Reviews

I really enjoyed this film given that it was a chance-encounter. I don't often go for the odd blend of horror and fantasy. However, this one worked because of the compelling circumstances upon which the story was built. More specifically, the addition of horror gave fantasy its depth. I wonder though if its overall low rating was due to Christine (Eva Green) getting a little taste of her own medicine. I thought her role was quite one-dimensional and could have been portrayed just as easily -if not, better- by an up-and-coming actress than by Eva Green herself. Personally, I thought her stardom made her too big for the part; Was she using her reputation to shine a light on the injustices wrought by Western greed at any cost? On the other hand, Chai Fonacier was a true delight to behold given how little such overseas talent is celebrated.

If the roles were reversed and the Filipino was on the receiving end of retribution, my guess is that it would have likely gotten a much better rating. Folks who saw it and gave it a thumbs down aren't keen on seeing themselves as acquisitive villains, and who would be? Even so, this story had no agenda believe it or not. It's effortless approach to simply telling a story of a wounded 'Mary Poppins' -albeit of the Filipino variety, seeking vengeance was superb and would have been just as convincing if the antagonist and protagonist were played by white females from opposite ends of some European country. Other high-minded folk might think that its unintended message should have been about forgiveness than about meting out punishment; but game theory teaches us that doing so too often with an opponent for whom morality and fairness have no intrinsic value will be seen as a reward for their wrong-doing giving them license to inflict further harm. Again, there was no agenda! Justice, retribution, and vengeance are all synonyms chosen by one's vantage point. Hands down, this was a great story.

This rendition of the Halo saga has unfortunately gotten a bad reputation by a dedicated fan base, ironically. Very much like that of the Marvel, and D. C. franchises, they are inflexible to whatever it is they've always known -even if it isn't the least bit sensible or accurate. For a long time I thought it was simply due to the 'Tried-n-True' phenomenon but this isn't necessarily the case. I forget who said the following but it bears mentioning: People require continuity.

...and because that is so, we should do our best to control for it. So if it's at all possible, please watch with no expectation of a seamless live-version of the lengthy game play cut-scenes that we've all come to know and love. Do that, and I can almost guarantee that you'll love and enjoy this.

And while there is more than some attachment to the original HALO series story line, this incarnation divulges a good deal more of what real Transcendence is, especially as it culminates in the season finale. I'm not sure if they'll come back for a second season but it's been interesting thus far.

I am a little late to the party but was finally convinced that I should at least give this series a chance; it's gotta be something special when the son of the late writer, Christopher Rice, gives his own seal of approval to the project. Before then, I was apprehensive being such a huge fan of the vampire chronicles in its totality. If you've ever had the pleasure of reading Anne's work, you'll know just how emotive she can be. Her plots are driven almost singularly by a hedonistic passion for life by the prime characters -a common device used throughout most of her works. In any case, we can live vicariously through these fictional but exciting personalities as they do and say things we wouldn't dare. This is why so many are drawn to her wonderful world of the occult and mysticism which is so familiar to us and yet still so shrouded in mystery.

Despite the topical changes, this story is at heart more faithful to the original Anne Rice novel in the following ways: a true depiction of Louie's deep affection and concern for his saintly but unbalanced brother; the open and clear expression of homoeroticism (something that was only intimated in the theatrical 1994 release); and a profoundly complex three-way love affair that ultimately turned out to be a sordid version of domestic violence within a vampire coven. The streaming platform of today provides enough of a runway for the full exploration for all these topics -something which the movie could not. In that regard, it surpasses the original Tom Cruise-Brad Pitt rendition.

And lastly, the interpretations of Louie, Lestat, and eventually Claudia were fabulously executed with the true fidelity of thespian professionals. I'm sure other actors could've made these characters shine, but not so brightly I imagine. It was a delight to watch them work, so much in fact that I wound up bingeing the whole thing over the weekend. I'm glad I did.

This neatly packaged film depicting the late 70s had plot points thoughtfully shepherded by the exuberance of heady teenage bravado making it easily digestible to viewers of all ages. However, a thin layer of vulnerability and even death -including sexual abuse; which was thankfully only intimated by a fade to black with camera speed slowing to half time added just the right amount of panache giving it a strong sense of realism. In that regard, it was very much like the very popular 'Stranger Things' streaming series which debuted back in 2016.

Ethan Hawke's performance as child predator-monster was perhaps a little too convincing, but that's what makes this such a nightmare in my humble opinion, because something like this could happen -indeed, has already happened in point of fact. It's pacing was good but its summary conclusion was even better.

