Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Review

“Sex, Murder, Mystery. Welcome to the party”
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Shane Black, 2005) is really all you want to see in a movie. The Movie title originated from a poster in Italy, these four words are perhaps the most basic elements that attract up to a movie; are love for them. Its a shame more movies aren’t made like this. Fast, furious and politically incorrect Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, holds you and never lets go.

Based in part on a novel by Brett Halliday, the film begins with Harry Lockhardt (Robert Downey Jr) who has just arrived at a Hollywood party and feels a little out of place. In flashback we see that Harry was a petty thief in New York City and one night whilst escaping from the cops he runs into a room where actors are auditioning. The film also encorperates pulp fiction elements, conveyed via the theme of Jonny Grossman novels: “two seemingly different storylines which eventually come together at the end”, the film works on this basis and doesn’t disappoint. The story line which becomes increasing more tangled as the film progressives eventually clears and settles towards the end of the film.

The film is pure fusion, a mash up of film genre, rounded by the conventions of film Noir; pumping up of moral ambiguity and sexual motivation mixed with Hollywood Crime drama, a perfect scene to emphasize this would be the torture scene featuring Harry “the magnificent” Loackhart (Robert Downey Jr), and Gay Perry (Val Kilmer), while Harry is having a delicate part of his anatomy meeting some electricity, Perry tries to convince the guy holding the two captive he’s gay, in a fast paced scene featuring hilarious dialogue and acting it showcases the style of the film.
The movie is narrated by Harry, in a very similar fashion to Sunset Boluevard (Billy Wilder 1950) that is: it allows the main character to express his feelings and also being American it allows for a recap of what’s happening in the film, and also allows for Shane Black to squeeze in some extra comedy. It is also similar to Sunset Blvd, in the opening of the film, featuring the man character (however not dead this time), featured in a shot looking up from the bottom of a pool.

In conclusion Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a damn fine film.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a film that is based on coincidences, fate and the consequences of being in places at certain times. It follows the story of Harry, who at the beginning of the film is at a Hollywood party and questions how did I get here? Then the explanation begins. He starts off as a robber in New York, as he is getting away from the police he stumbles into an audition and because of his sheer emotion at his fellow robber being killed he gets flown out to LA for the part that he accidentally auditioned for. He gets caught up in his own lies, murder and his incredible attraction for his childhood sweetheart Harmony. The story is funny and fresh, and as Harry narrates the story himself he manages to have a pop at Hollywood in his own light-hearted jokey way. The script is incredibly clever and very well-written. Sometimes the film becomes so absurd but in a way that it is brilliant as it has been written so well.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is not unlike Sunset Boulevard in many ways, both films are narrated by the stranger to Hollywood and both male characters happen to be where they are by pure coincidence (Joe drawing up in the drive of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard and Harry stumbling into the audition accidentally in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). In both films the ending is at the beginning and the story is told from that and both of the main male characters are from small insignificant towns in middle America.

Overall it's an excellent film that you can't help but get sucked into. It's chatty, funny and the whole vibe of the film makes you feel as though you are there and that you are a part of it which makes the whole viewing experience even more enjoyable.

Written and directed by Shane Black of Lethal Weapon fame, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) is rather hard to define in terms of genre. K.K.B.B mixes some nicely put together action sequences, romance, a little gunplay and some Tarantino style black humour to create a surprisingly enjoyable, darkly funny murder mystery, which amongst all the sequels and remakes Hollywood has been joylessly churning out lately, feels oddly refreshing.

The film sees Robert Downey Jr. as a small time crook by the name of Harry Lockhart, Harry is mistaken for an actor after her evades the police by running straight into an audition. The story basically gets more sinister and confusing from here onwards. Harry is then brought to Hollywood where he meets "Gay" Perry, a private eye who is rather unsurprisingly, a homosexual. As well as Perry, Harry also bumps into old childhood friend Harmony, Harmony and Harry's love hate relationship serves well as fuel for the comedy fire and gives the film a feeling of innocence.

The film also features elements of Hollywood satire, most notably in party scenes but also subtly conveyed through characters and their attitudes. One particular thing I liked was the creation of fictitious brands such as Protocop and Genaros Beer (the beer Harmony appears in an advert for) as they mirror the tacky commercialism of Hollywood perfectly.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is similar to Sunset Boulevard in parts, but major elements like the story are poles apart. Still, there are some recognisable references and similarities between the two films. The opening shot not only references Sunset Boulevard but almost mirrors it, with the only major difference between the two shots being that one features a dead man and the other doesn't. From this shared shot both films work backwards with the purpose of answering how the protagonists got to where they are now.



Despite the film's awkward plot, it's undeniable enjoyable simply due to it's fresh style and humour which can easily be enjoyed without paying too much attention to the story. Although you don't need to pay too much attention the story to enjoy the film, I would recommend that you do, as it's clever and rather rewarding once you've worked it all out. Overall, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is pretty damn good and the fact that I've had such a hard job putting it into words is a testament to it's originality and style.

Kiss Kiss bang bang was a film directed By Shane Black in 2005, The film includes stars such as Robert Downey JR, Val Kilmer and Michelle monaghan.
Robert Downey plays a theif who is mistaken for a Actor, he agrees to play along with the role but by doing this hes taken to Hollywood and becomes involved with some of the biggest parties around full of other movie stars and "Wannabe Actors".
This party is where Robert Downey juniors character Harry Lockhart meets Val Kilmers character Gay perry, From this moment on both the characters get into a twisting mystery/crime plot.
Michelle Monaghan plays Robert downey Jr's old school crush who is trying to make it into the world of acting. This is how the two characters find each other becuase Michelles character attends the Hollywood party.
The plott is incredibly confusing however if you try to focus too much on the plott you will miss the amazing performances from the characters within the film.

This film has similar ideas to that of the older film "Sunset Boulavard" directed by Wilder 1950.
This film is also about actors and "Has been actors" who are now out of the picture of Hollywood, Who are trying to make it back into the world of acting.
Both these films contain plotts in which the main characters get shot at, and in some cases for Sunset Boulavard the main character dies.
Another element that both the films have in common is that they are both narrated and told by the main characters point of view.

In the early 90s, Pedro Almodóvar subverted popular culture, flamboyant aesthetic and dark humour to create dramatic, stylish cult Spanish films. However, All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) is arguably where Almodóvar really comes into his own.

Not to say that he loses any of those qualities which keep his films unique and strong, yet he hones in on the Hollywood melodrama of Douglas Sirk and the theatrical power of Tenneasee Williams (a point heavily reference through the Streetcar Named Desire subplot throughout the film). Here, he focuses on mother Manuela, who loses her son in a fatal car accident. In her greiving and despair, she travels to Barcelona to find the father of her dead son, to tell him all that has happened. What ensues is a series of encounters with transvestite hookers, lesbian actresses and pregnant nuns.

What is evident about the film is its clear unique touch, unmistakable Almodóvar. The emotion poured into the film is that of a strong, confrontational nature, yet he dodges sickly sweet gushing through way of Agrado, the transvestite hooker who provides much of the film's comic relief. However, there is a definite meaning behind the film, one of a slight existential nature, capped off by Agrado who states, in front of a few hundred theatre-goers, that "The more you become like what you have dreamed for yourself, the more authentic you are"

Not to say that All About My Mother does not have its flaws. Towards the end, with the long-overdue introduction of Lola, Manuela's ex-husband, it begins to seem as if Almodóvar isn't making narrative choices as a writer, leaving the viewer feeling as if there was something missing. Still, this only gives incentive for repeated viewings. A strong emotional drama.

Christopher Nolan's memento has blown critics away, been nominated for Oscars and left all audiences scratching their heads and ready to watch it again. what makes Memento so unique and different is its backward plot structure. starting form the end of the film and switching in and out out of sequence it gives the the audience of being in the main character's point of view.
The basic plot to this very complicated and confusing story is based upon Leonard Shelby, and insurance investor who looses his short-time memory due to a brain trauma He is unable to create new memories, and only relies on the memories he had before the accident. His wife was killed by a robber, and despite his state he wants to track down the murderer and kill him. He uses photographs and tattoos on his body to make himself remember the important facts.
now imagine that plot, but all in the wrong order, surprises thrown in, character's made to confuse the storyline and Guy Pearce topless 89% of the film. And you have Memento.
It's repeated editing help you understand and keep up with the storyline and the characters. It's one of those films you can defiantly watch again and again, and like Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko, you will end up with a different conclusion every time. If you are fond of films like Brick or Donnie Darko than memento is definitely for you. An outstanding, entertaining and gripping thriller, A must see.

*****

From director Christopher Nolan, a unique and intriguing thriller that begins with the ultimate act of revenge and back tracks through time to reveal the shocking and provocative reason behind it.

Very good film but very complex. It's a film that you have to watch more than once to understand it all. I recommend it to people that like watching films that don't reveal too much, you have to figure it out for yourself.

