Top Five Online Movie Streaming Sites

You may have been good when you were young or used to get a student discount, but now when you need to shell out for an adult ticket both for you and your girlfriend it doesn't seem so cheap, does it? Wouldn't it be cool if you could get the flexibility of enjoying DVD's without the need to pay so much or even having to head out to the store. It needn't be a mere dream. If you like the concept of paying less but getting more then take a look at these Online Movie Streaming Sites:

1. Netflix - standard in online movie access, high video quality, discount rates

Netflix started life mailing out Videos to members, but now are the alpha male of online movie streaming in America. Netflix has a solid focus on providing a good streaming service and ensuring new content is regularly put into their online library of movies and TV shows. They understand the potential and major benefits movie streaming rentals and are market leaders in getting it to the front of the new movie revolution.

2. Blockbuster - Most likely too little and too late

Though Blockbuster in their current form isn't departed yet, very few expect them to live on for much more time. They are producing a major effort to join the online movie streaming get together, but just like Netflix are yet to provide HD titles. It is difficult to say what's going to become of Blockbuster, their emphasis remains on the physical media, but their online catalogue of streamed content is growing weekly.

3. VUDU - Opportunity to obtain the newest releases in high definition

VUDU is aimed more at occasional movie viewers than those who want to undertake regular movie marathons. The appeal with VUDU is that you only pay for what you see and there is no contract tying you into their service.

4. Hulu Plus - View your favorite television shows when you wish

Another online movie streaming site that has been established for a while is Hulu, who made their name streaming re-runs of good old TV programs. Hulu is somewhat unlike any other services in that their focus is a lot more on television programming.

If you sign up for Hulu you're subscribing more for the library of television shows than anything else. It's the ideal service for people who want to watch several hours of old TV re-runs regularly. It can work great together with VUDU to provide you with a good selection of viewing options without having to pay for satellite tv.

5. Amazon Prime Streaming - a bit more costly compared to the others but maybe worth a go for frequent Amazon customers

The Amazon Prime service provides you with free shipping on purchases, access to movie streaming and other discounts too. Add that charge onto the cost of $4+ a movie and you may well be better renting Blu-rays or going to the movie house.

Bearing that in mind, you can still find free movies and TV shows available, that are older and in all probability ones you've viewed several times over on your local TV stations. Additionally they provide a free trial for 1 month, so you can always test it out and if you’re dissatisfied within 30 days, just cancel.

Total Recall 2012 Remake Film Review

There seems to be two camps on the issue of the newest remake to be pumped off the Hollywood assembly line, Total Recall. One says, “Why remake a film unless it is for the expressed reason of making a better finished product than the original?” The other side’s argument basically boils down to, “Who even remembers the original Total Recall, other than an exploding head here and a three-breasted prostitute there?”

Both points are valid. The first adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s short story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale” was definitely popular upon its release in June 1990, but today is mostly remembered for the then cutting-edge special effects and director Paul Verhoeven’s love of gore on the screen. Effects have come a long way over the past twenty years, and there is definitely a better film to be made from the source material. So how does new director Len Wiseman’s attempt at bringing Dick’s story to the big screen fare?
In this remake, Colin Farrell (In Bruges) plays Douglas Quaid, an assembly line worker at a plant that builds robot cops on an Earth that has been destroyed by warfare. The only two areas left relatively unaffected are Great Britain and Australia; the inhabitants of Australia are the wage-slaves while the citizens of “the United Federation” are the 1%.
Quaid suffers from recurring dreams in which he is attempting to flee a building with a beautiful member of the freedom fighting Resistance, Melina (Jessica Biel). Finally mustering up the nerve, he visits Rekall, a corporation that implants false memories into customers to spice up their hum-drum lives. While undergoing the procedure, Quaid discovers that his memory has already been tampered with, shortly before a SWAT team bursts into the room and takes out the Rekall workers. This triggers Quaid’s Bourne-esque fighting skills, and what follows is 100 minutes of non-stop chase scenes.
The huge problem here is Farrell. Yes, he was great in In Bruges, but how much goodwill can you continue to give a guy for one role? What we are given here is the Farrell of SWAT, a star in desperate need of charismatic support around him at all times. Say what you will for Schwarzenegger, but at least he was fun to watch in the original. Farrell is the definition of vanilla acting; he won’t put in a horrible performance, but at certain points you are begging him to breathe life into the material. Crack a smile, develop a facial tic, appear to actually be bothered by the events going on around you, anything!
The only thing memorable about this film is that they managed to include a 3-breasted alien nude scene in a PG-13 film, giving geeky teens without the internet something to develop puberty to once this hits DVD. Other than that, it is a truly forgettable experience.

Top Best Arnold Schwarzenegger's Films

I believe that all the females in the world all love Arnold Schwarzenegger very much, he is the most handsome and successful male on the erath, he is also an enigma in my eyes. I’ve loved his movies since I was a child and maybe it was wrong to let a 7-year-old watch Terminator or Total Recall but whatever, he's shaped who I am.

There are some wonderful works given by Arnold Schwarzenegger, I can't say I've seen the entire oeuvre of Schwarzenegger so you might be shocked to know I just saw True Lies for the first time a few months ago! It's essentially what Mr. and Mrs. Smith wished it was. It's one of the few films of the actor that presents a decent romance and who doesn't love Jamie Lee Curtis who lets loose (literally in one scene) and plays up the scared housewife to a T. It makes me sad that director James Cameron is moving firmly into the Avatar universe, because he had a knack for blending the ordinary with the extraordinary and True Lies is proof!

I'm not sure where Eraser rates in others views of the best Schwarzenegger films but I've grown to love this each time I watch it; which is a lot considering this is always on TNT or TBS. The film tells of an US Marshal (Schwarzenegger) trying to relocate a witness (Vanessa Williams) into Witness Protection. There's just something so intelligent (okay not literally intelligent) about how intricate the world of the film is. There's double and triple crosses, people making copies of things, and a pervasive feeling of not knowing what the hell is going on. It all comes together to make the most prototypical of Schwarzenegger's films and yet I can't get enough of it.

When I heard they were planning to remake this I wept, I mean you just can't remake this film (and from what I read they're remaking the book so we can say this is safe right?). Director Paul Verhoven takes his amazing blend of sci-fi and schlock to create a sci-fi adventure that's never been seen. I still don't truly understand Total Recall but I love it. The different disguises, the world of Mars, Sharon Stone playing a totally kick ass villainess in 80s aerobics wear! It's cheesy like a delicious mac and cheese dinner! This is also the movie that made me realize Schwarzenegger tries REALLY hard to make you believe he's lived in America his entire life! I mean from the name of his character, Douglas Quaid, to how he chats with his friends, this movie especially tries to make you forget that accent and everything else about him.

The placement of the Terminator films is debatable. Some will say I made the right choice placing this second and others will say it should be first. I switched this between one and two for a good ten minutes before deciding to stick it here. Really you could tie one and two for first in my book. Either way what is there to say about Terminator 2 that hasn't been written? The action, the special effects, Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, it all comes together with its finger pressed firmly on the trigger of Judgement Day. Robert Patrick as the new Terminator is great and this is also the movie that inspired the ride at Universal Studios (which I love purely because it's connected to this franchise). This movie is epic, but it doesn't seem to have the heart of my number one.

I had to put the original Terminator at number one. This is the first film in the franchise I saw and really it's the first franchise I ever came to love. I've seen all the Terminators since (and sobbed my eyes out at how atrocious 4 was) and really have a connection to this first movie. It's also one of the first movies I had to go buy on Special Edition DVD. I mentioned Terminator 2 not having the heart as this one and I believe that. Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) learns that she's meant to be killed and about her life as the mother of a resistance leader, that's some heady stuff to realize and we see that realization throughout the first film. She's no longer an average woman and she has to deal with that. The love story is cute (albeit mind-boggling and possibly creepy) and at the end there's the aura of hope somewhere at the end where two doesn't seem to have that as much. Again, this can be tied for first with the second but I love one a tad bit more.

Stand By Me Reinforces Something Understood In Hollywood For Decades: Nostalgia Sells

Stand By Me reinforces something that has been understood in Hollywood for decades: nostalgia sells. With this film, it's "planned nostalgia," meaning that the production was designed from the beginning to encourage older audience members to look back at their youth through rose-tinted glasses. Many movies develop a strong sense of nostalgia with the passage of the years, but Stand By Me had it from the beginning, peering through the veil of time separating the '80s (when it was produced and in which the bookend segments are set) from the '50s. The narrative is driven by the same sense of fondness for bygone years that has categorized the likes of A Christmas Storyand the TV series The Wonder Years, both of which feature adult narrators recalling key moments from their early years.

One of the most notable aspects of the character roster is the almost complete absence of females. While this is not uncommon in certain genres typically centered on male characters (war movies, for example), it is unusual for coming-of-age films, which almost always deal with sex in one form or another. However, by placing the protagonists at the age of 12, Stand By Me is able to insulate them from involvement with the opposite sex. During the era in which the film is set, children weren't as sexually precocious and adventuresome as they are today and, while there was certainly plenty of curiosity at age 12, co-ed friendships were more the exception than the norm. The obvious added benefit of keeping the cast male is that it allows the story to focus on the pre-teen aspects of male bonding. By limiting any sexual component, Stand By Me retains a certain air of innocence and charm.