I don't know why, but this flick feels like a number of scenes taken from different movies cobbled together, and then a story was invented afterward to help make sense of it all. And even though it was based off of William Gibson's novel by the same name, it's extremely hard to follow. Evidently, it traded the simplicity of good story-telling for the sizzle of highbrow theatrics and special effects; but it clearly overshot the mark.

Chloë Grace Moretz (Flynne Fisher) captivated me for only a brief moment before everything came undone. Unfortunately, she doesn't always get a chance to display her acting chops and this movie doesn't promise that much more of a runway but she makes the most of it. Three episodes in and I'm sill not too keen on where we're headed. But it's okay, because I'm not coming back.

...stars veteran actress, Naomi Watts (King Kong, 2005), as a middle-aged psychologist struggling through what was generally referred to as 'the seven-year itch'; a traditionally male-dominated phase, where the man would suddenly be overcome with the instant urge to revisit old flames and live the life of a much younger version of himself, even at the cost of ruining his current life.

However, the 'Me-Too' movement has revamped just about everything hence, the feminine version of this phenomenon is expressed. So while it is somewhat unusual for women to become coldly averse to long-term commitment or companionship, Naomi Watts pulls it off with a very credible performance that makes her such a pleasure to watch. The writers further sweeten the pot by having her character be of questionable morality; and with that, we begin to peel away the many layers of the human condition a la the salacious atypical therapist. A few episodes in and you begin to understand how the name of the show fits.

Admittedly, this was the one film of the year that I did not want to like and yet, it received a nine. Despite some of the rocky transitions between scenes, or the performances whose poetic dialogue overshot the mark by virtue of its duration, it still managed to convey a larger-than-life purpose for all of the tribal infighting of old Scandinavia, a la Vikings; just don't ask what that was. Serving as a baseline for all European culture, these marauders embodied the lowest of all impulses. Ironically, that primitive state gifted them with a sort of primal power over others, for a time at least. On the one hand, it proscribed any peaceable understanding and forbearance with the outsider, while prescribing all manner of death and destruction.

While the lens of modernity can be quite unforgiving when weighed against the unapologetic use of runes, or the shameful mass murder of helpless women and children by torch fire, we are reminded that this is a film about Viking lore and not the future predictions coming to pass long after the tiresome interlude of multiculturalism has finally abated. Strangely enough, through the god-like powers of the narrative voice, a Homeric sheen is superimposed over the entire spread giving it a kind of authenticity in its embrace of sheer violence to resolve all problems. This humanization process tickles the blood lust urges present in all of us -if only dormant- and hopes to sate them.

There were tough guys, bad guys, and of course smart ones. And let's not forget the women, who were also just as impressive-the few there were; in a time and place where they were considered little more than moving possessions, the writing was savvy enough to have them play pivotal, but very credible roles. Every character in point of fact, was portrayed with absolute fidelity to the overall success of this Scorsese-like film minus an overblown budget and the other Hollywood accouterments to boot which I actually think contributed to its winning strategy. We, the viewing audience, got to see the budding of a truly wonderful story through the naked performances of a noteworthy cast.

Mark Rylance's presentation was a tour de force. He communicates as effectively through the silence of his movements and facial expressions just as much as he did through the careful diction of his words. It was a real pleasure to watch him in his element, portraying a quiet unassuming middle-aged tailor laboriously cutting away at his fabric seemingly oblivious to all possible danger. Trying to figure how it all comes together or apart was a big draw and spoke to the nebulous allure of this film. You'll enjoy it for that reason alone.

The writing wasn't at all that spectacular but one might've anticipated this much given its lower production value in comparison with more heavily budgeted movies of the genre (e.g. MCU, and 'The Boys'), nor does it pretend to be. And because of that open humility, the magic of this celluloid feature shines. In spite of its flaws, it was entertaining enough to make me smile.

An aging Stallone is right at home, doing what he's always wanted, inspiring people through film; something he's said in dozens of interviews throughout his long career. Few can boast doing their life's work well into their golden years, and on their own terms. Bravo Stallone, bravo!

Some watch movies for the pleasure of escape choosing to remain on the surface and enjoy the splash of waves, sunlit breeze on their face, and easy access to the open seas of imagination; others must occasionally descend to the depths of the ocean floor like whales to see the man behind the myth and the means behind the magic. Don't Let Me Go, delivers on both accounts. It's precision film-making for those at both ends of the spectrum. It's authors understand well just how much human psychology is primed by strong emotion. Only after considerable effort might we begin to see hidden intent.