Ryan Johnson's film Brick is as contemporary low-budget Neo Noir film that shows a group of high school students got mixed up in drugs. The high school scene is rare in a Neo Noir film which is set in LA, USA. because Neo Noir tends to be focused on the adult life.
This film captivates you from the start. The film starts with a flashback of a girl laying in a sewer tunnel, and then cuts to normal day life, with out an explanation. This film is similar to The Big Sleep, because both main characters act as the detectives. One by occupation, one by choice. Both the films easily confuses the audience, but yet we seem to understand them in a way that we are not meant to. These films differ with their endings because in The Big Sleep we still don't know who killed the Chauffeur, and in Brick we know the whole story. and Dan Case is a homosexual.

'The Brick' (Johnson 2006) is a contemporary neo noir film set in an American high school. Many aspects of the film, mirror film noir characteristics; such as the periods of dark lighting to emphasise the main features of importance to the scene, for example when the pin is talking only a small proportion of his face is lit up. Another example is the presumption needed from the audience, to interpret the events of the film; illustrated when Dode is shot when we only see his sillouete.
Throughout the film the audience is left unaware as to where events are leading, and are left guessing to what will unfold. We particularly liked the fast pace of the film and the way the film noir aspect of witty, poetic dilalogue is used, however we feel the plot was rather confusing and never fully explained.

when comparing the two films, The Big Sleep and Brick, you will see similarities between the main characters. Marlow (The Big Sleep) an older, private detective is very similar to Brandon (Brick), a young high school student. both come across as witty, clever and straight talking, they each take on their case in a completely independent way. When they are talking, their dialogue is perfect and they always know what they are going to say next. They also both decide to continue investigating the crimes, even though they are no longer their problem.

Furthermore, both female figures in each film try to gain the main characters trust to throw them off the scent.

Cigarettes are used majorly in each film, but for very different reasons. In Brick, it is the small arrow at the butt, which helps Brandon discover the real truth

Brick (Johnson 2006). This american film does not conform to the stereotypical high school movie, it uses all the typical settings and language but the genre could be associated with film noir due to the very dramatic storyline which is hard to follow as it has some unanswered plot lines.
The lighting is very stylistic

the big sleep is a film noir about a detective attempting to solve a black mailing case. Brick is a neo noir with a student attempting to find out what has happened to an ex-girlfriend of his. Both of the films are similar in many aspects but they are also different in many ways

The Big Sleep and Brick both of the main characters attempt to hide bodies from the police so that they can investigate by themselves with out being hindered by the police. Both of the films contain witty dialogue and people that are very quick thinking and good at getting out of a hard situation.

Even though there are so many similarities there are also a few differences, the main difference is the fact that brick is in colour unlike the big sleep. Also the fact that the big sleep left you at the end wondering many parts of the film and left you still guessing at the end as to what had happened at parts whereas brick tied up all of the loose ends so you would walk away knowing what had happened to all of the different characters.

'The Big Sleep' (Hawks 1946) comparing with 'Brick' (Johnson 2006)

Both of these films are a murder mystery's and have complicated plot lines that can be hard to follow at times, with detailed dialogue that can cause a problem for knowing what is going on in the films. In The Big Sleep there are a lot of contrasts of light and dark, but also in Brick when there is a dark scene they have only added in a small amount of light which gives a Noir feel to the film.

In Brick the main character has a few flash backs that show us where the dead female character was, like in The Big Sleep people that have been killed are known by the main characters, but unlike The big sleep in Brick you find out who had killed the young girl, and you never find out in The Big Sleep who killed the chauffeur.

In The Big Sleep the detective has his happy ending with ending up with the main women in the film, where as in Brick the main character doesn't end up with anyone and so there isn't a happy ending. Both of the films are quite abstract in the way that they have been filmed and how people have been located in the shot, there are many different angles that are shown in Brick.

Hello, this is Ram & Rachel writing our review comparing and contrasting "The Big Sleep" & "Brick."
Personally we both loved Brick, and The Big Sleep was pretty good too.

Both films were very similar, as they had similar storylines but were portrayed in different ways.

Sound: The music was very alike in both movies, as it was dramatic and melodic. It also often rose to a crescendo to create tension in certain parts of the film.

Camerawork: In Brick the camerawork is very disorientating and confusing. Such as the scene where Brandon is in the dark room after passing out, the camera shot is a low angle and switches from a point of view shot to a normal one. The Big Sleep wasn't very experimental with their shots, as its a lot older and filmmakers then would play it safe.

Editing: In Brick the editing was a lot more sophisticated as its more modern than The Big Sleep. Often in Brick, the sense of the protagonist passing out was portrayed well, by the screen turning completely black.

Characters: Both protagonists in each film are very similar, as they're sarcastic, quick witted and dedicated to finding out the truth. In the Big Sleep Marlow's job role is a detective, which means he has to do it to live, whereas Brandon is doing it for his ex girlfriend, and for himself so he can move on and know who killed her.

A Review Comparing & Contrasting The Big Sleep (Hawks 1946) + Brick (Johnson 2006)

Both films compared together show they have similar features about their story lines for example both main characters from both films are trying to discover the killers who killed the victim.
This results in uncovering the rest of the story in both films but we can tell that both main characters Brandon (Brick) and Marlow (The Big Sleep) are both smart and witty, straight talking fearless heroes.
Both protagonists are motivated by the source of knowledge and trying to understand what happened

In both films contain the femme fatal character, a sexy girl who cannot be trusted.
Laura (Brick) and Vivian (The Big Sleep), both these characters are dangerous and try to manipulated our heroes.
A feature that definitely makes Brick a film noir is the complicated narrative and sometimes impenetrable dialog.

Differences between the two films are the fact that Brick is obviously in colour and the main character doesn't wear a trench coat or sweet hat. However The Pin does wear a cape reminiscent to villains in the original film noir period of the 40's

Similarities are the implied sexual encounters. Both films used the subtle nuances of the smoking of a cigarette symbolising the main character is getting some poontang.

the edukators is a film that follows the lives of a close group of friends with strong political beliefs against the wealthy of the country and crusade for the underprivildged. breaking into peoples houses with an exess of money and the two main characters yan peter move the funiture around and leave a message hoping to unsettle the the wealthy people giving them a sense of broken security within there house hold.the key themes where to punish people who had a bearing on society and would not get involved and help,or put there riches to good use suchas the wealthy german hardenberg who crassed into jules car claiming compensation off her when she had no way of paying

Edukators (2004) is a german film about two people trying to start a popular socialist revolution by intimadating the rich and scaring them to change their ways. But soon they take things too far and are forced to kidnap a wealthy man to stop him telling the police and also protect the girl who seemed to lead the two men astray....

This film has a strong political theme and as a result tackles key issues in modern Germany today for example, The divide of the poor and the rich and how there is a clear conflict between them. It has a slow pace but has a stronger narrative structure than the french new wave cinema it seems to take insperation from. It has a clear and even a relatable theme. However the message is obviously put across and does not change or even gradualy progress into a deeper felling.

The director (Weingarten) seemed to tap into an anger surrounding class and politics in todays media and using techniques that were trademarks for older films seems to enchance this... the cast all deliver convincing performances.

The Edukators, (Weingartner 2004) was made to show the political injustice that lies within the world today. The fact that people can afford to spend their 'change' on £100,000 cars while others struggle to feed themselves, and to find shelter for a place to live. This in-balance is apparent in every country all over the world, with rich and poor areas. The Edukators focuses on one particular German city in which three youths live. These youths recognise the wrong doing and do their part to alter the way wealthy people live their lives.

There is no doubt that it shares similarities with French New Wave films. The use of handheld cameras and jump cuts is a reflection of the New Wave techniques.

The cinematography represents the confliction and heights the action of the film. The use of handheld cameras makes the audience feel more involved with the film. being able to understand what the Educators were trying to achieve. It created a good effect on the style helping the narrative progress with brilliant frame shots. I believe that the surveillance interference (the opening shots) could represent the disturbance caused to the upper class by the Edukators.

The music represented the youth of today. However wise these three kids appear to be, they are still portrayed as youths. This specifically relates to the young audience making them feel connected and similar to the Edukators. With the outside message that anyone can make a difference no matter how young.

Overall i think that the message is placed across wit the re-occurring feeling of 'Your days of plenty are numbered' effectively. After watching this film i believe it has expanded my cinema experience with world cinema understanding. I can use the knowledge i have learned and place it on other film the i watch in future.

Weingorter creates a cool and refreshing insight into the political views and lives of the youth today. weingorter successfully produces an alternative film with his use of distinctive cinematic tecniques. The use of handheld camera's throughout the film help to distinguish an alternative documentary style to the film, this allows the audience to be immersed within the film. The Edukators raise many worldwide issues focusing mainly on the issue of money and power, and questioning whether or not is it right elevate material goods over human relationships.
Personally i found the opening scene very relevant to its political context. The CCTV camera shots of a large house with grounds, initially are showing off the wealth of the family. however i feel that the opening shots are reflecting the films issue of societies need for constant surveillance. The Edukators is fused with stylistic elements from the French New Wave such as, Jump cuts in the opening scene, which help discontinue in technique, but not in solid. although i really enjoyed the film, i did find certain aspects of it difficult to relate to, for example the strength of the political views.