For the leads, the filmmakers selected four of the most promising young actors on the horizon of American cinema. At the time, Wil Wheaton had only a small list of credits on his resume (mostly small parts and TV appearances), and Stand By Mewould represent his breakthrough part. As was true for the slightly better-known River Phoenix, Wheaton's exceptional, unforced work in the film would open Hollywood to him. Within a year after Stand By Me's release, Wheaton was cast as the much-maligned Wesley Crusher in the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation(although a lion's share of the derision heaped upon that character was the fault of poor writing, not of Wheaton's ability to inhabit the character). Phoenix appeared on the road to superstardom until his untimely 1993 death cut short his career. The movie's other two leads would have successful but more low-key careers. Corey Feldman, already recognizable at the time of Stand By Me's release as a result of parts in Gremlins and Goonies, worked frequently (mostly in low prestige productions) but battled drug addiction for many of his teenage and early adult years. Jerry O'Connell, who made his feature debut in Stand By Me, went on to work primarily in TV with occasional forays into low-profile films.

The tale itself, adapted from a Stephen King story, dwells on the mates' quest to find the body of a schoolboy supposedly struck down by a train while walking in the woods. They set off hoping to find fame, but then start to reveal their own personal secrets and the journey becomes as emotional as it is physical.

It's hard to tell if the four young actors are all geniuses or just perfectly cast, but the performances are never short of real, and if some of the key scenes don't have you choking back tears, you are without a soul.

The movie accurately depicts the painful process of maturation that has plagued both teens and preteens for ages. In many ways, the conclusion of the quest signifies the end of innocence (or at least childhood) for the principles, as the four boys are never quite the same after making their gruesome discovery.

The film's brilliance ultimately lies in its all-embracing adherence to the immutable rules of reality.Stand by Me goes to considerable lengths to identify the issues and accurately portray the pressures that lead to the disenchantment of teens everywhere. The boys' unyielding sense of camaraderie and irrepressible spirit of youth sees them through towering adversity that is ultimately admired, and at the same time abhorred.

Although there is an absence of Christian themes it takes nothing away from the entertainment value of the film. In short, it is a film about friends and how we should cherish them. The film is full of moving performances by talented young actors and a really great score and soundtrack. I would suggest the film for any adult who is nostalgic for childhood memories and enjoys a tender look at growing up. If one wants to view the film in the presence of younger viewers, I would suggest presenting a taped copy off television, where it is heavily edited and doesn’t really damage the movie’s effectiveness. “Stand By Me” is an unforgettable film and I recommend it, sincerely!

Reign Of Assassins Is Not Following The Norms Of The Wuxia Genre

REIGN OF ASSASSINS opens with an animated prologue telling the story of enlightened monk Bodhi, whose unmatched accomplishments in both Buddhist prayer and martial arts have ensured whoever now possesses his remains will become all-powerful. A gang of assassins, The Dark Stone, learns that a local official is in possession of half of Bodhi's remains and proceeds to massacre his entire family, only for Drizzle (Kelly Lin), the gang's deadliest member, to escape with the body.

Compelled to finally lay the remains to rest, Drizzle goes into hiding, has her appearance changed by a surgeon and resurfaces in Nanjing as the unassuming Jing (Michelle Yeoh). There she falls in love with local courier Ah-Sheng (Korean actor Jung Woo Sung), and plans to build a normal life. The Dark Stone is in hot pursuit however, and when Jing is caught up in a bank robbery and forced to use her signature water shedding sword technique, her location is exposed and Dark Stone leader Wheel King (Wang Xueqi), together with Lei Bin (Shawn Yue), The Magician (Leon Dai) and newly recruited Turquoise (Barbie Hsu) descend on Nanjing, determined to kill Drizzle and retrieve Bodhi's remains.


Set in ancient China, Zeng Jing (Michelle Yeoh) is a skilled assassin who finds herself in possession of a mystical Buddhist monk's remains. She begins a quest to return the remains to its rightful resting place, and thus places herself in mortal danger because a team of assassins, The Dark Stone, is in a deadly pursuit to possess the remains which holds an ancient power-wielding secret.

There are several elements in the film that are not following the norms of the wuxia genre, or rather breaking its barriers possibly in mind of reinvention to inspire and excite. Instead of vying for divine martial art manuals and exquisite weaponry, the pilgrims are brawling with one another over two halves of a deceased kungfu monk's corpse in hope of reigning as the top martial arts master who is second to none.

Leading the campaign is The Dark Stone, a powerful sect that features an alliance of Lei Bin (Shawn Yue), Lian Sheng (Leon Dai), Xi Yu (Kelly Lin), and Cao Feng (Wang Xue Qi) the leader of the pact. When Xi Yu went rogue and disappeared with one half of the remains, the rest came hunting down her trails with the help of a new replacement Zhan Qing (Barbie Hsu).

Among other things, the picture works well as a playful domestic comedy as it observes Drizzle and Jiang adapt to married life; the notion of a skilled warrior trying to protect her unsuspecting, slightly dopey husband is played with a tenderness that yields unexpected emotional dividends at the film's bloody finale. Pic reps a fine showcase for Yeoh (too little employed in this sort of high-flying action vehicle since 2000's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"), whose Zen-like elegance renders her command of swordsmanship and hand-to-hand combat all the more impressive. Jung, who played "The Good" in "The Good the Bad the Weird," has an endearing, affable presence, and is eventually granted an opportunity to display his own action prowess. Barbie Hsu and Shawn Yue effectively round out the DSA squad.

As directed by Stephen Tung, the action is seldom as cleanly choreographed as one would like, often rendered a kinetic blur by Cheung Ka-fai's editing; still, the style suits Su and Woo's giddy, unpretentious tone. Production design and costumes are evocative but not too lavish, and Horace Wong's widescreen lensing proves as nimble as the characters.

The Special Effects Make The Mummy Memorable And Enjoyable

The Mummy is a remake of the 1932 motion picture of the same name. Admittedly, I have not seen the original film, and doubt I will be able to. I haven't been able to find a copy of it anywhere in my city. The only thing I can imagine is that the 1932 version is infinitely superior in every way, from acting right down to special effects. Yes, even the special effects. The film begins in 1719 B.C., when Egyptians ruled their land with the kind of authority Bill Clinton only wishes he could attain. Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) is the High Priest of Osiris, and the righthand man of Pharaoh. Unfortunately, Imhotep is also in love with Pharaoh's mistress, the hauntingly beautiful Anck-su-namun (Patricia Velasquez). This forbidden love leads to Pharaoh's death, and the subsequent execution of Anck-su-namun. Imhotep is caught and becomes the first and only man to ever suffer what many archaeologists believe to be the worst curse ever performed. His body is wrapped in bandages, his tongue is cut off, and he is buried alive to be eaten by Scarab beetles. He is to remain there until someone reads from the Book of the Dead. And being a film about a mummy, we know someone will.

That someone is Evelyn Carnarvon (Rachel Weisz), a librarian hoping to one day become a full-fledged archaeologist. The year is 1923. Over three thousand years have passed since the mummification of Imhotep, and Evelyn has desperately been searching the whereabouts of the rumored Book of Amun Ra. She has yet to find it. One fateful day, her more successful (but obviously more demented) brother Jonathan (John Hannah) brings her an artifact he stole from a prisoner in an Egyptian jail. This artifact contains a map to the lost city Hamunaptra, which is rumored to contain all the riches and wealth of the Egyptians. She travels to visit this prisoner, who claims to have actually found Hamunaptra. His name is Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser), an archaeologist who lost his entire team after finding the mythical city. Eve begs for his release, and finally gets it when she offers the warden twenty-five percent of the findings.

Rounding out the cast is the brother-sister tandem of Jonathan and Evelyn (Josh Hannah and Rachel Weisz, respectively), and Beni (Jonathan Hyde) as the cowardly, sadistic sidekick. Each of these three characters is just as enjoyable as The Mummy and Rick O’Connell. Indeed, they all bring a welcome variety to the cast, providing appropriate measures of humor and conflict at just the right times. But of course, rising to the fore is Evelyn, who becomes the love interest for O’Connell. Her character isn’t the typical damsel in distress so often seen in these kinds of films. She’s more like Marion Ravenwood (Raiders of the Lost Ark) than Willie Scott (The Temple of Doom). In fact, it’s possible to consider her character as prominently as the Mummy or O’Connell.

As for the story, it’s wonderfully paced, hitting all the right beats – beginning with a well-scripted prologue and moving through action sequences, exposition, and montages at just the right times to keep viewers engaged all the way through the film. Of course, stories about mummies are almost always compelling, so long as they are told properly. But The Mummy does indeed tell a proper story, adding in the right mixture of realism and fantasy to create a plausible narrative. It tells the tale of a group of treasure hunters who inadvertently awaken a thousands of years old monster and have to find some way to undo their handiwork before the world is destroyed.

Part of what makes the film so particularly memorable and enjoyable are its special effects. At the time, The Mummy was fairly cutting edge in its use of CGI to render the Mummy, the sandstorms, scarabs and all manner of plagues including the meteor shower. What’s most impressive about the movie is that, nearly a decade later, the film still looks good. This proves that the CGI was integrated in such a way as to enhance the film. Otherwise, cutting edge 1999 would look downright embarrassing by the time 2009 rolled around. The Mummy not only avoids that pitfall, it manages to create a look and style that perfectly complements its story.

Sommers' very own tailor made script shows that people should not buy books on 'How to Write your Screenplay in 21 Days' or 'How to Make a Movie that Sells' on a matter of principle. Sommers tries and fails at juggling Adventure, Romance, Comedy, Action, and Horror around all at once. In the desperate attempt to keep the balls from hitting him on the head, he ends up placing one-liners right next to screams of terror as a flesh-eating... BEETLE?... devours someone from the inside. Also we get to see Rachel Weisz go from sub-zero to just plain zero as she 'warms up' to Brendan Fraser.