That being said, there is an unmistakable BAD BLOOD element in this story, particularly surrounding our narrator, Wally (Wallis) Park of sixteen years (who at the very beginning tells us that we are not going to like the ending of the story.) She is cute, funny, intelligent, daring, overbearing at times, but like most of us at that age in need of constant approval and acceptance. She is of mixed heritage with a father (John Cho) who absolutely adores her. Nevertheless when you tally up all of her interactions in the film with the exception of her father, however amicable they turn out, they all come down on the side of rejection in some shape, way, or form: for example, the white males she pursues don't necessarily shun her outright but either string her along or declare for someone else; Terms like 'crack-addict' come up in reference to her mother, who ultimately knows nothing of marital fidelity and is still struggling according to her own words; the only black male she comes across is in an openly gay relationship. And this isn't even the worst of it. There are so many more. Yet all of these illustrations enumerate classic anti-blackness of a sort, if only thinly veiled. By the end of the film, certain conclusions will give way to the belief that nature supersedes nurture -getting back to that bad blood aspect I mentioned earlier.

My only question at this point is to whom might this film be marketed? Adolescent black females of mixed heritage? Maybe, though I doubt it. Chances are even if they watch, most will remain on the surface. It is more likely to the young adult population of Asian males who despite their excellent financial status and good job prospects encounter serious obstacles to marriageability -even among the females in their own ethnic group according to at least a handful of academic papers I can cite. On such occasions, a good portion of them might begin to consider black females of mixed heritage as viable alternatives. This film, like a few others, seeks to disabuse them of that notion.

To all those who actually get the chance to breath O2 scaling Meru's back @20k... KUDOS!!! And thank you so very much for sharing the experience with the rest of us. It's truly a testament to the indomitable human spirit. Through the heartaches of loss, the hardships of life, the previous failures, and unforeseen setbacks, you persevered and triumphed! BRAVO Truly, anything is possible!!!

This was easily one of the best series of the year. Chris Pratt is at his absolute best, portraying America's favorite son in Military fatigues with enough chops to keep up with, and in some cases well ahead of those who mean to do him in. He was Star Lord without any of the comedic edge. And the balance between action, drama, and mystery was exceptionally proportional.

I am not going to spoil this for anyone but my following opinion might add some levity to this fictional piece; maybe just the opposite: At its core, The Terminal List is a film about the incremental power of corporations at the expense of national sovereignty. Some believe that these titans have already won; and there's pretty good argument for that. This film says there's hope, however slim.

I, on the other hand, believe that just as the agricultural empires of yesterday in the Antebellum South were built on the backs of unpaid labor i.e., slaves, eventually giving rise to the Industrial Age; the Technocracy of tomorrow (which includes various forms of biotech, and even smarter AI) will be built on the backs of soldiers and other victim populations serving today as collateral damage -if not, guinea pigs. I'm not too happy about that personally. Even so, that looks to be the case.

This film is gritty with the edginess of shockumentary. Jamie Chung's performance was so compelling, that it was sad. There were even illegals involved in the process, real scum-of-the-earth types!

The biggest take away from this piece is that in order for a system as robust and resilient as human trafficking to exists, there have to be huge clandestine networks involving law enforcement and other influential people around the world. The drama here interestingly enough does not take away from that fact either. I don't know about other films, but here its unforgettably front and center.

Belle de Jour is essentially about a superlatively attractive house wife suffocating in a marriage that while ostensibly successful fails to deliver in the bedroom. As a consequence of her sexually repressed life, she hires herself out as a courtesan to an exclusive bordello ultimately satisfying those very human impulses. The men that visit have all kinds of kinky fetishes and likewise demean her to the point of humiliation but strangely, it all aligns with the sordid fantasies she's been daydreaming about heretofore.

What makes this film so charming in my estimation is the fact that it's so dated and therefore innocent. Any one of its escapades would be considered laughably mild or even puritanical by today's standards. Because this is the case, it offers some valuable insight on the psychology of sex and sexuality. Do some men and women have a need to be dominated sexually or even physically? How responsible for our actions can either of us be, if those appetites go unsated for longer than can be endured? This film shows you that, on both sides. It's a delicious French classic.

High Ground depicts the unfortunate tale of an unsuspecting Aboriginal family in the wilds of the Australian outback. These are the 1930s, a time when the white settler was still vigorously making forays inland for more territory.

