Reviews

Wow. This thing is almost three and a half hours long and yet it is not boring for a second. Not one moment. From the very first scenes up until the tragic and forlorn ending, this film seizes hold of the viewer's consciousness and does not ever loosen its grip, even when the credits roll. I walked away from the movie with what felt like a deep resonance inside me. It is at once heart-wrenchingly sad and stunningly beautiful.

Thematically, it actually shares much in common with later films such as American Beauty and Fight Club. The Godfather Part 2 is the story of a man who seems to have it all - but the only things he ends up not having are the only things that truly matter to him. Michael's character arc continues on from the first film, creating a great, epic tragedy and what I think is one of the saddest and yet most majestic endings in film.

I haven't even talked about the more technical aspects yet. This is because I don't have to - everything is perfect. Not just great, but perfect, as in there seems to be no way that they could be improved on. Acting, direction, cinematography, script and story. Everything.

The one thing, though, that clinches it for me is that the plot doesn't really matter. This is a movie about themes and ideas. The plot is quite thick, so don't worry if you don't get it - you don't have to. As long as you understand what the film is really about... you will walk away knowing that you have witnessed something almost life-changing.

I'm starting to suspect that Hollywood no longer uses actual, human screenwriters to create their movies. After watching years of the same, recycled trash, I'm starting to think that they now use a screenplay-writing machine to do it.

This machine works very simply. A producer will enter the main character's name, one problem they are facing, and one 'gimmick' (an unusual plot twist often used as a selling point for the film), and hey presto! - out pops a completed, and entirely unoriginal screenplay. Such is the case for 17 Again.

Mike O'Donnell is a depressed suburban father (sounds familiar already, doesn't it?) whose wife is divorcing him, kids can't stand him, and who just got passed over for a promotion. As the movie progressed, it started to seem very, very familiar - a crippling combination of unoriginal jokes, stereotypical characters and recycled plot devices. My friends and I started to grin and sneeringly guess what was going to happen later in the film, and guess what: most of the time, we were right.

We've all seen this movie before - it's been pieced together from the discarded carcasses of films past, by a flock of vultures seemingly so unaccustomed to originality in film-making that they have been rendered unable to create any plot twist even slightly unexpected or interesting. And don't even get me started on Zac Efron's acting (or lack of such).

Two small good things. Out of the dozens of jokes thrown at us, a select few - maybe five - were genuinely hilarious. Other than that, though, the humor relied on the the faux-improvised, overly-awkward style of comedy popularized by Seth Rogen and co. It doesn't work here. The other highlight, of course, was Matthew Perry. He's the man, and an excellent comic actor, but his short on-screen time was not enough to salvage this unoriginal, unfunny, and worst of all boring attempt at light entertainment. Perhaps if the film had eliminated the dramatic aspects and stuck to being a comedy, it could have succeeded, but this is one movie I certainly would not want to see again.

The first time I saw Fight Club, I didn't really take it in - I was tired and bored and not in the mood for a dark and depressing film like this. We turned it off halfway through, after about 90 minutes of not paying attention. What a mistake that was.

I watched it again several months later when it was being shown on TV. Being only 13, I failed somewhat to absorb the deeper themes and concepts of the film but was highly, highly entertained by the Joe Everyman tale of a person so bored, unhappy and in the need of change in their life (it reminded me very, very much of American Beauty in this regard).

Three years on, I watched it for the third time and it absolutely blew me away. Pretty much everything about it is perfect - plot, acting, direction, music - it all combined into a single perfect narrative package.

Where do I start? The acting is out of this world. I can't claim to have seen many of Edward Norton's movies (in fact, only this and American History X), but his performance here was brilliant as the aforementioned Joe Everyman who also provides excellent, often deadpan narration that not only propels the story but is entertaining and even funny, a rare feat. As for Brad Pitt, until I saw Fight Club I had dismissed him as another pretty-boy, somewhat-talented actor more suited to romantic comedies than dark dramas. How wrong I was. His acting abilities are in full flight as the suave and confident antagonist of the story, Tyler Durden. Helena Bonham Carter is also great as usual, playing the leading lady (of sorts), Marla Singer.

Or the story, based on the book by Chuck Palahniuk. While it essentially retains a simple three-act plot, it constantly twists and turns as to never let the viewer remove their eyes from the screen for even a second. This is NOT a movie about fighting. The overwhelming theme of the film is of anti-consumerism and challenging the values systems that have been put in place through advertising. The fighting itself serves as a way for the characters to escape from their repetitive, depressing, boring and most importantly sterile lives and experience feeling that the material objects deemed so important by their values system cannot give them.

Director David Fincher produces one of the finest directorial efforts of recent times. The mise-en-scene he generates is terrific - harsh, sterile, postmodern - and there are several scenes that showcase his mastery of some unusual camera techniques. His directing here is strange in the best possible way. One particular short fantasy scene on a plane especially stands out.

Fincher was concerned that traditional film music bands wouldn't be able to tie all the film's themes together, so he recruited the Dust Brothers, an electronica duo who had never recorded for a movie before. What a contribution they make. The score is postmodern, sterile, and artificial-sounding, perfectly in keeping with the ideas in the film. It also manages to create a mood without usually being noticeable, a difficult trick to pull off correctly.

While loved and hated by equal numbers of critics, Fight Club is undeniably one of the greatest films for many years, probably the best of the 90's. Go and see it - you won't regret the experience, even if you don't think it's 'your kind' of film.

When I walked into the cinema I had no idea what Mr. Brooks was about. The enigmatic opening statement only added to my initial confusion, and curiosity. But Mr. Brooks soon proved itself to be a brilliant, compelling, utterly sick and twisted and finely acted psychological thriller.

Kevin Costner stars as Mr. Brooks, a schizophrenic and wealthy owner of a box factory who is also the infamous 'Thumbprint killer' (this is revealed early in the movie, so don't worry). He doesn't kill people because he wants to, he kills people because 'he's an addict'.

Demi Moore stars as the cop on his trail, and Dane Cook as a part blackmailer, part apprentice to Mr. Brooks.

The only problems with this film are the one-dimensional soundtrack, mostly a series of repetitive and utterly sterile artificial noises, and the equally one-dimensional characters, but this isn't a character-driven movie so that can be forgiven.

Generally I would recommend this to anyone who doesn't mind being seriously creeped out, there's only one or two short gory scenes so squeamish people need not worry.

8/10

I object to the comment that objected to the comment made by bigmacsflyingcircus from New Zealand. I agree there are different types of humour and that one's taste in humour may be different from someone else's. However, I fail to see how this comment applies to Epic Movie, seeing as it has no successful humour at all.

I liked the first two Scary Movies, sure they were crude but enjoyable nonetheless. They did have several funny moments. In Epic movie, the humour is completely forced and is not witty, surprising, clever or any of the other prerequisites for successful comedy. It is an endless sequence of ill-timed and poorly written one-liners, sight gags and unfunny depictions of other movie characters. Honestly, the script seemed like it had been written by a bunch of ten year olds during morning tea. "Like, make it that, like, Harry Potter's really old, and, like, it would be real funny!" "Yeah, and Hermione can be like, pregnant and smoking a cigarette! Ha Ha Ha Ha!" I don't think so.

Plainly, sxc bst has a serious humour deficiency. I suggest they see a humour specialist immediately, to reduce the risk of seeing other awful movies.