casting him as The Crow should be shot, as neither the character nor the get-up suits Edward, I actually thought this movie was a well-executed comedic parody when I saw the promotional images of him. Not to mention the cheesy title that had been changed a good total of fifty-something times (they should've stayed with Wicker Prayer, as it is the name of an Indian-American Reincarnation ritual, as seen executed on the actual crow itself, but unfortunately book title names and licensing got the best of them).
Tara Reid and Dennis Hopper are both absolutely HORRIBLE in this movie, in all honesty, they were awful, Tara Reid gathers ZERO sympathy, even when it is her cue to gather some, all she gathers is the desire to stick a dick in her mouth simply to shut her up (for mutual satisfaction...). And Dennis Hopper? Well, the drugs have finally caught up with him as he fills the bottle but goes way over the top, he gushes down the side like a waterfall and finally explodes in similar fashion to Tambora.
David Boreanaz is somewhat decent. And yet he joins the crap acting booth when he turns into "the groovy one, Lucifer" and engages in a "Dragon Ball-esquire" battle with The Crow.
But back to the essence of the storyline, Jimmy Cuervo and his lover. At the beginning there is a horribly tongue-in-cheek musical performance by the lover, and what ensues is a horrible set of embracing between her and Jimmy, and eventually developing into a rushed reincarnation and an even more rushed recollection of it all, bundled together with yet even more rushed flashback scenes that garner zero sympathy for either.
And so now to the positives, or should I say positive. As I have mentioned before, Edward Furlong acts well (despite his ROLE, for one) and seems to have a well executed tone of rage and sadness, his shineout moment was when he was being hung and he violently threatened Luc Crash, his face was filled with extreme rage, one that you'd think if you took off those ropes, he would tear you apart and eat your face.
And so, to finish off with, this is easily the best of the sequels (which is not hard to do, believe me), and deserves a 3/10 sheerly for Edward Furlong's brilliant performance, even when placed in a role that he most certainly does not sync well with.
As an added, off topic note: Edward Furlong, lose some weight, you're getting chubby. Sheesh.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
The magic of the originals has indeed returned...
I was very excited to see this movie... it was easily the most advertised thing on television and those who had done reviews on it in the newspapers were strongly convinced. Not one single negative.
I was excited, Episodes I and II were both a great disappointment, and even with my excitement, I still had a sickening feeling that Hayden Christensen was going to screw it up again, just like he did Episode II (though you could blame it on George Lucas, as it was him who made Hayden act in that annoying "angsty rawr rawr" manner) With this installment, the saga has been completed, and the dreams of every "Star Wars nerd" has come true. I don't call myself obsessed, I am merely interested in the story, it is all extraordinarily attractive, it contains life values of most basic or most important stature. Most importantly, it is the greatest journey one can take in the Star Wars universe.
The opening credits were a great welcome, and despite my lack of knowledge on the cartoon series "Clone Wars", I knew what to expect, I had an idea on what had happened, and most importantly, I actually knew who the hell this "Grievous" was, unlike the majority of the viewers in the fellow audience.
Without giving too much away, we all know what this movie is about. It's about the betrayal of a great power, the seduction of a once kindhearted man to the side of wrongdoings. Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader.
But it was HOW Lucas was going to execute the occurrences into something interesting and watchable. Episode I left so much to do, and Episode II barely executed any of the things left to weave into Episode IV, but Episode III has managed to do all of these things without becoming rushed and confused. And interestingly, the cheesy dialogue people have come to hate remains, but I feel it is a necessary addition to keep the Star Wars saga true to the 1977 original.
I have little to no gripes, Jar Jar Binks, though he provided comic relief for myself, was definitely far too annoying and heavily unnecessary to the flow of the story, and thankfully, he doesn't speak one line in this whole movie, hell, you see him in two scenes and only in the background.
Most actors I expected bigger roles out of have been reduced to mere cameo-esquire appearances (Whale Rider's Keisha Castle Hughes is glimpsed for a mere three seconds as the Queen of Naboo and Grand Moff Tarkin appears for no longer than 10 seconds before he strays suspiciously off frame), but this fails to bother me, as it doesn't affect the flow of the story, nor does it ruin anything.