In my opinion there is nothing novel or spectacular about this picture despite its celebrity cast. The acting on the side of the Natives is somewhat believable, but the performance of the whites felt contrived and was rather lackluster with guilt-sodden expressions, including the single white Christian female. Anyway, the film's only real value was in giving a visual sense of white supremacy/racism in a flavor wholly unfamiliar to those of us with a distinctly American palette.

This movie reminded me of Ambrose Bierce's definition of 'Aboriginies' in his 1906 publication, The Devil's Dictionary. Even though that literary work was largely satirical, therein lie ominous portents of true white sentiment untoward: Aboriginies - persons of little worth found cumbering the soil of a newly discovered country. They soon cease to cumber; they fertilize.

Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, 1998), portrays an aging former CIA operative in hiding. With the U. S. government nipping at his heels, he struggles to stay one step ahead of them and other deadly pursuers. As always, watching the veteran actor is a treat. Even at his seventy-eight years, he's still a marvel to behold, giving the audience no less than his very best. The action scenes are cleverly put together and convincing enough for a man of his age and skill set.

Amy Brenneman (Heat 1995), reprises a very familiar type of role but is yet finally allowed to push further. All other actors and actresses were likewise, just as skilled and professional.

Unfortunately, despite the excellent cast and the stellar script/dialogue, I could not give it the 9 that it deserves mostly because the plot was so prosaic. What do I mean? The white male hero (usually some maverick cowboy-type), works to save a third-world nation or some backwater planet from themselves or worse, other acquisitive white soon-to-be-oppressors. Of course, his help will come at a cost that is very rarely discussed if ever... their women! This native female character is written in such a reactive one dimensional way that she ultimately pushes back against the long held traditions of her people having become so emotionally tied to this westerner. At odds with her people (the men in particular), they all end up on opposite sides of the battle line somehow. Many films follow this blueprint: Avatar 2009; The Outsider 2014; Green Lantern Emerald Knights 2011; The Last Samurai 2003; Star Trek Into Darkness 2013; Tehran 2020; Hidalgo 2004; and so many more.

This film did not win Emilia Clarke the kind of praise she should have garnered for portraying the real life Susan Smith so convincingly as she did. I suspect that it was because it came out too close to her award-winning Game of Thrones HBO series. Naturally, people are going to be comparing the canopy of that grandiose presentation of years-in-development to this single performance of a strung-out snitch mother of some backwater of a town. It's virtually an apples to oranges comparison.

Clarke's performance wasn't as stellar here as in Game of Thrones; but to be frank, she can play those roles all day. They are so easy for her. Above Suspicion provided her more opportunity for growth and she took it. Rightfully so! Clarke has a lot of road ahead of her. I enjoyed this film immensely. I wish her all the best.

This was a most impressive display of only a handful of techniques by which intelligence agencies shrewdly extract information -and some of them are obsolete in point of fact. I've read other reviews on here remarking on the unpolished quality of the cinematography failing to realize that these folks are NOT in the business of open presentation, but stealth. These commentators are focusing on the wrong aspects. Almost everything from the reiterations to the mispronunciations was purposeful. The psychology behind it will amaze as much as frighten you; but I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that Spycraft wasn't so much for our entertainment, as it was for our information. Express your opinions; perform your civic duties (e.g., voting, jury participation, military enlistment); and protest, if you must... just know that there are lines. This goes for all the colors of the rainbow including black and white.

With respect to other countries, Spycraft is very simply stating the following: We signed some treaties and joined a few power blocs of friendly trade and competition but in the end, everyone of you is fair game. We also know what the international laws are regarding the sanctity of sovereign nations, we just don't care. And we know you don't either, so may the (patriot) games continue.

Personally, I don't agree with much of the sordid philosophy behind such views. Many of us call it patriotism and for a long time, I did too. What I'm trying to convey is difficult to put into words but the best I can offer is this: Think of war as a behavior.

With all of the perverse media by which a good deal of our lives is so heavily impacted, this was a breath of fresh air. Indeed, the Korean model of film-making is so neat and trim that its comprehension and digestibility by non-natives is -dare I say- healthy? There aren't the sneaky practices of semiotics and the dark psychological word choices cleverly embedded in the script that secretly infiltrate our unguarded minds (being in vulnerable and receptive state of relaxation) aiming to throw off or corrupt our frame of reference. Its just a simple love story with a cast of usually very relatable people. Ok, ok, it's a little heavy on the melodrama, but some people prefer a lot more soy sauce on their fried rice than others. It's funny, whenever my palette is oversaturated by the constant bombardment of western cuisine, I look for Korean take-out.

Anyway, the elegance of this piece is in the blossoming of its openness.

With the passing of the extraordinary Sidney Poitier, one is inspired to revisit some of his most iconic films. This one in particular actually kick-started a television series some years later by the same name. I do recall seeing that show, but have only vague memories of my formative years. As for the 1967 movie off which it was based, I was absolutely oblivious.

The film was good. It felt like a walk down memory lane or a docu-drama on one of the streaming platforms. Poitier is at his best and quite the consummate actor, but the white pathology is all too familiar.

One of the most notable scenes was when Officer, Virgil Tibbs (Poitier), struck Mr. Endicott, the plantation owner in the face after being assaulted himself by the man. That scene generated some talk at the time. I had to remind myself that the movie was shot in the Sixties and the social climate did not allow for black dignity.

I will search out more films by the great actor. Rest well.

Swan Song examines the moral dilemmas of choosing a uniquely human experience all the way through and then dying as a natural consequence of life or in passing the baton onto a doppelganger without your family being the wiser. Ultimately, the plot winds up being the usual cliché-take on cutting-edge technology that's in desperate need of a couple of beta-testers or unsung heroes; this is what so few ever come around to realizing, in my opinion.

Interestingly, this movie was very reminiscent of a 2015 film in the same vein, Advantageous, starring the very memorable Jacqueline Kim. In both selections, the protagonist is stricken with either some incurable disease or beset by financial woes that oblige them to consider a dance with the devil-type bargain. Swan Song however, enjoyed a much bigger financial investment and it shows given its superior aesthetics. Of course, the acting was brilliant and even convincing at times despite the melodrama. What kept me glued to the screen more than anything else was piecing together the possible clues of how the implementation-teams -who apparently had been tracking his life so completely that they already had psych-evaluations- were arranging situations, manipulating him (and possibly others), and setting a narrative that would satisfy all agendas, theirs above all.

For the potential viewer, the real quality of this film isn't so much in its entertainment value, but in getting you to weigh the tangible aspects of being present against the intangible realities of loss and heartache. While death is indeed an imposition on humanity, it still defines and shapes it too. Life is valued at a premium because of death. Also, might it be considered as lying, even if your family can't tell the difference between the replicant and the authentic man/woman off which it was based? Or is the human body superfluous?

This film was meant to raise the consciousness level about the runaway effects of climate change. To its detriment, it belabored this point to death; a fact that will likely hurt its box office numbers. Believe it or not, much of the public gets it! WE GET IT! There isn't so much of a disbelief anymore in the changing climate, as there is in how the climate is changing. Consider the following: Overpopulation, Unchecked CO2 Pollution affecting the Ozone, and Deforestation just to name a few; as opposed to, the very real but under-reported propagation and use of Ionospheric heaters (e.g., HAARP), Cloud Seeding techniques, and Tidal Wave technologies -all of which can induce severe catastrophic weather events orders of magnitude beyond anything humanity's ever experienced hitherto.

All that aside, the real gem of this movie was not Finch, but Finch's robot. Thirty minutes into the film, it takes center stage and continues to drive the plot forward with childlike curiosity and adolescent quirks of naive fidelity. Comparatively, the hope was for Tom Hanks to work his Cast Away (2000) magic and to a small degree it worked, but only for the nostalgic among us. It was otherwise a very stale performance. Obviously, most of the money went to special effects. The producers clearly have no more stomach for the social experiment of Pax Americana; that much was hinted at with the very poor choice of Don McClean's song both opening and closing the film.

What would have been better, is if Finch somehow vanished or got lost. And then, for the audience to follow the exploits of the Robot as it desperately searches for its master while taking care of its charge and navigating setbacks along its path.

Despite Finch's anemic plot, the movie is still worth seeing -if only for this special robot.

I preface this review with a statement I best believe qualifies my absolute devotion to the overall Star Trek Universe and more importantly, to its noble communitarian ideals: I want Discovery to do well because it is the most agreeably viable outcome with the widest distribution curve in a merit-based system representing a cross section of humanity (or whatever we evolve into). That being said, Discovery has fought tooth and nail for its place in the heavens. However, even among friendly contenders such as the Star Trek Picard fan base, its warp engines seem to have sputtered and then stalled. Okay, this was not an anticipated reaction but nor was it a total surprise either. However, the LGBT community from what I gather, likewise does not seem all that enthusiastic about its syndication despite their growing visibility on set. Discovery is a relatively successful show, its overall reception nevertheless remains rather, ho-hum; which begs the question: How well is it doing... really?

Personally, it's still a challenge trying to gauge its trajectory. Discovery had a very strong start back in 2017. After six or seven episodes however, its popularity began to wane though not enough to threaten its existence. Even so, I took a hiatus from from all-things-Trekkian, at least on celluloid; I still read scores of books produced by my favorite authors of the franchise, and will continue doing so in the foreseeable future. What dissolved my cinematic participation were the new combinatorial strategies for casting people of color, particularly of African descent: Gumbyism or non-white, very masculine females, who risk their occupations, welfare, indeed their very lives for the good of everybody else (usually white), but almost never black etcetera; (I wanted to enumerate them but its too depressing)

What brought me back into the fold, after missing all of season three and most of season two, was seeing Booker and the good captain hit it off. I miss this. As beautiful as it was to behold, it was an absolute breech in protocol regarding people of African descent. In the 2020s, black females are NOT to be paired with other black males! Interracial relationships with white males are strongly encouraged -if not, then lesbian relationships. This was the case in season two of Discovery; also in How to get away with Murder 2014-2020; also with The Foundation 2021; and The Wheel of Time 2021; and Spiderman: No Way Home 2021, as with Station Eleven 2021, as with Arcane 2021, as with The Expanse 2015-2021, The Boys 2019, Carnival Row 2019, as with so many others. The list is legion. Naivete might convince some, perhaps many, that this is merely forward progress in 'race relations'. But it feels more like a vicious campaign aimed primarily at reducing black numbers through the soft power of entertainment media; in this case, movies. And if the old saying about 'art imitating life, imitating art' holds, then we can only expect to see more of this play out in real life.

I don't know how long their relationship will endure, but I do hope for a good while.

This installment into the gritty post apocalyptic world of the Blade Runner universe is at first glance of the same quality you might expect to find on YouTube; a paltry assortment of video game cutscenes cobbled together to create only a whisper of a story. Worst still, you can tell there really wasn't very much material to work from because each episode is roughly twenty minutes long. You can't go to the bathroom and stop by the kitchen on your way back because you might miss something vital. I suppose the creators were strapped for cash while short on time.

I don't have a whole lot to say about this other than it has a very catchy name. The noir look and feel is mostly due to its opening credit number which is so recognizably Blade Runner-esk. Other than that, the story isn't all that special. Although finally in episode six, it's actually starting to pick up and get interesting. The most anyone can hope for presently is a strong finish.

I don't believe there will be a second season but if such an event were to occur, I would like to make a recommendation for the next iteration of the Blade Runner franchise: Consider Robert Kroese's, 'The Big Sheep'. This is a very solid detective story that takes place inside the Blade Runner mythos. The Big Sheep is very well thought-out, robust, and keen to stimulating genuine interest into other aspects of the blade runner world. The only thing missing are the escapists replicants, which can easily be added as a plot-device.

There are so few movies of this caliber coming out these days, but I guess that's part of the magic; it's like the very brief availability of cinnamon-spiced eggnog during the end-of-year holiday season. Here, Ridley Scott is at his absolute best in translating the very familiar animal quality of an old world to the very new eyes of modernity. However unlike the grandiose large scale battles he is known for (e.g., as in Kingdom of Heaven, 2005), we get a few skirmishes. The real enticement of the film was in the much anticipated showdown between erstwhile companions; which is well worth the wait I can assure you.

Everything before then serves as a kind of foreplay between the nearly imperceptible slights of one man and the openly hostile recriminations of another. The story is seen through the subjective lenses of all three primary characters. And this redundancy isn't tedious overkill either. How Scott managed to pull it off is beyond my comprehension. Either way, its engaging. The intricate details, despite their graphic nature, added still more gravitas, so that even the most pious was anxious for a duel to the death.

What fascinated me most was that this was a match between two extremes and not necessarily between brains and brawn; both men were intelligent and strong. However, where one favored a cunning maneuver in cover of night, the other sought a pitched and decisive battle in open field. It was a tug-o-war between beauty and brutality; between a blade and a blunt object. There was one exchange in the film that was the perfect distillation of what I thought the entire film was about:

"The debt we owe to our friends is the greatest debt of all." said a man.

"Is it greater than love?" asked another.

In other words, all is fair in love and war.