Reviews

Smoking makes most everything funny, and many will have a go-to selection of movies that pair especially well with pot. It's surprising, then, that movies about weed don't automatically fit into that category. If you've ever been sober in a room full of smokers you know that watching other people get stoned just ain't that funny, and it's even more difficult for a movie to impart a contact high.

Fortunately, High School straddles the divide between "stoner movie" and "movie to watch while stoned", because it's very, very funny. The plot is a lean, generic high school story - Henry (Matt Bush) is the straight-A valedictorian, tempted astray just before graduation by stoner and one-time friend Travis (Sean Marquette) after a chance accident lands them in detention. Henry tries pot for the first time, just as Principal Gordon (Michael Chiklis) is about to call for a school-wide drug test after a spelling bee incident embarrasses his school's good name. Henry and Travis plan to foil the drug test by getting the whole school high on drug savant Psycho Ed's (Adrian Brody) ultra-potent supply.

The setup is goofy but handled lightly and with a relatively straight face, which already distinguishes the movie from pure stoner material like How High or Cheech and Chong. The laughs come early and often, not relying too much on stoner tropes (although they're around if you want 'em) or character mugging, but on good, old-fashioned gags. The pace is a little uneven, perhaps because the script runs very tight around the speedy storyline, but the comedy is not.

Brody is given plenty of space to go wild; by the end his influence on the film is much bigger than his screen time. The same could be said on a lesser scale for Colin Hanks as vice-principal Brandon and Yeardley Smith as a teacher, who do typically fine jobs. Bush and Marquette, the two young leads, hold up their end of the bargain very well.

This is a movie that deserves to find wide distribution. If Pineapple Express, a perfectly entertaining movie in its own way, can find a decent audience, then for this to be left on the shelf is criminal. If you get the chance and you're even remotely curious, see it. Once again: it's very, very funny.

It would have been a lot funnier to sit in the theater and listen to the original Tenacious D CD: that should really tell fans all they need to know about this movie. It's just not as funny as we've heard from these guys before.

Obviously plot isn't important to a movie like this, but I at least expected some laughs. In fact there were no more than a handful, and I caught myself thinking several times how disappointed I was. I think my (free preview!) audience agreed: there were a bunch of awkward silences.

I'd recommend throwing on the old Tenacious D album instead.

The Return of the King is an utterly superb film.

As a reader of books, I love the way the film displays a visual interpretation of such an evocative novel. As a watcher of films, I adore the cinematic spectacle and the luxurious use of stunning images.

The film is a cycle of emotion. It is distinct from the other two films in the trilogy in that its pathos is genuinely moving and as a consequence its humour is relieving and funny. Between these two peaks of emotion there lies fear, ever-present in the desperate and threatening context of the events of the film.

The acting was generally superb and the script likewise. Though flaws and complaints are to be found, they are trivial in the face of such a wonderful piece of cinema. The utter devotion and bravado of all the film-makers who were involved is clear, and it translates into the best film of 2003.

I enjoyed Gangs of New York - or should I say I enjoyed Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of William Cutting? Day-Lewis was stunning and he was the reason Gangs of New York was able to rise above competent to be classed as a good movie.

Plenty has been written about the performance of Day-Lewis, and he was indeed worthy of the highest praise. Some stunning scenes were created on the back of his acting; for me it was the perfect marriage of character and actor. In comparison, DiCaprio was workmanlike and fairly flat, but not disastrous. Diaz, however, was a casting mistake - she made a promising character seem one-dimensional.

I feel the biggest problem with the movie is the questionable pacing. The final quarter in particular seems to fly by. The screenplay seemed to over-emphasise the personal affairs of Amsterdam (DiCaprio) to the detriment of the wider picture. However, this is one exciting looking movie, a real visual treat which belongs on the big screen.

Overall, the movie is somewhat inconsistent but has some memorable and powerful scenes; Daniel Day-Lewis adds huge value. For me, a 4 out of 5 effort. My first two movies of the year, City of God and Gangs of New York proved to be a satisfying start to the year and fill me with much hope for 2003.

The synopsis of City of God was compelling enough to begin with, but when the subject matter is coupled with the dazzling, lush visuals that Meirelles and Lund have achieved, the result is a true cinematic treat.

The often shocking and always compelling storyline - following the coming-of-age of a group of teenagers living in a forgotten, desperate place - is crushingly constrasted by the sun-drenched visuals and upbeat soundtrack. This bittersweet contrast is part of the reason why this film is so compelling; its 130 minute running time having no meaning for me as I was lost in the narrative. The camerawork and cinematography were exemplary - rarely has a film looked so good. The style does have much in common with some American directors, but for me the comparisons drawn with Scorsese and Tarantino are unsatisfying. I don't believe this film could have been made by any other director, given the expert handling of the subject matter. There is a distinctive feel to the style, but it is never an entirely familiar one. In addition, the cast are all entirely convincing, unsurprising since they were picked from the Brazilian favelas where the movie is set.

This is truly a movie which takes full advantage of its medium. I saw it on its UK opening on 1st January, but had I seen it in 2002 it would certainly have been in the top three of the year. All-round, a technically masterful treatment of excellent subject matter which deserves all the critical praise it has received. Highly recommended.

First off, Memento has the best screenplay of any movie I've ever seen, and I am especially surprised that the screenplay Oscar went to Gosford Park rather than this far more deserving candidate. The screenplay is simply unique. However, this is no gimmick - having watched the movie in chronological order (thanks to the wonders of DVD) I am convinced that the story holds its own even without Nolan's remarkable narrative structure. The acting equals the screenplay, especially with Guy Pearce who confirms his quality as the central character of Leonard, who is attempting to locate his wife's killer.

I'm loathe to give away too much about the film, but it is definitely one of the more thought-provoking pieces to appear on our screens in recent years. It's not often a psychological thriller can be so powerful in stimulating thought, but then Memento is no ordinary movie. This one is a must-see.

Gratuitous comparison first: Casino is definitely in the same league as Goodfellas, and this is definitely one worth watching. It looks and sounds brilliant.

De Niro is superb in one of his last pre-'funny' roles, Pesci manages to add depth to his trademark psychotic role. The story is absorbing, and there are some compelling stretches - unfortunately these do not last. The major flaw for me is that the film is overlong for the story it tells. Sharon Stone's performance is good, but I couldn't help but feel the confrontation scenes between Ace and Ginger were too similar. I think a little cutting could have turned this very good 3 hour film into a superb 2 1/4 hour film.

The violence is very heavy-handed, possibly overdone, but doesn't detract from the characters. Good acting and some sublime visuals make this one worth your time. This is a solid Scorsese flick, which means it is very good indeed.

James