A good film at best. Although the sound is good and the plot is plausible and understandable, I would give this film a 67% rating because of the length of some shots. It is good because it reflects the conflict between capitalism and other forms of the financial systems, shown by how Jan, Jule and Peter take Hardenberg hostage in Jule's uncle's remote cabin, making this a very powerful political film. The fact that the Edukators leave anonymous notes behind shows traits that they have in common in terrorists, but we feel more sympathetic with the Edukators as they have a reason for leaving notes and moving things in houses, where as terrorists just want to spread terror and implant fear in people's minds. The fact that Berlin is the setting and that it would have been deep in East Germany during the Cold War, is strengthening the audience's support the communist goals of the Edukators.

The Edukators (2004) Hans Weingartner

The Edukators is a story of a 3 people tied together by friendship and political views. The 3 of them form an extremist socialist group called "The Edukators", seemly untouchable with their own beliefs and rigid rules they break into rich peoples homes and rearrange the furniture. All their security and rules inevitably get broken As Jan and Jule fall in love with each other creating a rift between the close three.

Although their friendship is scarred their political ideals remain strong throughout the film.

Obviously influenced by French New Wave The Edukators is a strong film that keeps its own throughout. The hand held camera may frustrate a few as it is overly chaotic in unnecessary places. Ultimately a stylistic choice it will either annoy you or not bother you.

It is also laced with jump cuts which aren't particularly noticeable but seem to follow in the trend of New Wave.

The Edukators is designed to question your own lifestyle and your own political views. Although the message the Edukators conveys is an interesting one, the way Weingartner conveys it relentlessly is tiresome. The Edukators lacks subtlety. The message is drilled into you, nearly every scene.

Well made. But ultimately tiresome with the same message droning on throughout.

The film is based around politics and crime, with the 3 main characters (The Edukators) participating in extreme socialist views. The political aspect takes a very central intake into the story line itself, with the 'Edukators' attempting to use 'scare tactics' to intimidate and spread fear among the successful capitalist bourgeoisie.

The film follows the 'Edukators' through their acts of terror, their friendships and affairs with one another. The story unfolds when an 'Education' goes wrong, with the newly and accidently appointed Edukator leaving her mobile phone behind at the break in. Hardenberg, the house owner, returns unexpectedly to find the house not only with a disrupted interior, but with some unexpected visitors.

The film successfully gives hard twists throughout, with unpredictable and duel-interpreting endings that wrench the works of the audiences understanding of the characters, especially that of Hardenberg; does he have a heart, or is he just the ruthless businessman the film attempts to stereotype?

Weingartner has captured the political views that majority of the youth of today follow, with the ever growing need for equality and the dismissal of social class. These views being processed within the film, ensures younger audiences can relate, and thus enjoy the film with the content in which is deserves. Even those with little political interest can enjoy the film also, with each character's personality being unwoven slowly throughout the film, followed by the expected love affair, this film can accompany audiences of any genre preference because of the uptakes upon love, thrill and anticipation throughout.

The film seemed to have two distinct halves. One half was The Edukators (Jan Jule & Peter)Edukating the bourgeoisie of Berlin, Germany by successfully rearranging there furniture in an attempt to show that there possessions were meaningless. A clear swipe at consumerism and capitalism.

There is also a love triangle within the edukators, at first Jule and Peter are together. However when Peter goes to Barcelona Jan and Jule end up getting close and falling for each other.

The second half focused around a business man who Jule owed a debt of 1,000euros. In an attempt to get back at him Jule goes to edukate him Jan being slightly more cautious. This edukation goes tits up and they end up kidnapping Hardenburg (the business man) in an attempt to remain out of jail.

Overall I found this film is enjoyable. However it does help if you believe and understand there political views, it would kinda be hell if you had to sit through this film and you were an affluent business man who reads the daily mail and supports UKIP. The love triangle works as a kinda relief from the relentless political message which seems to be driven constantly throughout the film, this is certainly needed as if you had no political knowledge or interest the film would seem a bit dull and boring.

Director Hans Weingartner launches a stinging attack on Germany's bourgeois in his 2004 film, The Edukators. The story focuses on the lives of three young people struggling with life in Berlin. Jan and Perter are two best friends and flatmates who are frequently accompanied by the latter's debt-ridden girlfriend, Jule. All three share a large amount of contempt for the affluent middle classes whom they feel are taking money away from the people who need it most, i.e. themselves. Intent on starting a revolution, Jan and Peter set about making a difference.

Their plan is to break into a wealthy families house while they are away on holiday and rearrange the entire house. This includes piling chairs right up to the ceiling and forcing expensive, decorative pieces down the toilet.
However, when Jule begs Jan to settle a personal score while Peter is in Barcelona, things go not according to plan. A risky hostage plot ensues as well as a test of their own friendship when faced with dangerous circumstances.

The Edukators is a very tense and exciting film which particularly appeals to the younger, rebellious generation. The contrasts between the hectic, city life of berlin and the picturesque German countryside are particularly fascinating.

A story of a young German trio trying to make a difference in Capitalist Germany. They cleverly raid affluent businessman's houses, re-arrange their furniture and leave messages to show that they are not safe in their huge mansions. Alongside the socialist theme to the film, their is a complicated love triangle between the three, very much like you would see in a 1950s french new wave film.

It also borrows certain stylistic elements of the french movement such as jump cuts and use of available light. At first these techniques seem challenging and a general nuisance, but upon viewing it a second time you can see how Hans Weingartner uses these to give the scenes a deeper meaning.

Overall, this fantastic European film perfectly captures the personalities of the lower class perfectly and is an all round thrill to watch.

I think this film directed by weingartner in 2004 was an interesting film on 3 german youths who moved furniture around in well off peoples homes, an opposite world from where they come from. i havn't seen a film with a stortyline like the idea behind this and so this makes it individual in my eyes. i liked the way that when they captured the man instead of torturing him in the way you might expect they just took him away with them which i much preferred. This may have been because they had a woman as part of there 'team' and so this may have allowed for less violence as it was something the 2 male characters, Jan and peter, didn't want the female character,jule, to see.

we learn from the two male characters that they both have feelings for jule. she begins the film dating peter but then cheats on him with jan. This also adds a kind of a love triangle to the film, which peter doesn't even notice until the man the have captured points it out. This lov triangle adds another twist to the plot.

In a way i much preferred this to the french new wave films i have been studyingas i think it has a more interesting and faster paced storyline. I think the fact that it is slightly more moderen and in colour also helps

I have seen the english and the german versions of the two different endings of the film. I prefer the german ending of the film as i like the fact that they sail off on a boat and your sort of left wondering what they are going to do next.

The Edukators is a a story following a group of three young political revolutionists (The Edukators) who educate the rich capitalists in society by leaving messages and rearranging items in their large houses. The exciting plot follows a kidnapping, betrayal and the typical young love story. It is these central themes that the film is based around, with the idea of socialism over capitalism. Although the rich citizens they punish are not responsible for the society they live in, such as Hardenberg, the three youths seem to make little influence on society to what is right and wrong, following the ending where the business tells the police about his kidnap are promising not to.
Best friends Peter and Jan fight over the love of Jule, showing fights within the group as well as with the rich. Their naivety youth is showed through their love of rock music and changing opinions of people. However, their political view is a strong one which almost convinces the capitalist Hardenburg. Therefore, the film is very much propaganda towards socialist globalization and away from the typical capitalist society.
The cinematography consists of many tracking shots, jumps cuts and use of hand held camera.
As a whole, the film is exciting with plenty of in depth storyline to get involved with.

The Phantom of Liberty Review

“The Phantom of Liberty”, also known as “Le Fantome de la Liberte” in it's native France, was released in 1974 and was directed by Luis Bunuel, a well known surrealist film maker. The Phantom of Liberty was one of Bunuel's favourite films of his career and was the penultimate film he made before his death of cancer of the liver in 1983. Like Bunuel's other well known film, “Un Chien Andalou” (made in 1928 and co-written with Salvador Dali), it is a surrealist film which attacks many institutions and bourgeoisie values.

Bunuel himself says that “The Phantom of Liberty” explores several themes, these being:
 “The search for truth and the need to abandon the truth as soon as you have found it”
 “The implacable nature of social rituals”
“The importance of coincidence and personal morality”
 “The essential mystery of all things”
The film is split up into 12 vignettes and are linked by chance encounters with other characters that appear throughout the film in the vignettes. The film attacks the church, the police, the army and discusses transgressive themes such as necrophilia, paedophilia and sado-masochism. Some of these attacks on institution are sometimes subtle, (the closing scene of the film in the zoo is a good example of this as it shows animals in a zoo while sounds of the Napoleonic war from the beginning of the film can be heard, which also acts as a sort of bookend to the film), while at other times can be very explicit such as the police classroom scene and fox-hunting in tanks are blatantly obvious in what they are implying and to what sect of society.