This is a film at which I took my own advice. My advice: always get a head start on an angry mob. Hence, I watched the last thirty seconds from the back of the theatre.

As promised by the preview for The Mummy, the special effects are good. They are not, however, anything compared to what we normally see in the pre-summer gameshow. And, when I say special effects are good, you know what that normally means... It did also live up to its tagline, but not in the way intended. Let me tell you, personally, BEWARE OF THE MUMMY.

Sleepy Hollow, A Dark Fairy Tale Powered By The Pervasive Millennial Angst Of The Era

So when it comes to appearances, this dark, shivery "Sleepy Hollow" manages to be as distinctively Burtonesque as ''Edward Scissorhands'' or ''Batman.'' Offering a serenely unrecognizable take on Washington Irving's story and its famously unlucky schoolteacher, the film brings its huge reserves of creativity to bear upon matters like the severing of heads. Quaint Dutch burghers of the Hudson Valley could have bowled ninepins throughout Rip Van Winkle's sleep-in with the supply of decapitated heads sent flying here, even if Mr. Burton handles such sequences with his own brand of wit. Shot 1: Sword approaches victim. Shot 2: Blood splashes Ichabod's glasses. Shot 3: Head rolls away. Shot 4: Body pitches forward. Pause for laugh.

History will recognize the rich imagination and secret tenderness of Mr. Burton's best films. (From a purely technical standpoint, as in the award-ready cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki, this grimly voluptuous "Sleepy Hollow" must be one of them.) But it will also raise the question of what we were smoking during this period of infatuation with grisliness on screen. It is not unreasonable to admire Mr. Burton immensely without wanting to peer at the exposed brain stems of his characters, but ''Sleepy Hollow'' leaves no choice. As written by Andrew Kevin Walker, who took off Gwyneth Paltrow's head in ''Seven'' and apparently considered that small potatoes, ''Sleepy Hollow'' turns the tale of the Headless Horseman into the pre-tabloid story of a rampaging serial killer.

SLEEPY HOLLOW is less the Washington Irving story than it is Scream set in post-revolutionary times. The themes of science vs. supernatural and appearance vs. reality appear throughout the movie, as Crane must understand his own past in order to see the truth. He describes himself as "imprisoned by a chain of reasoning." He keeps coming back to a toy given to him by his mother, a spinning disk with a bird on one side and a cage on the other. As it spins, the bird appears to be inside the cage, an optical illusion, and, not by coincidence, the very illusion (persistence of vision) that makes viewers think that the people in the thousands of still pictures that make up a movie are really moving.

Depp plays Crane with the right haunted look and rigid posture. But the ludicrousness of some of the plot turns and the exaggerated fright reactions leave him with the most outrageous eye-rolling since Harvey Korman's imitation of a silent film star. Indeed, the movie frequently brings to mind those sublime "Carol Burnett Show" movie parodies, especially when the villain ultimately finds time for a detailed confession as the planned final victim is waiting for the Headless Horseman to arrive. The wonderful Christina Ricci is wasted in an ingenue part.

Depp nearly reprises his role as Edward Scissorhands as a quiet wallflower (sans scissors), and whiter-than-white Christina Ricci (as the magic-obsessed love interest) sticks out among the drab fogies in their powdered wigs like Bill Gates at the Playboy Mansion. The supporting cast is uniformly bland, just like the scenery (though the latter is intentional). The sole exception is Walken, who plays the horseman (when he has his head, at least) with typical aplomb.

So what's the sum of the parts? What should have been a Halloween treat is instead a late-November humdrum flick worthy of a glance but little more. The story is obtuse yet unsurprising. The humor is sparse and occasionally funny. And while Burton's signature is all over the film, his typical wit is not.

How will the film fare at the box office? I can't rightly say, but I do know that a legion of junior high students is going to be disappointed, missing a whole lot of questions on their English Lit exams because of this movie.

One of the key shifts from the historical frame of Irving's earlier narrative to the contemporary setting of the film's production is the emphasis on visual perception. Sleepy Hollow shows the relativity of perception, and how the interpretive element of perception impacts matters of truth (Nietzsche is one key figure who stands between the original story and the current film). The half-blind Notary Hardenbrook exclaims at the beginning, "seeing is believing," and Crane himself distrusts the "magic" behind the supposed headless horseman until he sees it for himself and then goes into a brief crisis of faith (in science). When he recovers he takes a somewhat different tact in his solving of the crime. Before "seeing" the non-rational actions of the undead Horseman, Crane is depicted utilizing various optical lenses—absurd contraptions that seem to be borrowed from Terry Gilliam's films. After this crisis Crane no longer utilizes his instruments, though he does keep his head about him, reasoning through the crimes, relying on a sort of "inner vision."

Another important development in the interim between Irving's story and the current film is, of course, psychoanalysis and its artistic prodigy, surrealism. Burton's films are constantly shifting between dream life and lived life—although with his films' consistent dark exposures, it is difficult to tell the difference—and the exquisite scenes here seem like dreamscapes, often borrowing from the ethereal, Romantic, Hudson River School paintings of Cole and Bierstadt. The internal, dark shades that pervade the first Batman films, or the Nightmare Before Christmas, are present here as various unconscious connections are made visible—a traditional mode of surrealism.

The film is also crippled by a terribly contrived romantic subplot involving a miscast Christina Ricci (it pains me to say that), who looks perfectly period but can't manage to wrap her mouth around the movie's formal dialogue or its highly mannered acting style. She falls for Ichabod, much to the chagrin of her beau, played by Casper Van Dien ("Starship Troopers") -- doing his very best Billy Zane-in-"Titanic" imitation. Thankfully, he gets waxed by the Horseman after only three lines of dialogue.

Other players include Miranda Richardson as Ricci's more-than-meets-the-eye stepmother and a razor-toothed, wild-eyed Christopher Walken, who plays the Hors
On the production end of things, "Sleepy Hollow" is a fabulous, high-tech homage to the moody, old-fashioned horror flicks of the 1930s, bent to fit the Burton mold. The pale, moon-lit tones generated by a perma-dusk sky; rich but somber costumes (bad teeth, even!); craggy, foggy, sound stage forests of imposing, twisted, leafless trees -- it's all quite absorbing.

As I wrote in Horror Films of the 1990s, Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow opens with a droll visual joke that, in some fashion, very ably exemplifies the film's nature. Perhaps this joke is one that only the longtime horror movie enthusiast will fully understand. As the film commences, what appears to be very fake-looking red blood drips down upon a parchment. This fluid is soon revealed instead to be hot wax, used merely to seal an important letter. Yet for a fleeting -- and wonderful -- moment, the horror audience may believe it has actually returned to the wonderful and bygone world of Hammer Studios since the hot wax resembles that trademark Hammer-styled “fake” blood.

The joke is not only an example of inside baseball, so-to-speak, but an indicator that Burton has fashioned his entire 1999 film as an homage to the output of Hammer. As Michael Atkinson and Laurel Shifrin write in Flickipedia, the director “continues his unique, idiosyncratic, and very personal career project: to re-experience and revivify the toy chest of pop-culture effluvia that sustained him – and many of us – through our ‘Nam era childhoods.” (Chicago Review Press, 2007, page 21.)

Or, as Wesley Morris wrote in The San Francisco Examiner: "what Burton does perhaps better than even Steven Spielberg: transport you to a nook in your childhood, be it around a summer campfire or smack in front of a TV set on a Saturday afternoon."

In the visual language of a Hammer Studios film then, the impressive Sleepy Hollow asks its audience to contemplate the nature of life on Heaven and Earth. Is science the key to understanding it? Or is there room, yet, for magic in this world? In scenes both lyrical and poetic (particularly those involving Lisa Marie as Ichabod's mother), Burton's Sleepy Hollow seeks the answer.

The Avengers - It’s Total Delight To Just Sit Back And Enjoy The Fireworks

The dreams of comic book and superhero fanboys around the world finally come true with the arrival of Marvel team up “The Avengers”, or “Avengers Assemble” as it’s been released in some countries. Having gone through several years of development hell, anticipation peaked when it was announced that geek favourite Joss Whedon would be directing, pulling together the heavy hitting all star returning cast of Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Chris Evans as Captain America, Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye and Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the latest screen incarnation of the Hulk.

The plot sees Tom Hiddleston again as the villainous Asgardian Loki, who during his exile after being beaten by Thor has joined with the would-be galaxy devouring alien race the Chitauri, being promised an army to conquer the earth in return for recovering all-powerful energy source the Tesseract. Loki appears in the SHIELD facility where the cube is being held, snatches it and enslaves scientist Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Hawkeye with his sinister glow-stick staff before vanishing. Knowing that war is surely coming, Nick Fury assembles The Avengers, a disparate band of superheroes, hoping that they will be able to overcome their various differences and personality defects and combine their talents to save the world.

The Avengers is a result of the biggest buildup in cinema history, with the quartet of Iron Man and its sequel, The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger made to pave the way for an epic boss fight, and it delivers in thoroughly awesome ways. Nearly every minute of The Avengers throbs with heart-pounding fun, from the big opening apocalyptic scene at the S.H.I.E.L.D base to the gargantuan effects-soaked final battle.

Director Whedon combines extremely clever lines, bombastic CGI with unexpected character development, and elevates the overused superhero genre to something much more substantial. He completely resists the temptation to make a dark brooding drama, and in taking a more gregarious direction, the film becomes infinitely more refreshing.