Episode III is that long awaited bridge from the despised world of the prequels into the legendary world of the original trilogy. Though still set twenty-odd years before Episode IV, it is, in many ways, a direct prequel, and ALL unanswered questions that have plagued our dreams for nearly 30 years have finally been answered.
If you have not yet seen it, do so, NOW.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
A unique look at the series but quite flawed...
Enter Star Wars.
Beginning of the most successful Science Fiction epic of all time.
Brilliant in so many ways.
Enter Empire Strikes Back.
Consumes the first with immense professionalism and a brilliant final sequence.
Enter Return of the Jedi.
A dark take at the emotions of Luke and a finale that leaves you breathless.
Now comes The Phantom Menace...
It starts off, "whodathunkit" in space. With a ship approaching the Trade Federation ship that is blocking off all entry into Naboo. The first person to speak is an unnamed (irrelevant character altogether) female captain with an unnecessarily high (and very annoying) voice who thankfully DIES ten minutes later, then we get a glimpse of the shady Viceroy, a "lazy" villain who starts off the long string of ethnic mockery with his horribly obvious Japanese accent.
This is a movie that had so much potential, the cast was brilliant (save for Jake Lloyd...); the animation was up to date; and you know the story just clicks with the original trilogy the moment you hear the name "Obi-Wan" leave Qui Gon Jinn's (Liam Neeson, Schindler's List) mouth and you see him standing there, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor, Trainspotting) in all his youth.
But what it really has not got going for it was the horrible actor playing Anakin; the intensely frequent, blatant and aggravating ethnic accent mockery; and the Gungans... yes, the latter alone was a catastrophe, easily the stupidest things created by Mr. Lucas and to make Jar Jar Binks sound like a Jamaican- wannabe has just crossed the line...
The dialogue is pretty horrible too, "Roger-roger"; "They'll squash us, cut us into tiny little pieces, and then blast us into oblivion!"; and the ever annoying "Mesa Gungan!".
However these can be overlooked by some (not by many...) with its spectacular Pod Race scene, which takes up a good slice of the movie; and the brilliant lightsaber finale, which seemed to have sparked up a short-lasting craze for the Double-Edged Lightsaber in which you see the main villain Darth Maul (Ray Park) wield in the fight scene where sparks fly and a unique obstruction twist leads to ultra drama.
I certainly enjoyed it, I can't guarantee you will, though if you can look past the flaws, move on to the slightly less flawed Episode II and get your blood pumping for Episode III, then you'll love the Star Wars series more than you did before.
Disturbed: M.O.L. (2002)
This is modern metal at its finest...
Disturbed, one of the most talented metal bands... strike that... BANDS (period) in the world, have managed to put together some footage from their bloody long tour of their multi-platinum debut album "The Sickness" (2000) and get us all laughing and anticipating the next trick played on the unsuspecting band members.
This is a basic collection of stuff you'd really expect to see on Punk'd or Linkin Park: Frat Party at the Pankake Festival. And in essence, it is the same as the latter, only with much better musicians.
In this, we discover the hardships and trials of their touring, and we are journeyed through with several intersections where they play live versions of their songs or music videos, such as with "Voices", "Down With the Sickness" and "Stupify". We also find how they were made and how they affected the band, just watching them.
Basically, this "rockumentary" has many things that LP:FPATPF and Metallica: Some Kind of Monster lacks, one of them being "the story of a great band". You may think I'm biased to say that, but quite simply, this movie is underrated, overlooked, and a damn sight hard to find in your typical video shop.
The DVD contains extras, such as unreleased tracks, extra footage and much much more...
Rollerball (2002)
Wow... no really... wow...
Never in my life have I seen something held together by cameo appearances... I mean, this has to be the most commercialized, corporate movie I have ever seen.
From the god awful Slipknot's appearance to the Ben Affleck of the next generation Chris Klein, the only uplifting experience was Jean Reno, because he is the coolest actor since Samuel L. Jackson.
And seriously, for a movie made just four years before its set-time, it went way overboard.
Oh and a fun fact: ECW and WWE's Paul Heyman is that annoying commentator you see from scene 1... and generally in each and every scene afterwards.
From wrestling (Heyman), fake metal (Slipknot) to horrible acting (Klein) and a poor storyline that can truly only be outdone by Gigli, I find myself wanting to rip out my left kidney if not for the fact I already did so watching Gigli.
Possessed (2000)
Ultimately a realistic portrait of The Exorcist...
One of the first underrated films of the new millennium, Timothy Dalton stars in a most gripping look at the art of Exorcism by taking the actual case, making minor changes for the cinema screen and ultimately delving into the emotional aspects of the boy and his family.
All doubters of this film complain that it completely rips off The Exorcist and rehashes all aspects that made the 1973 blockbuster a hit, but while there may be many things similar, including the suffering the boy goes through in the duration of his possession, you cannot help but realise the genius behind this movie: this is what really happened.
None of the characters are fictional, this boy Robbie was really possessed. And with such classic elements of real occurrences, including the urine expulsion; words on the skin and furniture movement, it's hard to really put this movie down on your blacklist unless you are ignorant and nailed to the fictional story of The Exorcist.
Don't expect to be frightened by this movie, rather intrigued. This is not a scary movie, it is simply an interesting film detailing the only American Demonic Possession recorded.
Overall, 8/10, the directing and screenplay was brilliant, however the actor playing the possessed child was an awful choice, with amateurish handling and this child looking like he's having too much fun playing the role. This being a big change from the Exorcist, where Linda Blair went mad after filming and underwent serious councelling to regain her head.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
An eyesore mixture of pop culture and utter lack of action makes this one inferior to Vol.1 in almost every way.
Vol.1 was easily one of the best films of 2003, arguably the best Action film since "The Crow", and quite easily, a Cult classic, rivalling the glory of "Pulp Fiction".
Wielding her katana (lazily called the "Samurai Sword" in Kill Bill), Beatrix Kiddo, AKA "The Bride", set off on a quest for pure revenge, cutting down every man and woman in her way.
In Vol.1 we saw extreme gore and ridiculously overdone beheadings (while they were still executed in a way we could all chuckle at), but then the wait was on for it's sequel.
Kill Bill Vol. 2 was bashed down by a rapid flooding of reviews and beaten to the tooth by professional critics.
I for one do not blame the complaints, as there is a complete absence of the action we all came to love in Vol. 1, and with such stars as Uma Thurman (who also starred in "Pulp Fiction" and generally has a knack for playing in Tarantino's movies) and Michael Madsen, this movie was hyped up to the max.
In this movie there is too much talking, with excessive pop culture type speech and carnage caused by sitting on one's fat arse (see Budd). But we do find SOME positivity. The pure fact that this is a disappointing sequel with an even more disappointing end doesn't shake the fact that if Uma Thurman weren't the lead character, this movie would be down there with such piles of cow dung as "The Crow 2: City of Angels" or "Half Past Dead", she is the only actress who can play the role perfectly, absolutely NO ONE could play The Bride any better. And thanks to her, she has just pulled Vol. 2 over the line as a must-see affair.
My PERSONAL overall? 6/10. If someone else played The Bride, then it would be a definite 2/10.
Veronica Guerin (2003)
A compelling story that ends up going off track...
The second edition of "When the Sky Falls" is definitely a better movie, but the difference between this, and "When the Sky Falls", is that in the earlier
installment, it didn't fall off track with stupid side stories like this one did. Of course, this movie also gains the upper hand since the first had all names
changed altogether, leaving you confused about what you're watching. The filmography is great, it's got that dark, depressing feeling that the majority of Irish based films have in the modern day world.
Cate Blanchett plays this character beautifully, and she does so well. But
unfortunately, as I have mentioned at first, the movie strays too far off topic at many points, Veronica is a massive football supporter? There's no denying that the Irish people are VERY much into the sport, but the real Veronica never
made it known that SHE did. And then there's the whole "mother watching the
daughter thing", another thing thrown in for dramatic effect.
This movie really is top 250 material, and it could've been if the story didn't go off track at so many points. I personally give it an 8/10.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Arguably one of the greatest movies of all time and an absolute classic.
Superb acting and brilliant performances from Tim Robbins (Mystic River) and Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby), who play as inmates, Tim Robbins playing a man framed for the murder of his wife and the man who she had an affair with. The two inmates develop a friendship over the twenty odd years spent in the prison.
This movie portrays an ugly, though bearable life in prison through the 40s, 50s, and 60s.
It's a strong piece on how far one will go to redeem himself, even if those things that must be redeemed are not by any means loathsome. See it if you haven't.