The characters themselves are all middle class and act as a form of blank canvas in order to represent a certain part of society such as doctors, teachers or the police. By doing this, Bunuel can easily mock and attack the “offending” institution he feels he needs to. One such instance being the Roman catholic church. During the scene at the hotel, a group of monks are seen drinking and smoking as well as gambling. The monks also use various holy items such as rosaries to place bets on their game. The film's characters do not question it and carry on their lives as if this happens on a day-to-day basis. The blank canvases allow comments, like the afore mentioned one, to be made easily and somewhat quickly. The blank canvas of characters subsequently have no personality seeing as they are used in order to convey a message, if they had personalities then it would be very difficult to do this.

An exploration of transgressive themes also make the film for uncomfortable viewing. One such scene I found slightly uncomfortable to watch was that of the incestuous nephew and his aunt. I was not prepared for the scene that eventually unfolded in which the aunt is seen fully nude and the implication that they both sex. Seeing as we live in a day and age in which incest is seen as wrong and disgusting, watching it made me feel uncomfortable but Bunuel should be praised for tackling the subject to a certain degree as it is very taboo subject. Another transgressive theme, paedophilia, is also discussed. This is done by building the audiences expectations of an abduction or that the photo's are indecent. However, the audiences expectations are knocked down when no abduction takes place and that the photo's are of buildings. This is very clever and completely unexpected, but works and displays surrealism at work.

The film itself is surrealism at it's maximum potential, much like “Un Chien Andalou”. Scene's such as the little girl's supposed disappearance and the toilet dinner party sequence, this film is surrealism without any limits. The fact that none of the vignettes are linked in any sort of way other than by showing a background character who turns into a lead character, there is no real clear sense of structure of narrative. I feel that the film benefits from this as it makes the film much more surreal and disjointed. Due to no clear structure, the film could be seen as more of a collection of short “drama stories”. However, it could be argued that the film does follow some form of narrative being that it is a stream of consciousness and that the film progresses through chance occurrences.

It is worth noting that some of the scenes in the film were taken from Bunuel's own personal experience such as when the doctor avoids telling his patient that he has cancer of the liver, which was based on Bunuel learning he had a cyst on his liver. With this in mind, the film could be seen as semi-autobiographical but nonetheless is still a surrealist film.

I personally found the film intriguing simply due to the fact that it is such a strange film. As I am not used to watching surrealist films, I was not quite sure what to expect from it (at one point I was expecting rampaging elephants to be fired from the sniper's rifle but I was very wrong, thankfully). Instead, it was a surprisingly entertaining film, even if boring in a few places due to a lack of music and uneventful sequences like the police commissioner and his sister, but it would not be my first choice of film to watch for fun but it did vary wildly to my first expectations of the film. The mix of black comedy and irony with a serious message works surprisingly well seeing as it is a surrealist film. I feel that if I were to watch it again, I might enjoy it more seeing as I would know what would happen and not expect such strange things from the film as I would have already have seen it. On second viewing, I would probably gain more from it, possibly understand more of it's deeper meaning and explorations of the themes it presents to the audience.

Jackie or ‘Jackie big tits’, is Aches girlfriend and has moved to Spain with her boyfriend and friends, Gal and Dee. Jackie plays an important role in the film as she fuels Dons rage when he visits, because they slept together a few years back. Jackie is in a few very important scenes, one for example is the scene where Dee Kills Don Logan. At the end of the scene Jackie kicks Don. The camera in the scene is set at a low angle, this gives us a point of view shot from Dons perspective, In turn this makes Jackie look bigger that Don, Representing that she has finally got rid of the past that haunts her. Mise en Scene plays a relatively big part in this sequence. For example, Jackie is wearing smart/casual evening wear, ready to go out. Jackie is a typical type of character in a British crime film because she is the stereotypical gangster wife, being an ex porn star. Also she can be classed as beautiful, whereas her husband is not good looking. This is quite common in British Gangster Films. Jackie is also more attracted to power rather than looks.

Dallow, henchman
Dallow is the character the undergoes the biggest change in the film, his morality wins over his criminal instincts
The main way Dallow furthers the narrative is to turn from Pinky’s gang to save Rose.
The scene on the pier is the one in which Dallow plays the most important role, he wears a checkered jacket. In the scene he displays a huge change in character. This is important to the story of the film because it comes to the climax and prevents the tragic ending the audience expected and results in the dead of Pinky. The light compliments the mood of the scene well and creates an atmosphere of tension. As well as soundtrack, the lightning is an example of pathetic fallacy by mimicking the frightening mood.
He’s typical to the classic gangster films. He is the false villain.

An unfortunate journalist that finds himself caught up with Pinkie Brown due to a story he published that went against Pinkie's cronies.

Because of his story, Fred instigates the narrative by publishing the story, however carried by Pinkies psychotic person it ultimately ends in his death. The scene in which Fred is being chased by Pinkie and his mob around Brighton is a crucial scene (and Fred's last) as they chase him onto an amusement attraction, where he ends up being pushed into the sea by Pinkie. The camera throughout the scene stays close to Fred, the chase ending in the ghost ride, features several moving close ups of scary faces, the camera jumps into different angles creating an air of panic and anxiety. The sound throughout the scene features ghost noises, and screams (especially when Fred is pushed from his seat to his death). Fred's character is typical of the well-meaning good guy in a Crime film, as he means no harm but ends up caught up with bad people. His character is similar to Jeff in the Long Good Friday, in the sense that he without wanting to, ends up in trouble because of a mistake he had made. Notably, both die.

Ida Arnold is a very inquisitive person; she works as a clown and has a loud voice/laugh. Her role in the film is to play detective to find out what happened to her friend. An important scene in the film is where Ida goes to the pub where Pinky and Rose are, to save Rose. The camera shots are close ups to see the characters faces especially Pinky’s when he sees Ida come through the door. Her character is typical in british crime films as the person who goes around trying to find out the truth.

Don logan is a character with many different sides to him for example he seems a force full character then the next minute hes talking to himself in the minute which raises questions about his insanity.
Dons character within the film sexy beast brings a dramatic yet comical side to the narrative.
Towards the end of the film, don creates hassle by reappearing at Gail's spanish villa which causes a violent scene between the main characters such as Gail, Don and Dee.
This is shown by a violent fight which ends with Dee shooting Don and Gail has been severely by a blow to the head from Don.

Teddy is a determined ruthless and cold hearted criminal who will thinks that anything worth stealing can be stolen.

Teddy places the biggest part of the story line in this film, as he starts the idea of stealing from the 'unbeatable safe' and he requests the team to make this criminal act.

When Teddy and gal go to Harry's house Teddy shows how ruthless he can be by killing Harry in front of gale after they have just stolen from his safe. The fact that they show up late at night after the hit wearing smart uniforms at Harry's door show just how confident Teddy's character is on him not being caught. There are several close ups on there expressions as the evens in the house happen as Teddy seems to go into the house and help himself to Harry's drinks. This shows how Teddy is intimidating Gal knowing what gal had done to try and scare it out of him.

This character is very typical in British crime films as there is always the higher ups in he crime industry who think of a task to complete and think of the people who are good for the job. In Brighton Rock the person who is most like Teddy is Pinky as Pinky seems to control his Group and plan what will happen next.

Aitch is a retired gangster who is in an extended holiday in the Costa Del Sol with his fellow ex mobster Gal. He is an instigator of Don Logan's rage because Jackie is with Aitch and not him.

Spicer is an ageing smalltime gangster, henchman to Pinkys gang.

Spicers function in the plot is experience to the gang he plays a vital part in the outcome of the movie. He is involved in the major turning point in the film. He is seen as the weak link in the gang which isn't worthy of being there. This leads to his death at the hands of Pinky.

The scene in which the character plays a key part is when Pinky pushes him through the banister because this shows Spicers fear of Pinky and this is when he realises in his eyes Pinky has control over him. When Pinky is talking to Spicer just before he pushes him you can sense worry in his voice indicating he is no longer cut out for the role of gangster.

Razors is a character that is loyal to Harold Shand and is an asset to Shand's business. He is one of Harold Shand's henchmen and his function in the narrative is basically to back Shand up and to help uncover and sort out the chaos and the confusion that goes on in the narrative. One scene where Razors is important is where he is driving Harold in the car and Harold starts to question who would do such a thing to his business. In this scene he is wearing a suit so he is smartly dressed and he is in a nice car that is kept clean and tidy. The camera is shot at an angle so that you can see the whole of Razors face and watch him drive the car, so you can see his facial expressions and therefore assume the opinion he is holding of the whole situation. There is a lot of light in this scene as it is meant to be set during the day and because it's important that you see everything clearly in the scene. There is no sound in this scene apart from the dialogue which is the most important aspect of the scene. I think that Razors is quite a typical character to a British crime film as usually the main gangster has a 'best friend' or a partner, that is not as equal with him but someone that he trusts greatly. He is slightly like Aitch in Sexy Beast, who is someone that is very close to Gal Dove and you can tell that they care for each other in a professional and a friendly way.