Firstly, you are unlikely to find a more likable ensemble of characters in any film anywhere. Not only do you get to witness the spectacle of Iron Man and Captain America fight alongside each other, and The Hulk and Thor smashing people together, but you’re also greeted with terrific witty back and forth banter between them all. It’s clear that Whedon is crazy about comic books and he balances the large and iconic cast of characters with the passionate dexterity of a 14-year-old genius surgeon.

The plot is naturally an excuse to get the big guys together. Baddie Asgardian Loki (Tom Hiddleston) arrives on earth to rule humans and has an alien army to enforce his regime. To deal with the threat, S.H.I.E.L.D director Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) assembles the motley group of Avengers to kick copious amounts of alien buttock and defend the planet. But putting all these guys in a single room doesn’t go too smoothly initially — they bicker hilariously and bombard each other with scathing one-liners.

While Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is super serious and methodical, Tony Stark (Downey Jr) is amusingly narcissistic, Thor (Hemsworth) is a vengeful foreigner, Black Widow (Johansson) is menthol cool and sexy as hell, and unlike in her previous appearance, she is smart and suave. There’s an interesting twist to Hawkeye’s (Renner) character, but Mark Ruffalo brings a wonderful new shade to Bruce Banner and really steals the show as the Hulk.

The special effects are colossal and eye popping, and there are plenty of bigger than life moments. In fact the whole second half is one ambitious action scene grander than all the other Marvel films put together.
Hiddleston makes a very interesting villain, and a scene involving him and the Hulk towards the end will leave your face with the widest possible grin. Samuel L Jackson is his usual pulpy self and Whedon goes one step further and gives Agent Coulson (Cobie Smulders) a meatier role.

The Avengers took almost 50 years to appear on screen together, and the wait has indeed been worthwhile. It’s one of the most entertaining films ever made - it’s total delight to just sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

"The Beaver" Is A Unique And Thoughtful Project That Showcases A Charming

The Beaver, much like the film’s protagonist, has been hiding from the ugly realities of life for the last six months – after a seemingly never-ending font of bad press for star Mel Gibson.
A lot of early industry murmurs focused on the parallels between the actor and his equally self-destructive character in the film. The comparisons are certainly interesting but, without the controversy, can The Beaver stand on its own two feet as one of the better indie offerings in a summer chock-full of high profile superhero films?

Fortunately, the answer is yes. While it’s certainly hard to fully ignore some of the more on-the-nose moments of actor/character crossover (specifically a disheveled-looking Gibson pouring Vodka on a television screen), The Beaver still manages to direct the audience away from the controversy and to the story at hand – that of clinically depressed Walter Black, family man and CEO of a flailing toy company, who spends the majority of his days asleep, on medications, or sleeping because of all the medications.

It’s at Walter’s lowest moment that the titular beaver puppet comes into the picture. The Beaver allows Walter to take back his life by speaking for him (in a British accent) and offering a safe distance between the ups and downs of everyday living: his failing company, estranged wife and resentful teenager – as well as his youngest son, who is routinely overlooked. However, even as Walter finds new life and success hiding behind The Beaver, it isn’t long before he realizes that while he may be up walking around, the Walter he wants to be still needs to wake-up.

On paper, a story like The Beaver could be laughable (we won’t even get into the title) but coupled with some thoughtful and compelling direction from Jodie Foster, Gibson delivers an especially charming and believable performance. Some of more traditionally challenging scenes, where an actor has to engage in a back and forth with an inanimate object, are surprisingly successful – with subtle adjustments to his expression, Gibson breathes life into both The Beaver as well as the heartbreakingly empty and submissive Walter.

Similarly, Gibson and Foster (through the actor’s performance and the director’s composition) give The Beaver an actual physical presence – without it coming across as a gimmick. The puppet doesn’t just make things awkward for the characters, it genuinely helps to draw-out subtle emotions in the supporting cast as well as add an exclamation point to already complicated (or humorous) situations.

Foster, who has been somewhat off the grid the last five years, works double-duty on the film as Walter’s wife Meredith and delivers a great counter-point to Gibson’s closed-off and non-adversarial character. Similarly, the film spends a significant amount of time following the story of Walter’s older son, Porter (Star Trek’s Anton Yelchin) as he attempts to purge himself of any resemblance to his father before he heads-off to college at Brown University.

The film does a good job of providing a reason for the time dedicated to Porter’s story – and the side-narrative also gives the audience a well-deserved break from the main plot as well as brings in characters we wouldn’t otherwise get a chance to see, specifically Norah (played by Jennifer Lawrence). Despite the fact that Norah isn’t directly affected by Walter’s shenanigans, she helps mirror his inner struggle – as she wrestles with her own inability to face the challenges of life. To their credit, both Lawrence and Yelchin offer-up great performances and manage to keep their senior-year storyline from falling into the same campy geek guy/popular girl conventions of a lot of films.

The performances and execution in The Beaver are on-point; however, the film is not without a few shortcomings. In general, the movie successfully chronicles Walter’s journey of self-acceptance and discovery, but at times gets bogged down in some over-the-top story beats that come across “cartoony” and could remind audiences of the overly-absurd set-up – the same one the actors have worked so hard to keep grounded and real.

The Beaver is at its best when it stays grounded, because the characters (and subsequently the performances) are deep and interesting – but once in awhile the filmmakers must have felt as though audiences needed more. An example: when one of Walter’s toy creations becomes a smash hit, it isn’t enough to just see the sold-out store shelves – The Beaver himself has to become a cultural icon for audiences to get that the puppet can’t actually bring about a true recovery.

Similarly, while the film succeeds in earning its emotional climax, The Beaver doesn’t exactly handle Walter’s descent into madness as carefully (or convincingly) as it needs to in order for the dramatic climax to be equally successful. Instead, while the final act of the film is certainly compelling from moment to moment, it’s not as carefully crafted as what came before, ultimately rocketing the main plot forward while leaving some story threads unresolved.

A few slips in the build-up of the overarching narrative  still can’t undercut the captivating performances, engaging characters, and great thematic material explored in the film. The Beaver is a unique and thoughtful project that showcases a charming, as well as unconventional, character journey. And, despite how you feel about the man, it’s also one of Gibson’s best roles to date.

"Attack The Block" Matches Music To Movie Pretty Much Perfectly

Attack the Block is an unlikely contender in the currently overcrowded ring of alien invasion flicks – which are all fighting for success at the box office (particularly the U.S. box office). The film has no real headlining stars (a small appearance by Paul star Nick Frost is about as famous as it gets); it was shot on a small budget; the main characters are a gang of young, unapologetic hoodlums; plus, they’re young hoodlums who speak in thick British accents, while dropping slang that requires Urban Dictionary to decipher.

So the question then becomes: how does this foreign indie genre flick do so well what so many big-budget Hollywood genre flicks do so poorly, so often?

The setup is this: A street gang in one of South London’s tougher “blocks” are out one night, up to their usual no-good-deeds. This time they happen to run across a young nurse named Sam (Jodie Whittaker), who gets into a scuffle over her ring with the gang’s leader, Moses (John Boyega). In the midst of the scuffle a strange object comes crashing down from the sky, and all of sudden, Moses’ would-be robbery has turned into a battle with a mysterious creature. Being the tough guys that they are, Moses and his gang chase the creature down and kill it – only afterward determining that the creature is most likely an alien. Not that the boys care, though: as far as they’re concerned, ET has landed in the wrong neighborhood.

However, “actions have consequences,” as the film later reminds us. Moses and the gangs’ close encounter sets into motion a chain of events that lands them in the crosshairs of the police, a local gangster, and of course, a whole swarm of invading aliens. On this night gone horribly wrong, “the block” is indeed under attack.

What sets this film high above so many others like it is the style that writer/director Joe Cornish (Ant-Man, Tintin) crafts it with. The smart story, authentic characters, hip dialogue, inventive filming choices (in place of big-budget spectacles), vibrant cinematography and even the techno-funk soundtrack, all work to create a cohesive and engrossing movie experience. This is a film that contains many familiar genre tropes (sci-fi/horror/urban-drama/comedy), yet also feels contemporary, fresh, and absolutely fun.

The characters (and the young actors playing them) get big props for making this film work. It’s a bold move to ask an audience to follow and care about a group of hard-headed young hoodlums, but the cast of young actors (Boyega in particular) do a great job of making their respective characters human and relatable, without compromising their rough-edged authenticity, or wallowing in melodrama.

Take Moses, for instance. He’s a roughneck who has inner nobility beneath his callous shell – a knucklehead who you almost believe would be a better person in another world. Only, Moses is in the world he’s in, and isn’t apologetic about the wrong he does in order to survive. Think a strong, silent, outlaw gunslinger type, transported into an urban setting. His foil is nurse Sam, a woman who has lived in “the block” all her life, despite the dangers, and still sees a distinct line between right and wrong. The sub-plot with her and Moses going from predator and victim to friends adds a level of grounded meaning and subtext to this otherwise over-the-top story.

The supporting cast in this film are keep things light and fun from moment to moment. Those supporting players include Moses’ fellow gang members (the pot-head, the geek, the asshole, etc…) and “locals” like a dope-headed weed dealer (Nick Frost), his fish-out-of-water upper-class client (Luke Treadaway), a psycho gangster/wannabe rapper (Jumayn Hunter), and two “baby gangsters,” who spend the film trying to earn their reps on the block (in truly hilarious ways).

One might worry that this urban world which Cornish imbues with such life would be compromised by the sci-fi/horror/comedy tropes that get thrown into the mix, but this is not the case. Unlike other genre-mashing movies, the filmmakers do a good job pulling off the alien invasion by using what small resources they have to the utmost and making smart decisions. The aliens themselves are presented as big, oil-black “bear/dogs”, whose only discernible feature is a mouth of fangs lit-up like neon signs. This keeps the aliens mysterious and menacing, and saves the filmmakers the burden of having to create more detailed CGI creatures. The way the aliens almost ooze in and out of the shadows works perfectly in the urban environment, where there are nooks and shadows aplenty. It’s not the best effects work (not by a mile) but it is very effective in this context.

A good soundtrack is also a crucial ingredient in creating a good movie experience, and Attack the Block matches music to movie pretty much perfectly. House music duo Basement Jaxx, working with musician Steven Price, create a score for this film that is equal parts techno, hip-hop and funk; it amplifies the authentic feeling of the urban world the film is set in, while keeping the necessary tension pulsing throughout the proceedings. Definitely one of those soundtracks you want to keep bobbing your head to, long after the credits roll.

In the end, this is a film that is just fun to experience. The small-budget production values lend it a 1980s nostalgia, which is hard not to appreciate if you’re one of those people who grew up watching movies like Gremlins. Add in the modern urban edge, entertaining characters, and a story that manages to be clever on top of fun, and you have a movie that some big-budget filmmakers should look to before trying to push out another invasion flick that’s big on spectacle, but woefully lacking in enjoyment (see: Cowboys & Aliens – or rather, see Attack the Block instead).

Films Without Music Are Really Impossible To Imagine

Films are one of the best entertaining mediums. From the time of the silent moving pictures they have continued to make some impact on the human mind. Then gradually came sound and dialogues, but the film songs and the music, whether in the background or in the song is one of the best entertainment. It mesmerizes the human mind along with various kinds of dreams. However, the success of a film is related also with the performance of the actors, script or the director. But there is hardly anything that can be comparable with music.

There are many factors of how music can make an impact and can simply turn around a film. It is more than essential in dramas or plays, since it tells more than the story. It reaches deep into the heart of the audience and this makes music for film so much essential. The Bollywood film with their song and dance numbers is one of the best entertainment mediums. The Hollywood films relies more on the latest hit songs. Songs and lyrics are not only romantic but also equally applicable with horror, action or animation.

There are different kinds of music created in a film and this is related with various kinds of background music. This is known as underscore as per the terms of the background music score. This music differs from films to films and the original recordings are composed only for a specific movie. Most of them are used in movies and different kinds of recordings. It is generally related with subject contracts and royalties and this helps to make it much exclusive for the company. The songs are generally used to emphasize the emotions on a certain scene.

Films without music are really impossible to imagine nowadays. You may find films with frequent background music and only dialogues. Songs may be in the beginning or towards the end of the film but with every situation and to dramatize it further there is always the presence of music for film, whether in the background or the other. Most of these compositions are licensed; it can make comedies funnier or tragedies more heartbreaking. However, music should be cleverly inserted into the films to make the movies, plays or dramas more interesting and lively. With the music it could be as dull as the budgeted soap operas and can actually make or break a movie. 

"Titanic 3D" Enhances An Sharp Big Screen Experience

Following the success of Avatar, James Cameron became the poster child for modern 3D in Hollywood – setting the gold standard for how filmmakers could approach the format artistically (i.e., subtle depth as opposed to gimmicky pop-out effects). As a result, more and more directors are coming around to the 3D format, and delivering their own enjoyable implementations of the effect (such as in Martin Scorsese’s Hugo).

However, while Cameron may have opened the eyes of directors and producers – not just money hungry studios – to the benefits of shooting in 3D, many moviegoers are still skeptical of films that are presented with post-converted 3D. Non-native 3D offerings are a mixed bag with unnecessary (My Soul to Take) or flat-out ugly (Clash of the Titans) conversions, not to mention underwhelming applications of the format to re-releases (Star Wars: Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace). Can Cameron once again set the bar – this time for post-conversion – with Titanic 3D?

NOTE: As with previous 3D rerelease reviews, we’ll be focusing on whether or not Titanic 3D is worth the price of admission, instead of revisiting prior criticisms that have been routinely brought-up over the fifteen years since the Titanic‘s original release (the lengthy run-time (3 hours and 15 minutes) and an (at times) overly melodramatic romance, etc). While moviegoers no doubt responded to some of the film’s characters and plights, Titanic relied heavily on spectacle. But is that spectacle even better in 3D?

Unsurprisingly, the answer is yes. However, before addressing the 3D, it’s worth mentioning that Cameron and his team not only retrofitted the film for three-dimensional visuals, they also polished up the footage pre-conversion. As a result, Titanic 3D offers a noticeably sharp picture (at least compared to other re-releases from the late 90′s) and could, aside from a few shots where the CGI looks slightly dated, stand toe-to-toe with modern digital films.

Unlike Star Wars: Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace 3D, which really played-up the “experience it in 3D” angle, the Titanic 3D marketing has been a bit more subtle (i.e. revisit Titanic - now enhanced with 3D) which fits with Cameron’s approach to the format, in general. Despite mostly solid performances from the leading and supporting players alike, some audience members (now older in age) may find some character moments to be a bit more stilted and hammy than they might have remembered. Overall, though, the film still delivers a beautiful and at times chilling theatrical experience. Fans, as well as moviegoers who never had the chance to catch Titanic on the big screen, are likely to be pleased with the results even if it was offered in 2D, since the movie still presents well-rounded theater entertainment. That said, Titanic is only getting a 3D rerelease with no official 2D showings – which means that if you want to see the film, you’ll have to be ready to splurge on the upgraded ticket price. Fortunately, Titanic is worth the price of that 3D admission, as it employs the same subtle “style” of presentation as Avatar.

At first, audiences may be underwhelmed by the 3D – as the scenes on Brock Lovett’s treasure-hunting ship, as well as those on the seafloor, are surprisingly flat. However, as soon as Rose takes the audience “back to Titanic,” it becomes immediately clear why Cameron chose to present this particular film as an example of post-3D conversion done right. The Southampton Port scene is filled with eye-popping (not eye-hurting) 3D visuals that successfully add to the frantic energy and anticipation of the moment – from the massive crowd vibrating with excitement to the loading of a Renault motorcar. Like Cameron’s prior 3D efforts, the effect is extremely subtle – and, as a result, very natural and immersive. Even in the non-action scenes, where the camera might merely pan around a dinner table, the extravagant sets, costumes, and depth of field make even the most familiar moments fresh and captivating.

Calm 3D shots of passengers strolling on the deck or engineers monitoring the enormous cylinders in the engine room offer plenty of immersive visuals; however, unsurprisingly, the effects really take hold in Titanic’s latter half – as the character drama shifts into an epic disaster film. As mentioned the effect is subtle, but plenty of scenes are enhanced by Cameron’s 3D choices, dialing up the tension or, at the very least, outright visual spectacle in a number of memorable moments – such as Captain Edward John Smith’s window view on the sunken bridge, the flooding of E Deck, or the lifting (and subsequent sinking) of the stern – not to mention the frozen ocean graveyard.

The success of the post-conversion rests heavily on Cameron’s pre-commercial 3D skills as a visual filmmaker, which were readily on display in Titanic. This includes his attention to detail (painstakingly recreating the ornate particulars of Titanic and her passengers) as well as utilization of the full depth of field (both inside and outside of the ship’s hull). Very few of the film’s shots are ever uninteresting, as there’s nearly always something in the background worth having in the frame (whether it’s the static but elaborate details of Hockley’s stateroom or living breathing Irish immigrants dancing at the third-class party). As a result, anyone hoping for the kind of eye-popping visuals featured in Michael Bay’s shot-in-3D action spectacle Transformers: Dark of the Moon might be a bit underwhelmed, as the effect is rarely “in your face.” However, in this case, that’s actually a relief – since Cameron wasn’t as interested in outright wowing audiences with crazy visuals as he was in immersing them with the stories of the RMS Titanic.

Titanic 3D is easily the best example of post-conversion 3D to date. It might lack some of the creative synergy that could have been explored had the film actually been shot with 3D in mind (15 years ago) and it’s likely that some viewers, looking for non-stop 3D eye candy, could be underwhelmed by the film’s subtle effect. However, with plenty already going for it and a fresh polish from the pre-3D remastering, the post-conversion in Titanic 3D successfully enhances an already sharp big screen experience.

"Retreat" Is A Film That You Should Seek Out

Single-setting thrillers are a sub-genre of film that require two key ingredients: 1) A plausible premise that keeps the action centered in one location. 2) A cast of talented actors who can fill the unblinking screen time with engaging and energetic performances. Carl Tibbetts’ Retreat definitely has the latter, with its cast of impressive actors (Cillian Murphy, Thandie Newton and Jamie Bell); however, when it comes to the former, the film definitely stumbles.

Murphy and Newton star as married couple Martin and Kate. After a suffering a devastating personal loss, the couple leave London to spend some quiet time in their remote cabin on Blackholme Island, off the west coast of Scotland. While at the cabin, the couple repeatedly try (and fail) to heal their respective scars and rekindle their marriage – but all their issues get put aside when a mysterious stranger (Jamie Bell) comes stumbling into view, covered in blood.

The couple take in the battered man and discover he’s armed with a gun. The stranger says his name is Jack, and that he’s a private in the military who made his way to the island in order to escape a deadly virus that is wiping out the populace. Without a second’s hesitation, Jack dictates to Kate and Martin that their only chance of mutual survival is to seal the cabin up; no outsiders can enter, and no one in the cabin can leave. Martin and Kate begin to panic, but cannot agree on whether they should believe Jack or not. From there, that old saying about “Two’s company, three’s a crowd,” plays itself out, as loyalty and sanity all get put to the test.

Retreat looks and feels very much like indie fare. The camera work and production values are bare bones, and Tibbetts (who is directing his first feature-film) is obviously trying to make the most out of what little he has. Lucky for him, one thing he has is a talented cast.

Newton is an underrated actress, though regrettably, her character here is very thin, cliched, and comes off as annoying for most of the story. It’s Murphy and Bell who really carry the film: the former has that quiet intensity hid behind icy blue eyes and a thin frame, and that keeps the buttoned-down Martin somewhat unpredictable in terms of what lengths he will go in order to survive. Bell is a strong presence in just about anything he’s been in, and he makes Jack a dominating, manic, yet still vulnerable and cunning man, whose motives and sanity are a constant question mark (Is he crazy? Is he lying? Could he be possibly telling the truth?). Not many young actors could pull such a pivotal role off in such an exciting, confident way, and Bell deserves credit.

The script (co-written by first-timer Janice Hallett and Tibbetts) is solid enough, and even manages a nice twist or two. However, the film definitely buckles under the weight of the questions it raises about the logic of the characters and their choices. A single-setting thriller has the hard task of making you accept that characters faced with an extreme situation would choose to – or are forced to – remain in one place, rather than simply walking away from the situation. Sure, technically you could nitpick any piece of cinema to death over the issue of believability, but if plot holes or questionable choices are distracting you while you’re watching the film, the scriptwriter has not accomplished his/her task as skillfully as they should have. Suspension of disbelief is doubly crucial in a single-setting thriller, meaning it’s doubly as problematic when disbelief and doubt overtake the viewing experience.

In the end, Retreat is a film that you should seek out only if you like the actors headlining the cast, or if you have a particular love of the single-setting thriller sub-genre. Otherwise, you’re likely to…(wait for it) retreat from watching this movie, before you ever make it to the twist ending.

"The Raid:Redemption"-The Epic Action Movie

In the The Raid:Redemption, highly-trained cop Rama (martial arts star Iko Uwais) leaves his pregnant wife at home and embarks on his first mission with a squad of elite cops. Their task? Infiltrate the slum stronghold of the ruthless Boss Tama (Ray Sahetapy), and bring the gangster to justice. The problem? The apartment complex the cops are invading is occupied by tenants who range from assassins to thugs to certifiable psychopaths – and all the other scum the slums have to offer.

The cops barely make it through the door before they’re spotted by the crooks, and from there it is an all-out war, floor by floor, as Rama and his teammates try to brave a nightmare of violence and destruction in order to make their arrest.
The Raid: Redemption has been hyped as one of the most thrilling and enjoyable action movies to come along in the last decade or so, and this is one of the rare occasions where the hype is actually well deserved. Put simply: this film is awesome. It is easily my favorite action movie of the last few years – and one I might rank as my #2 favorite behind Die Hard (blaspheme! I know). In my opinion, it’s just that good.

The film is a product of Welsh director Gareth Evans (who also wrote the script) and martial arts stuntmen / actors from the Indonesian film industry. (For those wondering, the film is in Indonesian dialect with English subtitles.) The Raid is also a fantastic showcase for the Indonesian martial arts style of “Pencak Silat,” which makes the “wire-fu” antics of other Asian action films look like child’s play. The fight choreography was designed by stars Iko Uwais (Rama) and Yayan Ruhian (who plays the villain “Mad Dog”), and I do not exaggerate when I say that there are certain sequences that will have you dropping your jaw or squealing in excitement about what you’ve just seen.

Aside from the adrenaline-inducing fight choreography, The Raid has some of the most impressive camerawork seen in an action flick. Instead of fight sequences viewed at medium distance – or worse, indiscernibly filmed in “shaky-cam” style – Evans and his camera crew include the camera as part of the fight choreography. During a fight sequence (of which there are many), the camera dances around combatants in perfect synch with their movements and blows – even going so far as to circle around doorways and walls (should someone kicked kicked through one) or dropping down through floors (as combatants move to different planes by jumping down stairwells or holes).

With a few exceptions, the characters in the movie are somewhat thin and stereotypical – but really that’s par for the course if you look at any horror film. The main players are fleshed out nicely (namely, Rama and a few of the villains) and there are even some nice twists on certain characters that defy your initial expectations. The performances don’t require all that much range (it’s mostly physical acting), but the main characters are handled well by their respective performers. While the character aspect of the script is just okay, by the end of the film Evans does succeed in creating a larger mythos that will set the stage for an interesting and exciting sequel (which is currently in the works, BTW).

If I had to point out flaws, they would be things like some of the low-budget effects (CGI blood) or the aforementioned thinly-drawn supporting characters. However, these complaints are mere nitpicks (worth no more than half a star) – and when compared to the overall sense of enjoyment and thrills that The Raid offers, these nitpicks don’t even qualify. If you are an action movie fan, you will walk out of this film on an adrenaline high.

"Man On A Ledge" Is That Could Fall In Love With It

Man on a Ledge has a title that pretty much explains its central premise: escaped convict Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington) re-surfaces in an expensive Manhattan hotel, and suddenly steps out onto the ledge outside his window. At first it seems that Nick is intent on ending his life, but a series of curious decisions (as well as an unusually composed demeanor for a potential jumper) lead disgraced police negotiator Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks) to discern that this mysterious jumper is actually a part of something much bigger.

That “something” involves Nick’s former life as a prominent NYPD cop who was convicted of stealing from ruthless businessman  Deavid Englander (Ed Harris), and paid the price with a long prison sentence. With the help of his brother Joey (Jaime Bell) and Joey’s girlfriend Angie (Genesis Rodriguez), Nick tries to get justice for the supposed wrong done to him. But with a target on his head and the whole city watching, how does one desperate man find redemption?

Man on a Ledge is one of those B-movie single-setting thrillers that is so riddled with holes and logical inconsistencies that the pulling of any one plot thread will quickly unravel the whole show. Luckily, director Asger Leth keeps each scene in the film loaded with enough action and movement that it manages to hold the viewer’s interest – at least until it becomes apparent that script writer Pablo F. Fenjves doesn’t have that many tricks up his sleeve.

Every plot point in Man on a Ledge is pretty cliched and foreseeable, and the film ends up getting by on the inertia of tension and suspense. That is to say: you’ll probably see what’s coming, but watching it play out is still somewhat enjoyable. As events unfold, the implausibility of the entire situation only increases, and by the time that Nick Cassidy’s fate is decided, the story has pretty much gone off the rails.

Man on a Ledge is oddly miscast for a film of its stature – and by that I mean a lineup of solid performers working with some pretty undeserving material. Sam Worthington is still not the best leading man, and that’s not entirely a matter of acting. His hairdo in the film certainly doesn’t help invite the eye. Elizabeth Banks, conversely, is a likable screen presence, and brings a bit of sharp levity to her part – though her “dramatic” backstory plays out as somewhat ridiculous.

Actors like Kyra Sedgwock, Anthony Mackie, William Sadler and Ed Burns are wasted in their bit roles – with Burns being handed the especially strange task of playing a cop who stands around indifferent to all the things that are happening around him. Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez play a “BF/GF” couple who might be the least convincing professional thieves, ever. In the end, the only actor who seems to have fun is Harris, who gets to play the hammy villain.

Visually the film isn’t too bad, with Asger Leth showing solid chops for basic film construction as well as action. A lot of the heist sequences manage to create some good tension, and the editing of Kevin Stitt (Cloverfield, The Kingdom, X-Men) is smart enough to keep things moving at a good pace without letting the mind settle for too long – which is the only way this movie functions at all. As mentioned, so much of what happens in Man on a Ledge doesn’t hold up under even a second of critical thought, so the fact that watching it all play out has even a semblance of enjoyment to it is somewhat of a minor miracle in and of itself.

People who enjoy a popcorn thriller that doesn’t offer much thought will be suitably satisfied with Man on a Ledge. Otherwise, this is one that could definitely stand to fall in the “rental” category.

"The Lorax" In An At Times Moving And Thought-provoking

Universal’s 3D feature film adaption of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax is actually the second time the beloved writer’s story has been brought to the screen – the first time being an animated short that premiered on TV back in 1972. In that 40-year span between Lorax adaptations, the issue of environmental preservation has continued to rage, and so the tale is (unfortunately) as relevant today as it was decades ago.
But is a 3D movie rife with musical numbers, slapstick comedy and a “hip” modern edge really the best delivery system for a message to kids about environmental responsibility? Or is the presentation of the message at odds with the message itself?

In this expanded take on Dr. Seuss’ tale we meet Ted (voice of Zac Efron), a resident of “Thneed-Ville,” an encapsulated city of complete artifice, where even the “trees” are mechanical, and fresh air is a commodity sold by diminutive tycoon, Mr. O’Hare (voice of Rob Riggle). Ted likes a girl named Audrey (voice of Taylor Swift) and Audrey wants nothing more than to see a real, live Truffula Tree, and Ted wants nothing more than to be the man who brings it to her. On advice from his Grandma Norma (voice of Betty White), Ted does the unthinkable: he ventures out of the mechanical bubble that is Thneed-Ville into the wastelands to seek out “The Once-ler,” a mysterious figure who Grandma Norma claims is the only man who knows what happened to the trees.

Ted tracks down the Once-ler (voice of Ed Helms) – a grungy shut-in with a few screws loose – and manages to get him to tell the tale of his younger years as a would-be entrepreneur, who came to the valley to harvest Truffula Tree tufts (the furry top of the tree) for an all-purpose invention called a “Thneed” (which looks hilariously like a smaller version the Snuggie). When the young Once-ler topples his first tree, he brings forth The Lorax (voice of Danny DeVito), a guardian spirit of the forest who warns the Once-ler that his desecration of the tree will have grave consequences.

At first the Once-ler heeds the warning, but when the Thneed miraculously becomes a hit, the high-demand and ample profits give the Once-ler all the reason he needs to harvest the Truffula Trees nonstop. As Ted listens to the tale of the Once-ler’s eventual downfall, he quickly realizes that his quest to find a tree may have more importance than simply landing him the girl he likes.

The Lorax is a strange mix of (sometimes conflicting) ideas and elements, but it ultimately works as a solid animated feature, which offers a positive message for the juice box crowd to take home. The film starts off looking like any other big-budget animated feature cooked up at a major studio, with kooky cartoon characters, frantic onscreen action to hold the kids’ easily-diverted attention, high-production musical numbers and a toned-down, demographically-friendly version of Dr. Seuss’ often strange imagination. It’s around the middle of the film that the gears shift, and we get into the more adult (and potentially politically-divisive) ruminations on Randian principles of big-business weighed against environmental ethics – with a song titled “How Bad Can I Be?” offering a child-palatable rundown of those conflicting views, which have been debated in socio-political discourse for decades now.

For those worried about the film pushing a political agenda: Dr. Seuss intended the story to be one of environmental awareness, so it’s an unavoidable part of the film’s DNA. The movie stays grounded in its view of the Once-ler and his mistakes; he’s not depicted as a monster, just a misguided guy thinking only of the short-term. The final third of the film wisely invests more effort into preaching environmental responsibility on a personal level, than it does condemning big business or pushing a larger environmental political agenda. If you’re ok with your kids wanting to help plant trees and/or keep their neighborhood clean, then The Lorax is no threat to your values or politics.

As stated, The Lorax may be a movie with a message, but it’s not necessarily a bad one, and the film does a good job of conveying it in an at times moving, at times thought-provoking, way. The fact that it indulges in studio-sanctioned silliness when not being poignant and pointed was a minus for me; but maybe bells and whistles are what’s needed to keep the kids interested long enough to get the lesson.

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes Is A Shocking Movie

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not your typical summer actioner. It's not an action film at all, actually. There is one spectacular extended set piece, but this is old-school science fiction filmmaking. It's about mood setting, about planting seeds -- much like the original Planet of the Apes was. Director Rupert Wyatt takes his time unrolling his movie -- a bit too much, it should be said -- but what he lays out for us is a fascinating look at the consequences of scientific ambition fueled by personal feelings. This movie takes us to the very beginning, to show us how it is that the human race would find itself in the evolutionary pickle depicted in the original picture.

In present-day San Francisco, research is happening that could lead to a breakthrough in the treatment of Alzheimer’s. The drug developed by an ambitious scientist named Will Rodman (James Franco) looks to be the magic bullet. We'll learn later in the movie that it has unintended and dire side effects. But when the prize test subject, the ape called 'Bright Eyes,' (a tip of the cap to the nickname Charlton Heston's 'Taylor' had in the 1st Apes movie) is killed by security guards after an outburst, Will is forced to take his work home with him. He sneaks Bright Eyes' baby out of the drug labs to keep him from being put down when the entire research project is scrapped. Caesar, we'll soon learn, has inherited the experimental drug's properties from his mother. Will is actually caring for two. John Lithgow plays Franco's father, whose life and dignity is being dismantled by Alzheimer’s. The drug however, causes immediate improvement in the elder Rodman. We spend a lot of time watching Caesar grow, from a precocious young primate who can sign, to an Ape with a grasp of basic human emotions.

Like curiosity, and compassion. Like during the moment where Lithgow’s character, falling victim again to the onslaught of Alzheimer’s, can’t remember how to use his fork during a meal. Caesar reaches over and gently turns the fork around. No words are exchanged, just knowing glances, but the bond between the two is clear. But no amount of domestication can change the fact that beneath all of the intelligence is beastly rage. Those moments grow intensity as the film progresses. And it works beautifully, thanks to the genius of Andy Serkis. There is no overstating Serkis’ performance as Caesar, the unnaturally intelligent and cunning ape at the center of the film's simian uprising. Think about the stones it takes to put your big-budget possible franchise re-launcher square in the hands of an actor whose face you'll never see once in the movie. Because make no mistake, as Caesar, Serkis is the star.

It only works because of his mastery of performance capture acting allows him to stretch the boundaries of CGI work to unknown levels. Instead of grand, dramatic gestures, Caesar is all about subtlety. The menacing glare, the dismissive sneer, the acknowledging head nod; Caesar is the Frank Morris of the Ape prison. He runs the yard, not because he's the biggest or strongest. He's neither. But he has the most respect. By the time he's ready to make his play, his simian soldiers are prepared to lay down their lives for Caesar. As he signs to his baboon confidante, 'Ape alone. Weak. Ape together? Strong.' So begins the revolution. Director Wyatt Easter eggs his movie with several nods to Planet of the Apes. Some, like the TV footage of a space mission to Mars, are subtle. Is that supposed to be the same astronaut crew that will travel into the year 3978, crash landing on an Earth run by Apes?

Others are not quite as discreet. Tom Felton gets to utter the franchise's signature line, but his tone is a lot different than Charlton Heston's when he says, 'get your stinking..' oh hell, do I really need to actually write it out? As the doctor whose personal stakes push him to the boundaries of ethical research, Franco is empathetic. His relationship with Caesar is well drawn. However, once Caesar is taken from him, the movie shifts toward Caesar's evolution. Franco and his girlfriend, the woefully under-used Frieda Pinto, become strictly cameo players. Even Brian Cox gets pushed aside for monkey business. Whenever he shows up in a movie like this -- and if you've seen X2: X-Men United or Troy, you know what I mean -- you almost start a countdown to his onscreen comeuppance. Instead it’s Harry Potter alum Felton who gets to play the role of 'sadistic human.' But it doesn't matter, because what you want is to see what happens to the apes. As the movie finally arrives at its crescendo, it does so with drums banging. The jailbreak, followed by the mad chase through the streets of San Francisco and over the Golden Gate Bridge, is some kind of awesome. Northern California comes into play in this climactic fight between the ape army and human law enforcement. Caesar uses the fog and the natural surroundings to his advantage; He's a primate Patton, who outfoxes his upright opponents effortlessly. Yet he also manages to maintain a certain sense of honor. As the film concludes, the threads for future stories are clearly laid out.

And it should be said, it's done with a clever plausibility, at least as plausible as a scenario can be in which Ape ousts Man. The only way an Ape army survives against man's superior firepower is to seek shelter where those weapons can't touch them, somewhere that puts the battle in the apes' favor. Hello, Northern California Redwood forests. The final scene offers even more signs of impending bad news for humanity’s future, but we won't spoil that here. Is this a great movie? No, it's not, but it misses by just a little bit. Certain story lines are started and discarded. Franco, Pinto and Cox aren't given enough to do in the last half of the picture.

And the first 45 minutes sometimes feels like you're watching "Leave It to Caesar. But Rise of the Planet of the Apes is ambitious. It raises moral questions and makes the kind of statements about relevant social concerns that great sci-fi has always done. In tone, pace and spirit, it is the Apes movie that most closely resembles the film that kicked off the franchise. The big difference between the two movies is of course, that aside from Vera and Cornelius, a human -- Taylor -- was still the most compelling character in the 1968 movie. The tables have turned in this one. It was as if, during the editing process, Wyatt realized the best, most human characters in his movie weren't the actual humans; it was the computer-generated apes.

"War Horse’"Brings Tears For Its Deep Feelings

Is Steven Spielberg’s ‘War Horse’ another beautiful and moving period drama from the critically-acclaimed director? 

Only days after releasing the kid-friendly film, The Adventures of TinTin, Steven Spielberg returns with a heavier (and very much NOT kid-friendly) dramatic offering, War Horse - a World War I drama based on a children’s book by Michael Morpurgo (which also inspired a stage play from Nick Stafford).

While many film fans tend to most fondly remember Spielberg’s lighthearted sci-fi and action-adventure titles (such as E.T. and the Indiana Jones series), many of the Oscar-winner’s most celebrated works have been hard-hitting period dramas. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List were recognized by the Academy as well as other awards organizations and, despite violent historical narratives, also drew tremendous numbers at the box office. Has Spielberg managed to once again blend evocative and entertaining period drama in War Horse? Or is the film too dismal and emotionally manipulative to actually move audiences?

Only days after releasing the kid-friendly film, The Adventures of TinTin, Steven Spielberg returns with a heavier (and very much NOT kid-friendly) dramatic offering, War Horse - a World War I drama based on a children’s book by Michael Morpurgo (which also inspired a stage play from Nick Stafford).

While many film fans tend to most fondly remember Spielberg’s lighthearted sci-fi and action-adventure titles (such as E.T. and the Indiana Jones series), many of the Oscar-winner’s most celebrated works have been hard-hitting period dramas. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List were recognized by the Academy as well as other awards organizations and, despite violent historical narratives, also drew tremendous numbers at the box office. Has Spielberg managed to once again blend evocative and entertaining period drama in War Horse? Or is the film too dismal and emotionally manipulative to actually move audiences?

That said, the marketing for the film (coupled with the children’s book source material) might lead some moviegoers to think that War Horse is a mostly lighthearted and inspiring adventure suitable for older children – which, for anyone familiar with the stage adaptation that inspired Spielberg’s movie, would be a mistake. There is a huge difference between having scenes of animals and people in peril in a children’s book (or portrayed by puppets in a stage play) – and having live human and animal actors in the same situations in a very realistic-looking film. For casual audiences, War Horse may actually be one of the heavier and more challenging films of the year – as the World War seemingly destroys everything in its wake (soldiers, innocents, and animals alike). The heavy tone and heart-wrenching moments don’t detract from the overall success of the film, but for sensitive viewers, it’s important to note that the War Horse marketing definitely makes the movie look significantly lighter than what actually plays out onscreen.

The unrelenting tone is almost certainly intentional and actually helps to ground audiences in the horrors of World War I. However, there’s no doubt that each of the vignettes can be exceptionally draining – especially because the terrible deeds of man far outweigh any moments of levity. The director does manage to imbue a number of the characters with enjoyable and lively personalities (even in the face of the dangers at hand); however, even the most hopeful and cheerful of the War Horse personalities are ultimately overrun by the overarching war machine. As a result, the film can at times come across as a continuous descent into increasingly horrifying human experiences.

That’s not to say that there aren’t a number of lighthearted moments as well – mainly due to the success of the equine actors coupled with some inspired performances from their human counterparts. Joey exudes a tremendous amount of personality, especially considering the character is actually a composite of fourteen different horse performers, and provides interesting and believable reactions to the various scenarios portrayed onscreen. Unsurprisingly, Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski make use of the horses to great effect – whether to showcase the majesty and beauty of the animals at play or to juxtapose the horror that befell working animals in the early days of mechanized war machines.

Despite featuring an equine protagonist, the War Horse story is still largely about the human condition in World War I, and Spielberg lined up a compelling roster of talent to play off of the Joey character in a myriad of different dramatic opportunities (detestable and sympathetic alike). Jeremy Irvine is competent in the lead role as Albert – even in spite of a few hammy and overly eager moments in his performance. There’s no doubt the actor had a stiff challenge ahead of him in selling the emotional bond between Albert and Joey – and Irvine does his best with what he’s been given, even if Albert is still the least interesting character that Joey interacts with throughout the film.

Once the film gets rolling, War Horse moves at a brisk pace as Joey collides with a one intriguing character, and subsequently talented performer, after another – most notably Tom Hiddleston’s Captain Nicholls. It’s an especially intriguing opportunity for fans who don’t remember Hiddleston from any of his pre-Loki work (which included a lot of TV movie roles) – since Nicholls allows the actor another opportunity (next to Midnight in Paris) to showcase his dramatic chops as a compassionate, charming, and emotive character. Spielberg also rounded-up a stable of international talent, young and old, to headline roles in each of the subsequent vignettes including French thespian Niels Arestrup and German actor David Kross, among countless others.

War Horse offers a number of memorable moments both tragic and profound. However, even the most inspiring moments are wrought with the horror of the war at hand, and as mentioned before, the movie is not a particularly cheerful onscreen experience and we would not recommend it for children.

That said, for anyone who is willing to invest in another rich and evocative Spielberg historical drama, there’s no doubt that War Horse is sure to deliver one of the most compelling film experiences of the year.

Classic Movie Review: The Godfather

Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation of Mario Puzo’s The Godfather is regarded as such an important cinematic classic that it’s easy to forget what a bold undertaking it was and how unconventional Coppola decided to make it. Here is  adramatic and violent story, epic in scope, that begins with a thirty minute wedding celebration that has very little plot advancement, no action, and introduces about twenty key characters. The payoff comes later when we feel like we know these people like our own family.

I had the great pleasure of seeing The Godfather in the cinema for its 25th anniversary re-release. Up to that point I’d seen the film a few times, but I was never as mesmerized as I was that day. I’m interested to know what it was like to see it in 1972. What did people think as Vito, Sonny, Michael, Kay, Fredo, Tessio, Clemenza, and all the others are presented, sometimes for fleeting moments in those opening moments? The plot is only set up in a cursory way as the Corleone patriarch Vito takes meetings in his darkened study, plotting sinister deeds behind closed doors while hundreds of guests celebrate his daughter Connie’s (Talia Shire) wedding in the bright sunshine outside. So much information is thrown at the audience during the opening that I can’t imagine anyone retaining it all the first time. At this point the movie is so ingrained in me that I don’t even think of the actors when I’m watching the movie. When I see Marlon Brando on the screen, I’m thinking about Vito Corleone. I don’t see James Caan. I see Sonny. I was hardly surprised many years ago when Roger Ebert wrote his Great Movie review for this film and noted the same feeling.

The Godfather is pure cinematic brilliance at every possible level. From the marvelous acting in every role right on down to the costume design that helps set Michael and Kay apart as outsiders in the opening wedding. Can we now imagine anyone else in the lead roles? Could anyone but James Caan have captured the explosiveness and exuberance that is Sonny Corleone? It’s as if Marlon Brando was born to play Vito. Who but John Cazale could have made so much of Fredo’s limited role in the first film? He is a natural sad-sack, impotent in the face of assassins after his father and completely lacking in imagination while working under Moe Green in Las Vegas. Robert Duvall is Tom Hagen through and through. And Al Pacino was the great revelation as Michael, the youngest son who was never supposed to get involved in the family business and then dives in head first. The studio famously wanted a known star like Jack Nicholson, Ryan O’Neal, or Robert Redford for Michael – all of whom would have been profoundly wrong.

The plot, as it is finally set in motion about 25 minutes in, is mostly about a mafia crime family whose boss wants to hold fast to a proud tradition and refuses to offer protection and investment cash to the other families who are interested in expanding their spheres of influence from gambling and prostitution to include narcotics. Although Vito knows it stands to be a lucrative business venture, he also recognizes the inherent dangers involved and the almost certain possibility that the politicians and police he has in his pocket will distance themselves from him as a result. It is a man named Solozzo who propositions him. Solozzo (Al Lettieri) works for the Tattaglia family and in order for them to continue in their business, Vito has to be removed. And in a famous sequence, Corleone is gunned down on the streets of Little Italy.

The turning point of the film, however, comes later when Michael visits his father in the hospital and discovers that the body guards have been called off. In a first hint of the smarts that will put Michael in power later, he immediately senses something is wrong and he makes all the right decisions to protect Vito. This precisely edited scene in the hospital is both beautiful and sad as Michael tells his father, “I’m with you now.” Are Vito’s tears from joy or sadness?

The story moves in a different direction shortly after this as Michael orchestrates the assassination of Solozzo and a police captain and is forced to flee into hiding in Sicily, leaving behind Kay (Diane Keaton), the woman he loves. The narrative spends a great deal of time in the gorgeous landscapes of the Mediterranean island, with Gordon Willis’s cinematography demonstrating that he can do expansive landscapes as pristinely as he does dimly lit interiors.

The screenplay by Coppola and Puzo distills the sprawling novel to the essential drama that takes place over a roughly five year period beginning in August 1945. Puzo’s novel encompasses Vito’s rise to power in the 1920s, but they wisely left the back story out of the first film. It tightens the focus and allows us to sympathize a great deal with Vito without having to see that he, too, murdered and stole to achieve greatness. Together, they crafted a story that was little more than a lurid pulp novel into a story of great, almost Shakespearean heft with notes of Greek tragedy.

Ultimately The Godfather is a story of a family. More precisely than that, it’s about Vito and Michael. The title readily refers to both men. As a young director, Coppola still had the courage to take the time out to show familial relationships and build characters. One of the family’s caporegimes (a kind of lieutenant), Peter Clemenza played by the great Richard Castellano, takes the time to demonstrate for Michael how to make a proper tomato sauce. In the closing moments, as someone close to the Corleone family is revealed to have betrayed them, Coppola makes the right decision in keeping his murder off screen. We are supposed to feel melancholy at the choices these men make. When you’ve seen the second film (or read the book) and understand the full extent of that man’s history with the Corleone’s, his betrayal is even more profound.

The whole movie is crammed with great scenes. The great director Howard Hawks famously remarked that what constitutes a great movie is three great scenes and no bad ones. By that standard, The Godfather should be held aloft in the stratosphere. There’s not a single bad scene to be spoken of and I could easily rattle off half a dozen great ones: the opening scene with Bonasera asking a favor; the horse head scene; Vito gunned down; Michael saves his father; Michael’s makes his bones; the montage that wraps up the action and the plot intercut with the baptism of a child. It was reportedly Pacino’s performance in the scene where he kills Solozzo that saved him from being cut from the film. All the tension and emotion in that entire scene is written on Pacino’s face – in his expressive eyes, his tightened jaw, his stiff upper body.

What continues to resonate so deeply for me every time I see the film is the power of Nino Rota’s haunting and beautiful score, in particular the main theme. I nearly always have to choke back a lump in my throat when I hear it, especially in the closing moments of the film as Kay looks on as Michael becomes the new Godfather and the door shuts her out. It makes me think of the sadness I feel when, after delivering the story of Luca Brasi holding a gun to a man’s head at Vito’s behest, Michael says to Kay, “That’s my family. It’s not me.” We know what he will become when we hear him say that. We also know that to some extent he falls into power after doing what any son would do to protect his father. After all, Michael is a Corleone. He’s unable to deny that. After all, it’s all in the family.