'Jeff', played by Derek Thompson, plays sidekick to prosperous English gangster 'Harold Shand', played by a young Bob Hoskins in the 1980s British Crime film 'The Long Good Friday'. Within the film, Jeff helps his boss Harold Shand attempt to become a legitimate businessman, planning on redeveloping the London Docks, with financial support from the American Mafia. This is a typical character in British crime films, as all 'evil masterminds' need sidekick to help with their plans of 'domination' or victory, and is effective in creating a parallel narrative within a film.

Don Logan is a mentally disturbed gangster from London. Don's function in the narrative is an important one. He destroys the normality of Gal's paradise home in Spain, by pressuring him into doing a job he doesn't want to do. Without Don, the film would simply be about Gal's life on the Costa Del Sol.
One scene in which Don is most important is when he returns to the villa after being thrown off the plane. Everything in the scene is focused on his presence. The camera is constantly on him, even when he's not directly in the shot, you can see him in a reflection. The music changes from happy pop when he wasn't there, to a dark silence when he comes back to the villa. There is not much editing in this scene - there are only a few cuts in the action, which increases the tension that Don is causing. Finally, there is a low lighting element to the Mise en Scene that creates a feeling of tension.
This character is rather typical in the British Crime Film genre. He is typical in the sense of his authority, which is shown in his costume and his dialogue towards the beginning of the film. However, it is not often that you see a character with such mental issues as his. Although this is rare, when Harold in The Long Good Friday loses his temper and kills Jeff, the two characters are very similar.

Dead mans shoes is a British thriller about an ex S.A.S soldier that returns to his hometown to find out his brother is dead. He gets revenge on the people that were responsible, with twists in the plot. In my opinion this film is extremely powerful and makes you think about what really goes on. I like the way that the twist in the plot plays with your mind and makes you think about what was actually reality in the film. I think that most people will agree with me that the film was amazing and it touches on very serious situations and a way that the audience will enjoy and understand. The main actors performances were equally amazing. You could compare this film to the other British thriller Get Carter. This film could be compared because it is also has plot twists and is all about revenge. Another one is James bond

Shane Meadows hinted at a darker side with his second feature A Room For Romeo Brass, but he gives full vent to the potentially violent impulses that lurk within all of us with this latest effort, a supremely efficient, brutal, stripped-down work of vigilante cinema.

Paddy Considine (who co-wrote the screenplay with Meadows) plays Richard, a taciturn army veteran newly returned to his hometown and on a mission to make a group of low-level criminals pay for abusing his mildly retarded younger brother, Anthony (Kebbel). To these miscreants Richard's name alone elicits a palpable sense of dread, so when he shows up on their doorsteps wearing a gas mask and carrying an axe they go into full-on panic mode.

Dead Man's Shoes has little in the way of Meadows' trademark provincial humour, yet the film carries his unmistakable signature. This is not an Americanised version of Britain, full of hard-nut gangsters pretending to be Goodfellas. The hustlers here are benefit-scammers and dole moles who live in semi-detached houses, flick through mucky mags, dress badly and flog poor quality gear. They could be the cheeky reprobates from Twentyfourseven grown up, gone bad and forced to pay for being callow human beings unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.

Much of the zing comes from Considine who is restrained yet ferocious, dead-eyed yet soulful, but the film itself is technically audacious. A scene in which Considine terrorises his drugged-up prey is a masterclass in bleary visuals and subjective sound edits. Meadows has sharpened up his narrative skills too, delivering an incredible sucker-punch in the third act that will more than likely leave you reeling.

This is a 2004 movie directed by Shane Meadows and stars Paddy Considine and Gary Stretch this film is about a disaffected soldier (Considine) returns to his hometown to get even with the thugs who brutalized his mentally-challenged brother years ago.

This film is a thriller movie and with an 18 rated Certificate, is not really suitable for some people. Shane Meadows covers several important themes in this movie such as mental instability, drugs and vengeance. This film could be compared to 'Get Carter' (1971) where Jack Carter is seeking vengeance for his family and the death of his brother. these two film both deal with the loss of a loved one but the way that the revenge is played out on the screen is slightly different Dead Man's Shoes is hyped up at the action and Get Carter is slower and more naturalistic. I would say this is because of the main characters in each film, Richard (Dead Man's) is this Psychotic quiet man.

dead mans shoes was a brilliant film and a good example of Shane Meadows work. The film is a film about revenge and justice when Richard comes back from the army to humiliate and murder the gang who tortured his disabled brother Anthony who then after killed himself. The character Richard who is an ex SAS show the dark side of the lower class when his hot pursuit of carnage was in motion.
It is confusing for the audience to know whether they should like Richards character or not, As we feel sympathy for him because of the loss of his brother, yet don't approve of the acts of violence he is doing as they are so shocking. At the end he shows mercy towards Mark who was also involved in the torturing of Anthony but then forces Mark to use the knife on Richard, so although showing mercy, mark has to live with what happened.

Set in the northern suburbs of England. Dead Man Shoes stars the ex-soldier, Richard (Paddy Considine) who returns to his hometown in order to seek out a gang of men who tormented his brother Anthony.

The narrative basically follows Richard on a path to get revenge on his brother and put the culprits at ease. The first impression I get is a weird experience. The characters for a start were all just stock as a representation for drug dealers who enjoy nothing more but a friendly gossip. The interesting part during these conversation's was that it was so heavily improvised. It didn't feel like a feature film because there were no constructed sequences of cuts, just hand held.

This began to give me the feeling that this was just a home made film. I started to think that Shane Meadow's intention was to let the actors act freely from the use of scripts and direction. In relation to "Get Carter", starring Michael Caine. The plot has a very similar direction. However, one of the big significances I found were the representation of women following in each film. The women in "Get Carter" seem to be highly fashionable and tend to stand out with their flashy vibrant costumes. But in "Dead Man Shoes", the similarities are almost non existent.

As far as I can comprehend, Shane Meadow's interpretation on women is kept to minimum. He doesn't seem to care that much of their purpose but prefers to isolate them with the quantitative attention on men. Likewise, women in this film are dressed up like any other normal person you'd come across the street. This level headed device makes all of the characters in Dead Man Shoes seem fair and equal. You will never think so differently towards each character.

On the contrary, the soundtrack used in this film seem very ironic. During the murder of each gang member, Richard will liberally play around and torture them as if their just some soft toy. This sadistic behavior can somewhat play with your emotions but at the end of each massacre, a soft melody with occur. Although I'm not genuinely a big fan of black comedies. This kind of British style motto works very well in a uncanny manner.

All in all, Dead Man Shoe's is a film to reckoned with. It may seem low-budget at first but it has one amazing plot with a brilliant cast that doesn't disappoint. But do take caution, this isn't your everyday film that deals with up front urban culture.

'Dead mans shoes' plays with the audiences emotion , From : sad , anger , comedy . Keeping the audiences attention throughout the film. The films main genres would be crime and horror but having a twist by liking the films murderer and feeling for him. This is typical British black humor film with a " sixth sense " type twist. We found this twist emotional and very effective in this film showing and explaining the murderers actions in this movie.

The film is based on two brothers and how theirs lives have been affected by crime and torture from criminals and drug dealers in England. The brothers (richard and antony)are shown together throughout the film. Antony in this film suffer mental health issues which are shown as some form of autism or aspegers symdrome. He plays this role amazingly throughout the film and creates and completely believable performance to the point where you question yourself " is he acting or is this real"?

The way this movie is filmed is clever , involving : flashbacks , which were filmed in black and white grain with a handheld camera showing it was the past. The handheld camera creates a home movie affect making this piece of filming seem more realistic and could be happening rather than acting.

This film could be compared to various films such as "Rain man" Which is also about two brothers and one brother suffers from autism . The difference was you knew for fact that Dustin Hoffmens performance was an act as he was a famous actor. Although a brilliant performance . Whereas The actor who played antony was relativly new in acting for films and hadn't been seen before by many people so did create a certain question weather he was just acting or was put in this film because he had a disability.

Secondly this film could also be compared to "Get carter" as Michael Cain was set out to avenge his brother who had been murdered by English criminals and drug dealers. The way he kills people is simalar as he will go from one person to the next and be subtle about it. He makes his killings almost comical as does Richard in dead mans shoes. Both have unexpected by needed endings that satisfy and audience.

Overall The film was a great success and is a film that needs to be seen although a dark and disturbing plot will make you think and feel and Know things you didn't know before. You will feel sorry for the murderer and his past and understand him. And also understand crime in England and unfair treatment of people who aren't exactly like yourself.

Death Race
Directed by Paul W.S Anderson
2008

Death Race (a remake of the 1975 cult classic Death Race 2000) sees Jason Statham taking part in a violent prison motorsport tournament in an attempt to win his freedom.

That's pretty much the whole screenplay in a nutshell. Death Race is very clearly not dependant on it's story but is instead all about action which is fine because action is just about the only thing the film does correctly.

This 2006 movie is based on the amazing novel by Christopher Paolini, it is about a boy of 15 called Eragon who finds a blue stone whilst hunting in an eerie area of forest called "the Spine", startled, he takes the stone back and it turns out to be a dragon egg, this automatically places him amongst the old legends of the Dragon Riders who, each had the strength of 10 men and could use magic, amongst a number of other things, he then gets talked into leaving with the villiage storyteller Brom, together they seek the things who killed Eragons Uncle, his only living relative. This movie is a good film on it's own but as it was based on one of my favourite books I didn't like it because they changed the plot slightly, but the CGI is amazing and the cast list is good (including Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich and Sienna Guillory.)
The film is rated PG and is suitable for every one, I would reccomend it to people who like fantasy films.

This is based around 4 Children (Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny)who get in to an R rated movie from Canada, this movie has very strong language and (in the words of Cartman) "warps their fragile little minds" inevitably they see the movie again and Cartman makes a $100 bet that Kenny can't light a fart inevitably killing him, their parents form a group called MAC (Mothers Against Canada) who believe Canada is to blame for the kids uses of foul language, resulting in a war between USA and Canada, and the execution of Terrence and Phillip (the people who made the movie)
During this Kenny is in hell and discoves the gay relationship between Satan and Saddam Hussain, and learns that if Terrence and Phillip are killed then Satan will rule the world.
This is also the first time you see Kenny without his hood, it won an MTV award for the song Uncle F***a in the year 2000 and in 199 won "best animated film", my favourite scene is 30 minutes in when Cartman sings the song "Kyle's Moms a B***h" and turns round to find her behind him
This film is very funny and has a rating of 15 due to language and sexual references, it is very funny and is really worth a watch.

This is a 2008 movie starring Simon Pegg and Kirsten Dunst, it is based on the Novel of the same name, it is about a British Writer (Pegg) who strugles to fit in to an American magazine publishing company, even though it is quite predictable, it is still very funny, one of these scees is with the dog, Peggs character is one of the people who things always go wrong, he tries to befriend a celebrities dog, but it goes wrong and he accidentaly throws the dog's ball out of the window, so he races the dog to the window and manages to close it but killing it accidentaly in the process.
This film is rated 15 and may not be suitable for some people, due to language and sexual references but is still a great laugh

I watched this movie after being hassled by a friend because apparently it would make me cry. And i like a movie that can bring on the water works!

It stars 'Uma Therman' but throughout the movie there are 2 time periods being shown. Uma plays the older version on Diana, and the younger by 'Evan Rachel Wood' and her performance was phenomenal!

PLOT:

Imaginative, impetuous and wild Diana (Evan Rachel Wood) can’t wait for her adult life to begin. Whiling away the final days of high school in the lush springtime, Diana tests her limits with sex and drugs as her more conservative friend Maureen (Eva Amurri) watches with concern. Then the two teens are involved in a Columbine-like shooting incident at their school and are forced to make an impossible choice. Only one of them can live...

15 years later Diana (Uma Thurman) is married and has a daughter. A memorial service at her high school brings back old memories and as past and present start to intertwine her husband and daughter become increasingly absent and Diana finds her life slipping away.

The central theme of both the novel and the film is the loss of lives in these shooting incidents. Laura Mischance and Vladimir Perelman took an interesting approach to drive that point home that slowly leads up to a shocking realisation about Diana.

I haven't read the book so i can make no comment on that aspect. but i thought the movie was really well made, from hearing the plot-line you can see that it's quite demanding, but i think it was done very well.

'The Life Before Her Eyes' received generally negative reviews from critics. As of April 23, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 29% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 35 reviews — with the consensus being the film is "a confusing, painfully overwrought melodrama." But i really liked the fact that it made you think, i was ready for that going into it so i wasn't disappointed by it!

Film Review: Fargo


Info:
Length: 98 mins
Rating: 18
Director: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

This being my first Coen brothers films, I wasn’t sure what to expect, it didn’t disappoint:
“A lot can happen in the middle of nowhere”
Every shot in Fargo is executed like a piece of art, there is absolutely nothing wasted in this film, as what would seem dull, unimaginative, establishing scenes are turned into mini masterpieces of cineotopic gold. Fargo is as black as black comedy can get, it washes over you in a wave, your head just bobbing above the water level, your lapping up the fluid and the truth is you love it.
What makes a film like this, done a hundred different times, in a hundred different ways, so good? Joel and Ethan Coen’s script is the crux, a wickedly funny and quirky screenplay, even more enforced by the continual innocence of the snow that imbues the film. The Coen brothers have also impregnated the film with a rich and regional flair; authentic from the weather to the clothes to (especially good) the accents. It was so real I was actually hungry for back bacon, after watching it.

I felt the beginning of the film started of well straight into the action and getting an insight into liams family life.And instantly put into the frame of mind that Liam has everyday of his life.To begin with it was difficult to pick up on the characters, like Liams mums boyfriend was shown as his dad and it wasnt mentioned for while why Liams mum was in prison.Violence played a big part in the film as well as along side drugs this was part of the continously flow of the film and influenced the audience to keep watching as everytime drugs were involved it was usually shortly followed by crime. The film became clear at the end that all that Liam had done with buying the caravan, drug dealing and dealing with violence it was revealed this was all to make sure he mother was happy.

A subtle and bold mixture of views are expressed in this semi-autobiographical story written and directed by Bruce Robinson, told through the first person point of view of Marwood, Withnail's friend and fellow out-of-work actor.

Having found no paying roles to keep them going in their Camden house, Withnail (Richard E. Grant) and Marwood (Paul McGann) attempt to drink and smoke away their problems. After reaching breaking point, Marwood convinces Withnail to get his uncle Monty (Richard Griffiths) to lend them his country farm cottage for a week, in an attempt to escape from their chaotic London lifestyles. But when they find sparse supplies of food and firewood, they head off back to London much closer and with a lot more respect for one another.

This story tells of the lower class of society, and how desperate certain aspects of living in London in the sixties was.

The humour displayed by the two main characters is more times than not a subtle hint as to how poor their lifestyles were, and how dependent on alcohol they were. Alcohol does indeed feature a lot in this film.

An excellent film from Robinson, it will have the audience stuck in their seats, captivated by a marvelous performance from both Grant and McGann.

Not a film to watch just to fill time. This offers so much more.

Cloverfield is the latest film from acclaimed director Matt Reeves and much-admired producers J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk. Initially, film was so shrouded in mystery that only the release date was known. With flashes of footage and the title kept a secret, Cloverfield managed to exceeded expectations at the box office with just the vague promise of a movie.
Perhaps the lack of actual film content in the trailer was yet another wise advertising technique. Certainly if I had understood more of what the 90 minutes spent watching this film would be like, I would have opted for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, David Yates and all.
Cloverfield opens with the planning and execution of a surprise party for protagonist Rob and we are introduced to the film’s main players whom we are evidently supposed to relate to as they indulge in their normality. Instead, the characters are not even likable and resemble a collection of GAP models as they saunter around the room and look objectionable. Despite this the film is visually impressive and has effects uncommon for a film where the budget is not high.

All in all Cloverfield is an example of how a film with all the right ingredients can end up lacking in substance and plot. It’s the sort of movie that, if you were to leave the cinema at any point of the duration (a potentially alluring prospect), there would be few lagging ‘ What happened? How’s Beth?’ type questions. However, Cloverfield is a brave stab at a revolutionary monster movie, but preceded itself with an aura of mystery, enigma and hype that just wasn’t achieved during the actual screen time.

Gangs of New York is artistic. It has one of my favourite actors, Daniel Day-Lewis against a least favourite, Leonardo DiCaprio. The writers, director and Day-Lewis himself forged a villain so stunningly compelling that the nuisance of the sulky DiCaprio was all the more tedious because it spoiled what could have been a great movie.

Set in the 1800's, Gangs of New York is a revenge movie: during a gang battle a little kid witnesses his Irish immigrant father getting slaughtered by Bill The Butcher (Day-Lewis), the gangster who runs the crime-infested Lower Manhattan district of Five Points. The boy returns as an adult and anonymously (and unconvincingly) infiltrates Bill's gang.. Not the most original of plot lines.

One brilliant aspect of this film has to be the sets and the cinematography: often this film looks like a painting. One advantage of setting a movie during the 1800's setting is you can deliver endless scenes in atmospheric candlelight, scenes half murky in mysterious shadows and emblazoned with magnificent highlights. Quality poured from each frame, and there are many frames indeed, nearly three hours worth.

There are many excellent scenes in Gangs Of New York. Jim Broadbent's innocent pleasure of sending his fire brigade into battle against a rival gang, neglecting the burning building, was perfect comedy. The scene of the woman dropping an ear into a jar full of them was surreal

The ending of Gangs Of New York was lacking climax. The mob scenes were horrific but not as compelling as the previous two hours. The draft riots had the effect of diluting the movie's great asset, Bill The Butcher, and were wrecked by a screeching commentary.It would have been so refreshing if Bill had defeated DiCaprio. The bad guy deserved to win. If only movie makers dared to break the rules.

Munich tells the story of the black september and the munich games in 1972. A group of palestians takes a group of israeli athletes hostage and murders them. The israeli leader gives a group of 5 men to track down all the members of black september and kill them.

The film opens with quite an interesting sequence with the group of palestines breaking into the olympic compound and kidnapping the athletes. this is quite action packed and is very interesting to watch. but after this it all goes downhill. the film begins to jump from location to location and character to character and it is very unclear as to what is actually going on. the only character you get actually feel involved with is the main character, and this is only because his character has a sub-plot, in which his wife is having a child.

The camera work is very interesting, as it is directed by Steven Spielberg and the shots are very interesting. i wish i could tell you more but i lost all interest in it and ended up falling asleep before the film actually managed to get anywhere really interesting.

i think this film would be considered very good by someone who had previous interest in this incident but i myself found it very dull and cant understand how it produced so much buzz

Staring Heath ledger and Orlando Bloom doing Irish accents. Enough said girls.

On a serious note, the film was disappointing with a weak script and bad direction. The story was repetative, confusing and the characters were difficult to keep up with. The ending was boring with no good final conclusion.

The basic storyline is Ned Kelly is wrongly accused of attempted murder and becomes a notorious outlaw with the worlds largest reward on his head.

Overall, a disappointing film, the only good thing would be the well pulled off Irish accents and good acting from Ledger and Bloom.

Fargo's brilliance lies not only with its way of thrilling its audience but also adding a slight comical effect to quite a serious number of events. 'Jerry' (main character) has more to him than what first meets the eye, when we first meet him he seems an innocent but in the first dialogue sequence this is reversed and consequently plays out the main objective of the film. Jerry money problems are affecting him and he comes up with cunning plan to get the money. He pays two corrupt gangsters to kidnap his wife in which he hopes to get part of the ransom for her with his father rich in law paying for her daughter to be released. This subsequently doesn't go to plan and blood is shed.

I believed Fargo's dark aspects and comical effects to be very enjoyable and a worth while watch. Its integrity to entertain and thrill is somewhat mystifying and shows really what the Coens are capable of.

Mean Streets is one Scorsese's earlier films and is traditional to the/ typical gangster style. Throughout the film parts are hard to follow h99owever it is a very good film and is very entertaining. There are a wide variety of different shots and the fight scenes are both entertaining and well done. All in all i would recommend the film to anybody who enjoys the typical gangster film.

The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan's absolute stunner of a follow-up to Batman Begins, is set out as a comic book movie. Containing everything you could ever want a film like this to include, and more. But Nolan doesn’t stop there as there's something new and amazing at work in this artfully imagined universe. Striking out from his Batman origin story, Nolan cuts through to a deeper dimension. The Dark Knight creates a place where good and evil are expected to fight to the death but instead decide to shock viewers with this little twist. "I don't want to kill you," psycho Joker tells Batman. "You complete me."
The trouble is that Batman, a.k.a. Bruce Wayne, has realised he can’t be Gothams white knight and have the public see him as a vigilante. He'll leave the hero stuff to district attorney Harvey Dent and stop the DA from moving in on Rachel Dawes, the lady love who is Batman's only hope for a normal life.
The Dark Knight has put Gotham in a new light with this idea of civilians trying to take on the role of batman and bad guys that enjoy crime starting more than ever. Take the Joker, who treats an amazingly well thought out bank robbery like a strategy game with henchmen in Joker masks and some deaths that you’ll never see coming.
The one thing that I found annoying while watching dark knight was that some parts are quite predictable. But that doesn’t stop The Dark Knight being one of the best movies I’ve seen this year, mostly because of Heath Ledgers amazing performance as the joker. He was absolutely insane and even got the facial expressions down which made his overall level of insanity rise.
Over all I would absolutely recommend going to see The Dark Knight. Its an experience that most people can enjoy time and time again.

The film opens with an idyll on a Pacific island where two soldiers have gone AWOL and live with tribal people who exist in a pre-lapsarian state, eating the fruit and the fish, and smiling contentedly at the bounty of Eden. The movie implies that this is a society that reflects man's best nature. But reality interrupts when the two soldiers are captured and returned to their Army Company for the assault. I personally think that this start was really long winded; I believe that it could have been shortened so that the action would come sooner

Even through the movie takes ages to actually get going that battles themselves are really well done and i enjoyed them. During the battle scenes, there are flashbacks to the island idyll and other flashbacks as a soldier remembers his love for his wife, which is ironic because it’s her love that keeps him alive when really she wants a divorce. The plot of the second act of the film involves the taking of a well-defended hill, and the colonel prefers that it be attacked in a frontal assault; a captain resists this plan as suicidal, and is right from strategic point of view, but wrong when viewed through the colonel's bloodlust: "You are not gonna take your men around in the jungle to avoid a goddamn fight." The soldiers are not well developed as individual characters. Covered in grime and blood, they look much alike which causes some confusion. Sometimes during an action we are not sure who we are watching, and have to piece it together afterward.

In creating a sense of the geography of a particular hill, the way it is defended by Japanese bunkers, the ways in which the American soldiers attempt to take it. The camera crouches low in the grass, and as Malick focuses on locusts or blades of grass, we are reminded that a battle like this must have taken place with the soldiers' eyes inches from the ground which gives the movie and battle a more realistic feel to it.

Personally I think this film was good but you have to be willing to go through loads of time before it actually gets going so I wouldn’t really recommend it if you’re an action fan because you’d probably stop watching before the action starts

Sweet sixteen is a Scottish film showing life for young people in Glasgow. Its main character, a 15 year old boy is growing up on a council estate and trying to get out of the estate buy selling drugs to buy a caravan for him and his mum when she gets out of prison, the film is about him getting in with gangsters to make money so that he can look after himself and his mum but at the end he ends up stabbing his dad, beating up his sister, killing his best friend and finding out that his mum had been laughing at him for trying to help her the whole time and so ends on the morning of his sixteenth birthday, with the police after him and walking towards the sea, covered in blood and realising he had nothing now and i presume that he is going to commit suicide. its a heavy film and I recommend it big timmmmmmmee.

A failing TV network in America notices how it gains more ratings after a mentally unstable news reporter has a nervous breakdown on live television.
This results in the News reader being re situated with his own talk show were he can express his own insane opinions on live television, captivating a mass audience and making the network wealthy.

Although the content of the movie was very eccentric,it was portrayed with a very intense tone of seriousness within the movie, creating a very subtle, dry form of humor which can only be fully appreciated through the watching of the movie.

Expect a fairly heavy going viewing of this movie as it contains a lot of dialog as well as a wide selection of characters each one constructed with there own opinion and role within the movie.

The movie also contains a lot of interesting political opinions that were in main issue at the time. It also questioning the authenticity of our viewing and the decency of those working behind it.

The Blade 2 film obviously being a sequel to the first Blade film is not the type of film were you have to see the first to understand the second. Its a bit confusing at first what happened to Blade to make him so powerful towards vampires but you find that out in this film when he talks about it.
Basically he is part vampire but doesn't have the weird effect that the vampires do.Blades task is to kill all or as many vampires in the city as he can. He is teamed up with a group of hunters who also are setting out to help with the extermination. Most of the vampires are killed due to different ways,which include being slashed with a sword,shot,beaten and death by grenade.many of the team are killed along the way.It turns out that the team were actually against Blade and he is captured by the remainder of the team they try to kill him but being Blade there is no way he is going to die.
An action packed film, lots of blood and explosions. A great action/horror film, and I recommend it to all of you who love a violent film.

The film Desperado is based on an old style western except it has been mixed around a little and developed into a 21st century western. It features Antonio Banderas as a sadistic guitar playing killer called El Mariachi who is out to get revenge on the people who killed his Girlfriend. He is helped by the young sweet and innocent librarian, Carolina played by Salma Hayek. Without giving the ending away of the film, The film involves a drug gang, a brother and a bookstore.
If you love huge action packed sequences and random over the top explosions, amazing guitar playing and cheesy dialouge then this film is something i would recomend, for it is the perfect shoot em up film.

My summer of love is a British film about a two girls friendship which becomes intense. As their friendship grows, they begin to stay over at each others houses and their friendship goes even further. One of the girls brother has become really religious so she refuses to go home and stays with her new lover. So overall, nothing really happens in this film.

It is just about a summer where two girls fall for each other and forget about everything around them. There is nothing to keep you hooked in the movie and it is easy to focus your attention on something else.

Deathproof, after Quentin Tarantino had mass effect with his modern kung fu flick of Kill Bill he turned back his sights to 70's car chasing thrill ride with a memorable performance from Kurt Russell. With fast paced Death race of lap dancing girls with a mean vengeance.

Deathproof is based around a smaller town based on Stuntman Mikes desire for women and his death proof fast car mustang muscle car, the plot starts as Mike becomes obsessed with the local girls, but after picking the wrong group of girls to play games with Mike soon wishes he hadn't crossed with the psychotic lap dances

with thrill rides of a 15 minute car chase and has its thrilling parts and gory moments with a slow pace but makes you carry on watching, while it has its casual quotes from pulp fiction as well as a strong performance from Tarantino himself

6.5/10

Strike is a young city drug pusher under the tutelage of drug-lord Rodney Little, who, when not playing with model trains or drinking Moo milkshakes for his ulcer, just likes to chill with his brothers near the benches outside the project houses. When a night man at a fast-food restaurant is found with four bullets in his body, Strike's older brother turns himself in as the killer. Det. Rocco Klein doesn't buy the story, however, and sets out to find the truth, and it seems that all the fingers point toward Strike & Rodney.

Clockers is a surreal look at the drug buisness, friendship, descision making, and death in the city. This movie has a flawless cast, the clockers, the detectives, and Rodney and Harold the dealers are perfect. The script is great too, as it has suprises, good dialogue, action, and setting. The direction is almost perfect, especially the last scene with the train, Spike Lee is one of the most underrated directors ever. This movie is made to please, action lovers will find it interesting, and film buffs should find it fascinating! Keep an open mind from beginning to end and analyze ever scene with its content

Strange days

This action-thriller movie keeps you in suspense throughout most of the movie although it has a fairly long run time, even though the ending is predictable you still want to carry on watching all the way to the end. The main plot is evolves around an X-cop who sells other peoples memories and experiences with a device that sits on your head and wirellesly records everything that you see and hear, so that you or anybody else can put the device on and it will play back the memory and everything that you feel. It was originally designed to replace the wire for undercover cop but it got out in to the black market and now recording are being made of all kinds of things so that people can experience what it is like to (for example) rob a bank or sleep with someone else without cheating on your partner. At first this is confusing because it is set in the past but has more modern technology than we have got now, but you can easily ignore that and just enjoy the movie. If you enjoy movies like Equilibrium or The Departed then you will defiantly enjoy this

Winner of the Cannes Festival for Best Director, Babel is a powerful, intense and brilliantly made film. Full of life and culture it really digs deep in the understanding and miss-communication of general human actions and emotions.

When a tragic accidents in Morocco occurs, it sets of a chain of events that links 4 groups of people who are divided by culture differences and vast distances, discover a shared destiny that ultimately connects them.

If you are one for the films such as Crash, then Babel is right up your alley. If you have a queezy stomach violence or blood and have a short attention span than put Babel down and pick up A cinderlla Story.

overall a simple and easy to watch film from Gonzalez, and a definte must see and one for your DVD collection!

*****

Battleship Potemkin was made in 1925 by director Sergei Eisenstein, documenting the events on the titular vessel that happened during the 1905 uprising in the Soviet Union. It is filmed in black and white and is silent, although the soundtrack more than makes up for the lack of dialogue. The music swells and dies down with the action, and all in all makes the film what it ultimately is: enjoyable.

As one probably expected when picking up a film from this era, the acting is anything but great. The actors over-react with such zeal that it is almost funny. But all in all it makes the film even more enjoyable.

The infamous Odessa steps sequence is one to look out for as well. It's close ups of the bloody massacre are surprisingly believable and the camerawork is top-notch.

At 78 minutes long, occasionally when the action dies down things do get a bit boring. But all in all time flew when I watched this film, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the History of cinema, or of Russia itself.

The Truman Show was a really good film and i would recommend it to any one wanting to see a good feel good film and something that is easy watching.
This film is about a man who's life has been filmed since the day he was born on a live reality show. He doesn't no that his whole life has been filmed but as his life goes on he is told the truth but everyone around him makes him believe that it was just a big lie and he just carry's on with his life. Then the truth is starting to become apparent to him as time goes on and his is set on a mission to prove that something is not right with the way he is living and he is determined to be reunited with his high school love. Through out this film has its funny moments but it sucks you in very well to the story and makes you feel involved. A all round good film and i would 100% recommend this film to watch.

Children of men is set in the year 2027 and there hasn't been a baby born in 18 years. The human race is going mad and there is constant fighting between the government and public. Nobody knows why there hasn't been a baby born in so long and nobody understands why women can no longer get pregnant but one this is certain if theirs no new life then the human race will die.
Children of men is definitely a film worth seeing it its quite complicated at the start but if you stick with it you wont be disappointed
Alfonso Cuarón has also Directed many other great films such as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Great Expectations and Y tu mamá también

An assassin inadvertently nearly blinds a young lounge singer during one of his assignments. Overwhelmed by pity, he decides to take care of her and soon they fall in love. Unfortunately, her eyesight is deteriorating quickly and she needs to have an operation before she loses her eyesight completely. The assassin decides to do one final job to get the money she needs, but after the job is completed, his hires refuse to pay him. Not only this, but they are feeling the heat from a determined police officer (Lee, City on Fire) trying to take them down, and fearing the assassin will rat them out, they decide to kill the killer.

The Killer is a great action picture, one of the best of the 1980s. Stylish to the extreme, with Peckinpah-esque slow motion ballet-like action scenes and some religious undertones make for thought-provokingly effective entertainment. Beautifully shot and skillfully directed by John Woo (A Better Tomorrow, Face/Off), it's probably the best Hong Kong action film I've ever seen, and by far the best film in Woo's interesting career. The entire ensemble is perfectly cast, with Chow Yun-Fat giving a subtle but powerful performance as the assassin. It's funny, audacious, outrageous, and tragic all at the same time. An absolute must-see for Hong Kong film fans and anyone is tired of clichéd Hollywood action thrillers.

“Jaws” is a 1975 classic film directed by Steven Spielberg. It has become one of the most off-putting films of all time. The film is based around a massive terrorizing Great White shark that becomes a threat to the waters in a seaside town called Amity.
Three guys, played by Roy Sheider, Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss, attempt to stop the menace. The main character is played by Roy Sheider. He plays a local sheriff who battle with the residents of the town to try and prevent them from visiting the beach. However they are against the idea because it will affect the amount of money they will earn in their shops.
The most enhancing scene in the whole film is that of the Great White attacking the wrecked boat in which the three men belong to. The reason this was the most enhancing scene was because it was one of the few scenes that gave screen time to the ferocious shark. I thought the film didn’t include enough images of the shark to terrify, and considering I am easily scared I found this movie very timid. The storyline was very fluent; however I found that it was very repetitive. An example of this is when the three men try to catch the shark and fail and try again and fail and try again and fail.
The soundtrack made this film, without it the tension would not have been built. The contrast of the peaceful scenery and evil terror of the waters continues to surprise the viewer.
I have watched a similar film called “Open Water” and compared to “Jaws” it holds onto the audience’s attention a lot more. I wouldn’t recommend this film necessarily for its action or suspense but because it is a classic and then at least you will be able to say you have seen it.

“The Beach” Originaly a best-selling novel by Alex Garland, is taken on and adapted by the film making threesome of director Danny Boyle, producer Andrew Macdonald and writer John Hedge. After their previous attempt of creating a sucsessful film was slightly wofull, they decided to drop Iwan Mcgregor for the lead role in their second film, giving Leonardo Dicaprio his first role in 2 years, following the hit film “Titanic” while also making him a cool £12.4m.


An American backpacker Richard,(Dicaprio) finds himself in possession of a map, said to lead to a luxurious untouched paradise, of which himself and a french couple, played by Vurginie Ledoyen, and Guillaume Canet set out for.


After a long swim, the trio eventually reach their destination where they begin to unwind and forget about the stresses of the modern world.


However, not for long, their perfect lives in paradise are not left untouched for long. Leaving poor Richard and the rest of the travellers with no option other to go back to civilisation.


This film shows many aspects of a good film, and is certainly watchable, but be prepared for a poor ending.

Raging Bull (1980) is an unrelenting, searing biopic and dramatic tragedy - based on the real-life story of an unlovable, stubborn middle-weight boxing champion as he struggles to be champion. His life passes through successive stages of punishment, compromise, and self-disintegration, due to numerous inner demons. The tale of Jake La Motta's downfall is a reversal of the sentimental, much-loved boxer/hero story in Rocky (1976).

Director Martin Scorsese was convinced by actor Robert De Niro, with whom he had made Mean Streets (1973), Taxi Driver (1976), and New York, New York (1977), that the film had to be made, after he was given La Motta's biography by De Niro in 1974. The actor's own performance was the most overwhelming of his career - he completely immersed himself in the role by altering his physical appearance in an ultimate Method-acting performance. As a lean boxer, he rigorously trained with La Motta for the boxing sequence.

In the film's brutal, no-holds-barred look at the gladiatorial sport of boxing in documentary-style, La Motta unsparingly engages other boxers in the ring in some of the most realistic, bloody, and brutal yet stylized boxing scenes ever filmed - with sweat and blood spraying out of the ring, devastating blows, and flashing - actually exploding - camera bulbs. The sounds of squashing melons and tomatoes were used for landed punches. The size and shape of the ring was also modified and changed from small, to long and narrow, for varying effects.

Michael Chapman's stunning, crisp black-and-white cinematography (throughout the entire film except for the home video segments) and subjective camera used innovative techniques including slow-motion (varying camera speeds), 360 degree pans, and titled camera angles for various fight scenes. The lighting was deliberately made harsh and stark, to provide an expressionistic look and feel of the brutality inside the ring.

Overall I strongly recommend watching this film, As its one of the best work by both Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro