“Gone Baby Gone” stars Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan, Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris, John Ashton, and Amy Ryan. This is Ben Affleck’s directorial debut and the screenplay was written by Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard. “Gone Baby Gone” also features Amy Ryan’s first academy award nomination.

A four year old girl by the name of Amanda McCready becomes missing. The little girl’s aunt hires two missing person detectives named Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and Angie Gennero (Michelle Monaghan) to find the truth about what happened to Amanda McCready. Living in a tough neighborhood and not being police officers gives these two detectives a huge advantage on the case.

This is undeniably a really good movie, but I found my mind wondering. It didn’t live up to my expectations. I was ready for a movie that was going to blow me away. Instead I got a critic proof movie and nothing more. The scenes that really kept my interest were the ones that involved academy award nominee Amy Ryan. Even then, I found myself distracted, more interested at the wall in my living room. For a directorial debut, this is a fine job. Maybe it is just me, but I found this somewhat hard to follow. I was totally disoriented until the ending.

I also had a hard time understanding Casey Affleck’s lines considering that he talks through his teeth the whole time. “Gone Baby Gone”, for some strange reason, just didn’t hold my interest. The twist ending that isn’t a happy one, but the right one almost won me over. However, I can’t see myself watching this movie again. I do think that Ben Affleck has more talent behind the camera than in front, but he is none the less talented. Let me put it this way, you won’t be kicking yourself in the ass for not seeing it.

I was somewhat annoyed by Casey Affleck’s performance here, never completely opening up his mouth when he spoke. Amy Ryan has a total of about twenty minutes of screen time, which is probably the most interesting moments of the two hour film. This movie has top-notch acting, it is directed superbly by first timer Ben Affleck, and has you guessing until the end. In other words, Ben Affleck’s directorial debut is strong in most of the critical areas, but it’s just not interesting enough to capture my attention. It earns not a high recommendation, but a low one.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

“Murder By Death” stars Eileen Brennan, Truman Capote, James Coco, Peter Falk, David Niven, Alec Guinness, Elsa Lanchester, Peter Sellers, and Maggie Smith. It’s directed by Robert Moore and the screenplay was written by Neil Simon.

A millionaire named Lionel Twain (Truman Capote) invites five of the worlds greatest detectives to solve a murder that has yet to happen. During the nine o’clock dinner, Lionel Twain tells his guests that the murder is to occur at exactly twelve o’clock by someone sitting at the dinner table. The detective that solves the murder shall receive the large sum of one million dollars. Before long, a silent scream leads them to the body of the blind butler. Will the world greatest detectives be able to solve a crime that hasn’t occurred yet?

This parody of the earlier murder mystery detective stories of the 30’s and 40’s is sometimes funny, but not hilarious. The story has many twists and turns that will keep you guessing, even when you think you have solved the mystery. A goofy mystery that has many jokes, some of which hit the mark, while others fall flat. The acting was on par for satires like this one. The movie does seem to drag on, making it feel like a two hour movie. It does have a few laugh out loud moments, but for this film to work, it has to be funny constantly.

“Murder By Death” doesn’t have enough laughs to keep the viewers throughly entertained. I did enjoy Truman Capote’s role, which was the most engaging character in the movie. Director Robert Moore failed to show compassion for the actors and their character, creating a film that was later made into a better parody of mystery stories titled “Clue”. Unlike “Clue”, this film has a script that is mildly funny as to being consistently funny.

Would I recommend “Murder By Death”? I don’t think so. This is a dated version of the widely popular game turned to movie “Clue”. I found out the hard way that it isn’t worth sitting through the whole movie to get to the numerous twist and turns at the end. It’s not a bad film, just a tired one. A slightly funny, yet dragging movie that is far from the spectacular spoof it tries so hard to be. Good effort, but it doesn’t succeed in delivering top-notch humor.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Director - Matt Reeves

Writer - Drew Goddard

Starring - Michael Stahl-David, Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Mike Vogel

Review:

Originality is pretty hard to come by in movies nowadays. In particular in the action/blockbuster kind of areas. It’s usually the same stuff recycled over and over because it’s safe, predictable and comfortable to the masses. Cloverfield aimed to and has succeeded in breaking that trend for at least the time being as it is an exhilarating, involving and sometimes downright scary new take on the monster movie, and to steal a quote from many different people, “it’s a monster movie for the YouTube generation.”

The film revolves around a group of people throwing a party for a friend who is soon leaving for Tokyo. In the middle of the party an earthquake-style rumble is felt and heard and everyone makes their way to the roof to see what’s going on. They soon find out that there is some sort of giant monster attacking the city and that their lives are severely in danger. Because of a friend who is still stuck in the middle of the city they decide to make their way there to save them.

What drew me to this film in the first place was curiosity. The genius marketing campaign, overseen by Lost creator J.J. Abrams, of the first trailer having not given the name of the movie and just the general “hush-hush” approach to it all had me eagerly awaiting the film’s release. The film had a lot to live up to in terms of satisfying the audience members after all this mystery and hype has been built up. And in my opinion, although it isn’t a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination, it accomplishes in fine style what it set out to primarily do; entertain.

Although the movie does borrow some ideas here and there (most notably from films like Godzilla, including a shot of people getting crushed by the monster’s foot, among others) it is generally an innovative and original take on the monster movie. The whole film is filmed from the point of view of the group of friends and we see the film through the view of a video camera. When I first heard about this style of shooting I was sceptical but it started to grown on me. During the first few minutes of the movie I had a real problem with the hand-held technique and the amount of shaky cam which bothers me if done hap-hazardly. But after about five to ten minutes I completely got used to the approach and done in any other way I think would take away the point and focus of the film.

What makes the hand-held technique, at first bearable in every way, and so well done is it brings an extreme sense of realism to the whole thing. Normally in a monster movie we would get full shots of the monster, the camera swivelling and flying between buildings and other places it naturally wouldn’t be able to go. With Cloverfield, however, we see it like a home movie and as a result the film seems believable. Sometimes it’s so real that that aspect becomes actually genuinely frightening. You feel almost if you walked out of the cinema then and there you would find the monster trundling through your city. This kind of dead realism is hard to accomplish, especially in the movie society today, and I loved that Cloverfield managed it.

Something which might annoy or even outrage some movie goers, in fact a lot, is the fact that it remains a mystery what the monster is and why it’s in New York City. People have come to expect from movies like this that we get scenes of scientists and military men trying to figure out what the monsters is and by the end we are all in the know. With Cloverfield we never find out, there’s just a monster attacking the city so deal with it. I for one thought this was one of the best aspects of the movie, the sheer guts and attempt at being original by not letting us in on just what the hell this creature is.

In the style of United 93, the film uses mostly, if not all, unknown actors to the fill the roles of the people we see on-screen most of the time. No doubt they have appeared here and there in a couple of small movies and TV shows but they aren’t A-list actors or celebrities. This, again, adds to the realism of it all and allows us to invest ourselves in these characters instead of watching someone like Tom Cruise or Matt Damon trying to survive this giant monster attack. We think of these people as the characters they are playing and not the actors that they actually are.

Like I mentioned the movie obviously isn’t perfect. It may be a bit unfair bashing the movie for some of it’s weaknesses if you take into account what kind of movie it is and what it’s aiming to be but in a review I must. First of all some of the extreme realism created is kind of broken in a few scenes because of the way the film is edited. What we are watching is supposed to be a tape, ‘property of the US government’ as the movie states at the beginning, and we are supposed to be seeing it as it happened. And yet in a few scenes the tape will cut back to a month or so beforehand to remind us the main characters love for the person he’s attempting to rescue. It happens not enough to dampen the movie but enough to be noticeable. And also, and this is probably the biggest weakness, is the glaring question of why are they still filming? If there was a threat like this in real life you would be running for your life rather than worrying about capturing it on video. Even though I was involved and feeling all these different emotions I still had this question in the back of my mind the entire time.

Overall the film is one of the most purely enjoyable cinema experiences I have had in a while. It’s a film worth making the trip out to the cinema to see rather than waiting for it to be released on DVD. If you like to just lose yourself in a film then this is one hell of a cinematic experience to take. It delivers in what it was trying to accomplish and any my opinion should satisfy the excitement and curiosity of the movie going audience. In a nutshell? Cloverfield is a flawed but thoroughly enjoyable time at the movies.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Que una pelicula coreana no aparezca en la tomatera es algo habitual pero que ni tan siquiera aparezca en IMDB realmente me ha dejado pasmado. Peor para ellos porque “Epitaph” es probablemente la mejor pelicula coreana del anyo.

un 10 . Desde el cartel hasta las letras del final.

Decir simplemente que se trata de una historia de terror se queda corto. Muy corto. Eso si, cuando pretende asustar lo consigue y reconozco que desde “Shutter” no habia visto escena igual. “Epitaph” es una historia de historias en un hospital coreano durante la ocupacion japonesa. Hay flashbacks y historias cruzadas en un ambiente tenso y bien logrado.

Lo que mas me ha gustado de la pelicula son sus referencias. Supongo que combinar los elementos que mas me gustan han hecho que me de la sensacion de que era parte de la historia. El guion en si me ha hecho pensar en Rampo Edogawa y todos esos relatos goticos que tanto disfrutamos por aqui. La musica y alguna de sus escenas son influencia directa de Park Chan-Wook y “Oldboy”. Hay una frase exactamente calcada de “oldboy” que tengo grabada en mi memoria ya que acompanya la banda sonora que sigo escuchando y esa orquestracion final a ritmo de vals es como si estuviera en casa! Como no me va a gustar? haha…

Los directores son noveles y hermanos. Y despues de buscar bastante por internet he encontrado el vinculo que estaba convencido existia. Fueron asistentes de direccion de Park tanto en Oldboy como en Simpathy for mr. vengeance.

Sarang he…

Una vez terminado el film sigo pensando en el y creo que la empezare a ver de nuevo para saborear esos cabos sueltos que solamente puedes comprender a partir de un segundo visionado. Me quedo especialmente con el juego con las luces (en epoca de guerra va y viene continuamente) y esa madre que lo perdona todo…bufff!! gallina de piel.

He descubierto tambien que esta pelicula llego al Festival de San Sebastian pero no se si Fementido llego a tiempo para verla. Ojala llegaras a verla!

Mama va a cantar una nana para que duermas profundamente…

En definitiva, la respuesta a mis pregarias en cuanto al cine de terror asiatico. No hay ninyas de pelo mugriento; el miedo esta en tu cabeza y despues de terminar la cinta me doy cuenta que tratan la relacion entre los dos mundos de forma diferente a la convencional. Si senyor! Seguro que Park no os ha ayudado?

Lo mejor : Empieza lenta pero acabas metiendote dentro de las habitaciones del hospital y da miedo apartar ya la mirada.
Lo peor : Ni tan siquiera en imdb le dais publicidad????

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Director - John August

Writer - John August

Starring - Ryan Reynolds, Hope Lange, Melissa McCarthy, Elle Fanning

Review:

So peculiar yet strangely engaging is John August’s directorial debut The Nines that it surely leaves each individual viewer perplexed in their own way but ultimately satisfied that they gave this rarity a chance.

To explain the plot of this film would be an exercise in futility without giving away everything that happens but I will at least try to give some sort of synopsis. The film is split into three parts; one about a troubled actor, one about a television writer/director and one about a videogame designer (all played by Ryan Reynolds) and the film unfolds by the three stories intertwining with each other in mysterious ways.

Cult cinema is a sub-genre (of sorts) I am a huge fan of. Donne Darko is one of my favourite movies of all time and there are countless other films I just love simply for their weirdness. The Nines is not a film I would immediately say I loved but upon further viewings and dissections I could come to that opinion. If you found the aforementioned Donnie Darko to your taste then you will probably find something to enjoy in this film. It is a brain-fizzing triple-whammy journey into the meaning of life, personal identity and the state of the world as we know it today. And although the film may be a bit too ambitious in its ideas and maybe it doesn’t fully convince the audience of what it’s attempting to say but you have to admire it for its attempt at doing so. So many films nowadays are formulaic, boring schlock that have no merit but to shut off your brain for a couple of hours. At least The Nines tries to be something different, tries to accomplish something most wouldn’t and I for one give it credit just for that.

As strange and confusing as the film is I have to admit I was in tune with it. Although, for the most part, I had no idea what the hell was going, within the context of the film and in losing myself within it I was sort on the same wavelength. Now I don’t claim to be someone who can understand what most are left confused by but there was just something about this film that had me firmly in its perplexing grip.

I can’t go too much into depth with what actually happens in the film and my thoughts about specific things as that would enter the uncharted spoiler territory. But what I will say is the way the film works in three different sections I thought at first was a tad pointless but by the end it would make even less sense if it were done in any other way. As we are slowly given clues as to what it’s all about, the film’s structure strangely works in its own peculiar little way. There is no doubt a plethora of things that I have missed upon first viewing that I would more than want to notice on a second.

Ryan Reynolds is an actor I like most of the time. He has made some stupid role choices in the past (ala The Amityville Horror remake) but most of the time he is a solid, quite underrated actor. I was surprised and yet happy to see him take on a role (actually three) like this as it proves he has versatility and a nose for unique projects. I can’t quite say he is fantastic here but he was certainly more than adequate. I think the same goes for the rest of the cast; perhaps not perfect but good enough.

This is writer John August’s (writer of such films as Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) debut film as a director and for a first timer this is impressive stuff. It would perhaps be a bit odd for an experienced director to make this film but in a weird way it makes sense for a debut director to do so. And despite August’s brave ambition’s being not entirely convincing I admire them none the less.

But in the end I can’t quite recommend The Nines, at least not to a general audience. Personally I had a fun and thought-provoking time with it but any general movie goer who just happens to stumble upon it will no doubt be left confused and annoyed. Whether you are the former or the latter you will have to find out for yourself.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Mr. Brooks stars Kevin Costner and William Hurt and is directed by Bruce A. Evans (Starman, Kuffs). With a supporting cast that includes Dane Cook and Demi Moore, you eyes will be glued to the screen.

Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is a highly successful business man with a devoted wife and a loving daughter. He also has a secret that he has kept for years. He is addicted to killing. With the help of his counterpart Marshall, played guinnessly by William Hurt, he has been known as the notorious Thumb Print Killer. After going to meetings to help his sickness, he has been clean for two years until Marshall gets the best of him and a sneeky eye-witness (Dane Cook) wants in on some of the sadistic action.

A cleverly written script with an original concept. The story seem more real than fiction which proves how cunning the film really is. The only thing is that this film has so many twists that it’s hard to keep up with at times and ends up becoming somewhat confusing. The witty dialog and juicy performances are what holds the film in place.

A great cast including Dane Cook and Demi Moore and suitable characters considering the mindset of Mr. Brooks. I loved William Hurts performace as the evil couterpart of Earl Brooks. For it’s performances alone, this film is definately a must-see. As for Bruce A. Evans, I sure do look forward to his next work.

Finally, a smart twist-filled thriller that never goes over-the-top and stays within’ the reality zone. William Hurt and Kevin Costner’s performances are outstanding and the side performance are exceptionally good. Mr. Brooks is one of the more well crafted thrillers to come along in years. It is an overall versatile film that has some sleek performaces that are not to be missed.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

A Few Days In September is a film that is a large chunk French, a little bit of American and the director was born in Argentina; so does this blend of nationalities make a good spy drama or what?

Directed by Santiago Amigorena, A Few Days In September follows Irene, the ex colleague of Elliot a former American Secret Service agent and sometime spy who has been missing for a month. She teams with his two children to try and meet up with him and some bankers in regards to some secret information he may be holding. The cast features Juliette Binoche as Irene and Nick Nolte as Elliot, with John Turturro, Tom Riley, and Sara Forestier bringing in the main support.

The film dances between French and English, with the majority of it being in French. The acting is superb, Binoche’s character has some depth and John Turturro as a seemingly psychotic assassin is excellent. Sara Forestier plays one of Elliot’s children and her on-screen presence is an adorable mixture of Summer Glau of Serenity meets Reese Witherspoon.

The film is a mixture of many things as I’ve already mentioned, with the atmosphere being one of moody noir and quirkiness, layered in drama that plays best when not political. The movie involves the sort of “on a need to know basis” plot mechanics, which works great. However, it departs from being a spy thriller and becomes an exploration of Irene and the two young adult children of Elliot’s as they wait for him together and discuss a variety of things. This is where the film begins to lag a great deal and idle conversations about American politics and etc seem too forced and when the romance angle is introduced, well many might turn their noses up at it. I was indifferent to that aspect and think the movie would have worked fine with or without it; ultimately might as well support it staying in. What really kills the film is the plot synopsis found on the Dvd case and online mentioning the attacks of 9/11. I am not ruining it for you by bringing this up, the filmmakers or whoever marketed it have done that for you, but a lot of the mystery and the ending for sure lose all of the impact they could have had if we had just been given the dates of events as flashed on screen without any direct mentioning of 9/11 particularly.

Mainly this film is a drama and not for the same crowd who want to see Mission Impossible 3 type action, A Few Days In September approaches things artsy. However, people have very varying opinions on what is indeed art and I must say that at least one of the out of focus shots in the film lingered way too long; though some of the others work well; be sure the sound is turned up. (Possibly you may want to learn French too)

This movie opens with enough intrigue to keep a viewer hanging on through the slow middle to find out if there is some sort of interesting twist and or how the characters are going to turn out. Actually, John Turturro’s presence is enough to carry that interest. If you are looking for something slow and artsy, mixed with noir flavor and maybe just a bit too much political musing, which is thankfully spread over with some quirky humor, well then check this film out. There may be a guns blazing scene, but it isn’t a guns blazing scene like you may think. The film worked well for me, even with some ruined aspects I still got one jolt near the end; glad I watched it. I’ll use the old saying: “It wasn’t the worst and it wasn’t the greatest”, but I’ll always remember the blood drinking kitty.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

From the creators of the Matrix Trilogy Comes V for Vendetta. V for Vendetta stars: Natalie Portman(Evey), Hugo Weaving(V), Stephen Rea(Inspector Finch), and John Hurt(Adam Sutler). Set in future England this action, drama will blow your socks off.

Adam Sutler ,now the leader of England, won the V is trying to change England for the better. Evey gets caught up with V and is wanted for helping a Terrorist. The Detective is trying to stop V.

Evey is a working class girl who was in the wrong place at the wrong time or the right place at the right time. She meets V after he saves her from being raped by the Finger Men a.k.a. the police but not police. She then accompanies V as he blows up the Old Bailey.

Inspector Finch must deal with issues of right or wrong. He has to try and stop V he is a cop, but he realizes what Adam Sutler has done. So he beings to deal with personal feelings and issues over everything.

I think this is a great movie. The acting in this movie is some of the best I have seen in years. The movie is not drowned down with action scenes like in most action movies. There is a believable story line about what can happen when the government has to much control. If you have not seen it, go see it. It is a good movie.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Categorizing Thr3e is very difficult because I was confused of what type of genre it was trying to depict. The most appropriate category for this movie would probably be Crime Thriller. Thr3e stars Mark Blucas and Justine Waddell and is directed by Robby Henson.

A police profiler named Jennifer Peters wrote a book about a serial killer which makes her the target of a psychopath by the name “The Riddle Killer”. Forced to watch her own brother’s grotesque murder, she now has the chance to work the on a case that involves the killers next victim. That is pretty much the plot behind Thr3e.

The film lacked interesting characters. The only decent acting was done by Justine Waddell and Jeffrey Lee Hollis. I personally thought that the acting done by Mark Blucas was somewhat over-dramatic, though he does have talent. A couple of notable performances that critics failed to mention.

The plot was abundantly cliched. Thr3e produces no new ideas of it’s own and borrows it’s ideas from other Crime Thrillers. Even the “surprise” ending wasn’t much of a surprise considering that it was taken from a film that is much better. Bogarts from other movies to make a story we have seen many times.

Ultimately forgettable movie, widely cliched, and a twist ending that most have already seen. Decent acting done by Justine Waddell and Jeffrey Lee Hollis. But with a plot pieced together using numerous films, it just has everyone annoyed and waiting for the credits to roll.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

BATMAN RETURNS

(1992)

Warner Bros.

Directed by Tim Burton
Produced by Peter Guber, Jon Peters and Michael E. Uslan
Based on “BATMAN” created by Bob Kane
Screenplay by Daniel Waters
Based on a story by Sam Hamm and Daniel Waters

BATMAN RETURNS is that rarest of movie animals: a sequel that actually stands on it’s own as a legitimate movie with it’s own identity and can be watched and enjoyed on it’s own without having to know anything about or even seen the previous movie. There are a few references made to events in the first movie, mostly about Bruce Wayne’s girlfriend Vicky Vale (played by Kim Basinger) but they slide right by and don’t get in the way of what we came to see, which is Batman and his world in glorious, operatic live action. I’d go so far to say that as far as the live action movies are concerned, BATMAN RETURNS is my favorite (sorry, but the title of overall best Batman film goes to MASK OF THE PHANTASM) in terms of acting, casting, set design and my amazement at just how much story and characterization is packed into the 126 minutes of screen time. It’s probably the most fully realized vision of Batman’s world put on the screen to date (at least until we get to see how the upcoming Christian Bale starring movie stacks up) and Tim Burton deserves a lot of credit for giving comic book fans a Batman that accurately reflected the character they were reading about in today’s comic books, most notably Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns” which was a big influence on the look and style of Burton’s films.

The movie opens in a gloomy gothic mansion (is there any other kind? Especially in Gotham City?) where a deformed mutant baby is born to horrified parents (the father is played by Paul Reubens aka PeeWee Herman) and subsequently dumped in a sewer where he’s found and raised by penguins. Hey, if alligators can live in New York sewers, why not penguins in Gotham City’s? He grows up and emerges from the sewers years later, claiming to want to regain his birthright and he discovers his true name: Oswald Cobblepot. But to the citizens of Gotham City as well as Batman he quickly becomes known by another name: The Penguin.

The Penguin swiftly forms an alliance with Gotham’s most powerful businessman, the wonderfully named Maximillian Schrek and the two scheme to oust the current mayor and put The Penguin in office. Now, while this is going on, Max’s executive secretary Selina Kyle stumbles onto the real secret purpose of Max Schrek’s proposed power plant idea and is ruthlessly murdered by Max. But she miraculously returns to life through the healing power of stray ally cats (I swear I’m not making this up) and as The Catwoman she hooks up with The Penguin in bringing down The Batman while romancing Bruce Wayne as Selina.

Got all that? I managed to boil it down to around two hundred words but there’s an awful lot of stuff that goes on between the words. The movie has to tell the origins of both The Penguin and Catwoman, explain Max Schrek’s power plant scheme, which really isn’t explained all that well, now that I think of it, explore the dual romance between Selina/Catwoman and Bruce/Batman, the political power play of Cobblepot and Schrek and still find time for the missile firing killer penguins.

You may ask, well, with all that going on, where’s time for Batman? Actually there isn’t much but when we do see him, he’s in action, doing the things we want to see Batman doing. Unlike the previous movie which was dominated so heavily by Jack Nicholson’s definitive performance as The Joker, this movie remembers that Batman is supposed to be the main character and the script does a good job of showing us enough of Batman/Bruce Wayne this time around.

The overall look of the movie is simply wonderful. Gotham City looks like it was designed by Fritz Lang on acid and the costuming has a 1940’s feel to it as well as the vehicles and even the computers in the Bat Cave have a futuristic retro look to them. And the performances…well, what can you say about the cast that hasn’t been said before. Michael Keaton remains, for me at least, the definitive Batman/Bruce Wayne and the one thing I really like about Keaton as an actor is that you can look at him and see him thinking. Some of his best moments in the movie is when as Bruce Wayne he’s putting the clues together and coming up with the answers and we can see him working out the problem. And of course, when he’s in the Batsuit, Keaton uses his wonderfully expressive eyes to full advantage.

Michelle Pfeiffer follows in the footsteps of some outstanding actresses who have played Catwoman in the past and she’s more than worthy to stand alongside of Julie Newman, Lee Merriweather and Eartha Kitt. We’re not even gonna mention that pretender who dared steal the Catwoman name for one dismal movie. Michelle Pfeiffer is resoundingly sexy in her skintight vinyl suit and as Selina Kyle projects a sort of wistful vulnerability. Danny DeVito plays Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin and his disgustingly loopy portrayal of the character as a grotesquely malignant monster with deformed hands, a bulbous body and drooling black bile most of the time. Burgess Meredith this ain’t. When this movie had it’s original theatrical run, it was reported that little kids had to be taken out into the lobby, sobbing because The Penguin frightened them. In fact, parents themselves were pretty shocked by the movie on the whole, expecting to take their kids to see a fun superhero romp. And DeVito’s Penguin IS a godawfully vile creature. I suppose DeVito was trying to give us a Penguin to be pitied but all I wanted to do was to see the poor wretch be put out of his misery.

And Christopher Walken, as usual, steals every scene he’s in. Max Schrek is a new villain created for the movie and not one of Batman’s Rogues Gallery but he fits right in as if he’d always been in Gotham City all along. Michael Gough is impeccably droll as Alfred and he and Keaton have a great scene where they discuss a bit of business from the first movie that had Batfans wondering if Alfred had lost his mind.

BATMAN RETURNS is simply one of the best superhero movies made. While the story is needlessly complicated with the three villains running around with their own plans and agendas, at least they do have motivations, which is more than I can say for the villains of the two following BATMAN movies and we can follow what’s going on and more importantly, why. The sets are awesome looking, the performances right on point and for fans of the current incarnation of the character, this is the movie that they probably will all agree comes the closest to translating Batman from the comic book to the silver screen.

126 minutes
Rated PG-13: There’s no really harsh language in the movie and the violence is strictly comic book except for two scenes where it’s pretty apparent that Batman has either killed or severely crippled/maimed his opponents. The Penguin is unnecessarily repugnant with his spitting black bile through much of the picture and the movie plainly explores the psychosexual costume fetish that is a part of the Batman/Bruce /Selina/Catwoman relationship so don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

“You listen very carefully to what I’m about to tell you… I remember… I remember everything,” those are the words of the infamous Jason Bourne, the slick CIA assassin who was first formed in the mind of author Robert Ludlum for his book series. Well, I am here to tell you I remember everything too…and I mean everything. Director Paul Greengrass, (Bourne Supremacy), comes back to work with Matt Damon, who plays Jason Bourne, as if you didn’t know, for another round of non-stop action, keeps you on the edge of your seat, type of movie. Greengrass and Damon have another work in the mix they will be working on called, Imperial Life In The Emerald City, which is scheduled for a 2009 release. Also, back for another piece of the pie is the director/screenwriter, Tony Gilroy. Now, Mr. Gilroy is responsible for adapting all three Bourne movies from the best-selling novels by Robert Ludlum to the big-screen. Yeah, I think it’s needless to say he got paid a nice chunk of change, and sure enough he deserves it.

Now, where shall we begin? The story of Bourne Ultimatum picks up from right around the end of the second movie, Bourne Supremacy, with Jason Bourne limping about Moscow trying to out-maneuever the authorities as usual. Well, Jason comes across this newspaper article that contains a lot of confidential information about him. He decides he is going to hunt down the reporter who wrote the article and therefore hunt down the reporter’s source. However, what Bourne doesn’t know is the CIA is doing the exact same thing. When Bourne finally reaches the reporter, he and the CIA have a run in and so the real hunt begins. This will not stop Jason Bourne from what he wants to obtain more than anything though, his memory and the secrets about his life.

“This is Jason Bourne. The toughest target you have ever tracked.” Well, that’s according to Pamela Landy, played by Joan Allen, who returns to us from, Bourne Supremacy, and delivers yet another stellar performance proving she has what it takes to run with the big dogs. (Returning to us also from, Bourne Supremacy, is Julia Stiles as Nicky Parsons, whose character throws yet another twist into this riddle we have going on.) What Landy says is true though. Jason Bourne is the epitomy of what it means to be suave. He is much like James Bond back in the days when he was played by Sean Connery.  Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. Just as much as Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones or Johnny Depp is Captain Jack Sparrow. Sorry, Jack, it’s just good business. Matt Damon has mastered the role of Jason Bourne and has left you with nothing to envy. I’m an actor and I have to say there were some scenes in this movie that made me want to be right up there with Bourne fighting by his side. Unlike most of the A-list actors we have right now out in Hollywood, Matt Damon is the most confident I think. He said in an interview that he knows all actors have their rough patches throughout their careers where they won’t be that busy but he knew he would always have Jason Bourne to look forward to nomatter what. Man, I love type casting!

This installement of the Bourne series was filmed at many different locations such as Germany, England, France, Morocco, Spain, Latvia, New York City, and Washington the District of Columbia. All I can say is, “Wow.” I haven’t seen a movie that has been shot in so many locations since Mission Impossible III was done with Tom Cruise, which was completely stupid if I may add. What a disappoinment. However, back to Bourne. The cinematography in this movie was great…for the most part. I noticed here and there throughout the film it looked as if the camera operator were riding a train while he was filming the movie. The camera was bouncing up and down. It was weird. It didn’t distract me from watching the movie though and it surely didn’t make me think anything less of it. I only wish that I could have been a part of it. However, I was working on National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets at the time when they were shooting the DC scenes so unfortunately, I lucked out. The plotline was absolutley fantastic as well. There was one point where I was in dire need of using the restroom but I contained myself until the end of the movie that way I didn’t miss a single thing. The fighting, the acting, the directing, the plotline, I loved it. Definitely worth the 5 stars it was deemed with. Definitely the best PG-13 movie I have ever seen. Bourne Ultimatum without a doubt puts the icing on the cake for the Bourne series.

Is this the end of Jason Bourne as we know it? Who knows?  Being the first three movies have done so well there is talk amongst the grapevine that the franchise may be opened up for a couple of more movies. Afterall, Ludlum did give up on Bourne after Ultimatum, but someone else took Bourne in and nutured him, Eric Van Lustbader who wrote two more books. Look out James Bond, I think you may have finally met your match. Jason Bourne…

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

BATMAN BEGINS                                    

2005                           

Warner Brothers

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Produced by Larry J. Franco and Michael Uslan

Story by David Goyer

Screenplay by David Goyer and Christopher Nolan

BATMAN created by Bob Kane

I think we may finally have one here, folks.  I really do.  If the members of the Academy can get past their inherent prejudice against superhero movies and grow a collective set of balls, they’ll nominate Batman Begins as Best Picture of The Year when it comes time to give out Academy Awards.  Yeah, I honestly think that Batman Begins is that good.  I haven’t been this captivated by a superhero movie since the Richard Donner “Superman” starring Christopher Reeve and Batman Begins has replaced “Mask Of The Phantasm” as my favorite Batman movie.  In terms of storytelling, character development, technical artistry and acting, Batman Begins has significantly raised the bar for superhero movies.  It’s as revolutionary a movie as Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” with Michael Keaton.

But Christopher Nolan’s revision of the Batman legend is significantly different from Tim Burton’s.  Burton was far more interested in the villains such as The Joker, The Penguin and Catwoman and so they got more screen time than Batman/Bruce Wayne.  Also, Nolan doesn’t have the oddball performances and dark humor in his film that Tim Burton delighted in his.  Don’t get me wrong: I love Tim Burton’s Batman films.  I even liked Joel Schumacher’s “Batman Forever” and as I’ve said, “Mask Of The Phantasm” was better than all of them but Christopher Nolan and his extraordinary cast of actors are obviously taking no prisoners with this one.  They set out to make a Batman movie that doesn’t have to be ashamed of its comic books roots.  And this is the first live action Batman movie since the 1966 version with Adam West and “Mask Of The Phantasm” that is actually about the title character and it’s done with terrific imagery and intelligence.  Hey, it even explains what those fins on Batman’s gloves are for and as far as I know, that has never been explained anywhere else and if a movie goes into that much detail about the character, I’m hooked and hooked good.

We all know the legend: one night while coming home from the theatre (in this movie, it’s the opera but in the comic books it’s from “The Mark Of Zorro” staring Tyrone Power) Dr. Thomas Wayne and his wife Martha are brutally murdered by small-time stick-up man Joe Chill right in front of their son, Bruce.  Now while you and I would be traumatized by such an event it causes such a psychological scar in the child that for all intents and purposes, Bruce Wayne ceases to exist and instead, he is nothing but a creature fueled by grief, guilt, rage and above all, an overpowering need to strike back at not just the man who killed his parents and stole his childhood, but all crime and all criminals.  In essence, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) wants to make sure that no child ever has to suffer what he has and in order to do so, he has to undergo a hideously brutal path to become the world’s greatest crime fighter.  In order to do this, he disappears one night from Gotham City after a painful lesson from the supreme crime boss of Gotham, Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) in the true nature of Gotham City’s power structure and is actually declared dead.

Bruce isn’t dead, of course.  He’s exiled himself from his wealth and privileged status to actually become a criminal in an effort to understand the criminal mind and this leads him to a hellishly brutal prison where Bruce meets Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a mysterious man of supernatural martial arts skill and a genius for psychological manipulation.  Ducard offers Bruce membership in The League Of Shadows, a ninja-like cult that is devoted to destroying evil in the world by any means necessary, led by Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe).  Under Ducard’s expert tutelage, Bruce is able to channel his near psychotic rage into becoming his best student and indeed, Bruce is offered the position of becoming Ra’s Al Ghul’s primary executioner, his right hand man.  Bruce rejects the offer and in a horrifying confrontation with The League Of Shadows, breaks his ties with them and returns to Gotham.  He is now ready to use the skills and knowledge he’s gained during his exile to break the back of Gotham’s underworld.

Bruce returns to Gotham to reclaim his personal fortune that has been cared for by Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) the loyal Wayne butler who has served the family since before Bruce was born and his company, Wayne Enterprises which is firmly under the thumb of Mr. Earle (Rutger Hauer) who is determined to take the company public and is even more determined that Bruce won’t get in his way.  Bruce finds an ally in the form of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) who is not only a helluva financial wizard but a technological genius who has been stuck in a dead end branch of Wayne Enterprises where he has been developing wonderful toys that he gives to Bruce in a marvelous scene where he says: ‘The way I see it, Mr. Wayne, all this belongs to you anyway.”  But Bruce also has to deal with matters of the heart as he is reunited with his childhood playmate/sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) whose mother used to work for Bruce’s parents but now she’s a crusading Assistant District Attorney and she doesn’t like what’s happened to Bruce at all since he’s seemed to have changed from the determined young man full of morals and character into a playboy wastrel who thinks nothing of taking a swim in hotel fountains with empty headed supermodel trophy girlfriends.

Rachel’s efforts to put away the criminal element of Gotham is continually thwarted by Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) who spirits the criminals away to his gloomy, gothic Arkham Asylum where unknown to anyone, Dr. Crane is experimenting upon the patients with a gas that exposes anyone who breathes it to their deepest and most frightening fear.  Dr. Crane’s identity as a Batman villain known as The Scarecrow won’t be surprising to anybody familiar with Batman and his world but the revelation of Dr. Crane’s involvement with the real villain of the movie was one total surprise for me that had me holding the top of my head for fear my brain would blow clean off.  Yep, Batman Begins surprised me with a couple of really clever revelations and plot twists in the last half hour and that’s really rare for a movie nowadays to do that to me. 

You’ve got the basic bones of the story and there’s a lot more besides that I haven’t gone into and that’s on purpose because a lot of the fun of Batman Begins comes from each and every revelation of The Batman Legend.  For the first time on screen we’re seeing how Bruce Wayne became The Batman and it’s fascinating every step of the way.  Even for somebody like me who has been reading Batman comics since I was old enough to read this movie taught me something new about the character and his world and it did it such a manner that it didn’t violate anything that I already knew and indeed, enhanced my understanding of Bruce Wayne/ Batman and his world.

The story is what makes the movie and the acting is what sells it and this is without the best cast I’ve seen in a movie made that year.  Michael Caine should get Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of Alfred Pennyworth.  I love Michael Gough to death as Alfred but good googlymoogly, Michael Caine IS Alfred.  Just as Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne/Batman.  But I loved how Christian Bale got to do his take on the classic Keaton “I’m BATMAN” scene which I’m convinced was a homage to Keaton…and hey, don’t laugh…remember when you saw the 1989 “Batman” in the theatres and the audience exploded into cheers and applauds when Keaton said it?  I’m not ashamed to say that I did.

The rest of the supporting cast is top-notch.  I’ve heard a lot of knocking of Katie Holmes but I liked her. But then again, I liked everybody is this movie.  Although Liam Neeson seems to slip into Jedi Master mode during the scenes where he’s training Bruce Wayne, he’s awesome.  As is Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer and Gary Oldman as Lieutenant James Gordon looks as if he stepped right out of the comic books.

If there’s a problem I have with the movie it’s the overuse of Batman’s cape as a glider that may give audiences the impression that Batman can fly.  I kinda understand why the filmmakers did it because it relates to scenes where Gotham’s inhabitants are suffering hallucinations from Dr. Crane’s fear gas and see Batman as a terrifying creature.  But I liked much better the scenes in Tim Burton’s Batman films where Batman was slowly cruising around Gotham in his badass Batmobile.  And trust me, if Bale’s Batman cruised around Gotham in his Batmobile, even the cops would get off the streets.

So should you see Batman Begins?  If I haven’t convinced you by now, then nothing will.  Batman Begins was the best movie I saw in 2005 in terms of acting, production design and story.  It’s a good movie, PERIOD.  As a superhero movie it ranks up there with “Superman: The Movie”, which I still say is the best superhero movie ever made but this is an equal to it.  Christian Bale has done a remarkable job of putting the Bruce Wayne/Batman I know from the comics up on the screen.  Christopher Nolan has earned every red cent Warner Brothers paid him for this movie and the supporting cast has nothing to be ashamed of.  Batman Begins, like “Superman: The Movie” is so good and such a testament to the dedication of the people that worked on it that it is lifted up out of the ghetto that superhero movies are placed in and takes it’s place as simply a good movie.  One that functions as both outstanding entertainment you can’t take your eyes off of and a work of compelling cinematic storytelling.

141 minutes

PG-13

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

John Sturges’ Bad Day at Black Rock is a detective story wrapped up in a Western setting.  All the elements for a Western are present including the stranger coming into town full of men (only one woman in the picture), noticing some problems in the town, and fixing the problems with very little help.  But instead of the hero taking the position of sheriff to solve the town ills, he is more of a private eye, figuring out exactly what happened by asking tough questions, much to the town’s anger.

Spencer Tracy plays John J. Macreedy, a man from California that takes a train to the small town of Black Rock in 1945, causing quite a stir.  No one has stopped at Black Rock in years.  The stranger looks for a hotel room and a Japanese farmer named Komoko who has seemingly disappeared.  Macreedy is not welcomed kindly.  Robert Ryan, Lee Marvin, and Ernest Borgnine play town ‘bullies’ that follow Macreedy around and later threaten his life.  Everyone in town knows the secret behind Komoko’s disappearance, but no one is willing to talk about it.

Sturges uses widescreen in a fascinating manner by keeping the camera at a distance and simply observing the action.  There is never a close-up in the film because he doesn’t want to convey false emotions.  That doesn’t mean that the intentions of the film are subtle.  It’s obvious that Bad Day at Black Rock is condemning the racist attitudes towards the Japanese during the World War II era and, more importantly, the attitude of those who were not racist, but did not stand up for what was right.  The power of the film is in the way it conveys these messages. 

We do not need to be reminded that racism is wrong, so there are no monologue speeches by Macreedy explaining how wrong it is.  His sharp criticism is for those who seem apathetic and unwilling to stand up for what is right.  We also don’t need the emotions of this tense situation pounding us over the head, so Sturges keeps the camera at a distance and uses very little music.  There is only one scene that overplays the situation and that is a car chase.  It’s also the only scene that has aged poorly because it tried for too much special effects-wise.  The makers of this film knew that the story was enough to keep the audience interested and wisely chose to tell it in a straightforward manner.

Every performance is good, especially Spencer Tracy as the one-armed Macreedy.  He’s tough, but doesn’t lose his temper.  He’s passionate, but smart about how to handle every situation.  Most impressively, though, is the way that he can portray a man so angry at this situation that, even as it is resolved, can’t smile.  It is a terrific case-study for how a film can be powerful without calling attention to itself.

Bad Day at Black Rock isn’t a perfect film.  The ending is wrapped up a little too tightly and rushed a bit, but the tension is held so well throughout that it almost doesn’t matter.  The film flies by with a running time of just over 80 minutes.  It is a solid piece of work that embodies the phrase, “less is more”.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

BARTON FINK

(1991)

20^th Century Fox

Joel and Ethan Coen are quite simply masters at what they do; which is making entertaining movies that have a lot more going on than you see the first time. They’ve made some of my favorite films such as Raising Arizona, O Brother Where Art Thou, and the magnificent Miller’s Crossing, which is one of the best gangster movies ever, made. If you haven’t seen any of their movies, you need to rectify that error the next time you hit the video store.

Barton Fink was written when the Brothers Coen suffered writer’s block while they were working on the screenplay for Miller’s Crossing and all I can say is this: if this is the kind of story they came up with when they were blocked, they oughta get blocked more often since they won all sorts of awards at Cannes for Barton Fink and movie critics raved about it and it was on everybody’s lists of the best movies released during that year.

Barton Fink is a New York playwright who is enjoying success on Broadway with his latest play in the year 1941. His agent wangles him a deal to go out to California and work in Hollywood. Capital Studios is offering Barton $2,000 a week to come out there and write movies. And back in those days, $2,000 a week was a fortune. Barton doesn’t want to go but his agent wisely advises him that if he takes the deal, he can put food on his table and keep a roof over his head while Barton writes the stuff he really wants to write. Barton finally accepts and goes out to Hollywood where he takes a room in The Hotel Earle, a really odd establishment that seems to have only two employees; a decrepit elevator operator who appeared to be nearly ossified and the cheerful desk clerk Chet.

Barton immediately catches writer’s block since he’s never written a movie script before. Hell, he doesn’t even go to movies and his first assignment is to script a wrestling movie starring Wallace Beery. Barton seeks help from a variety of characters such as the alcoholic writer W.P. Mayhew and producer Ben Geisler.

Part of Barton’s problem is that he’s so damn intellectual about his job. You see, he’s one of these double domed intellectuals who wants to write about the common man but he actually knows bupkis about his intended subject. This is pointed out in a series of scenes with the producer Ben Geisler who replies to Barton’s dilemma with exasperation: “Jesus, Fink! What do you need to know? It’s a wrestling picture! It’s not fucking Hamlet!”

Geisler has a terrific scene where he takes Barton to lunch and advises him to talk to another writer and Barton asks where does he find a writer in Hollywood. Geisler replies with one of my Top Ten Favorite Lines Of All Time; “This town is lousy with ‘em…throw a rock and you’ll hit one. And do me a favor, Fink…when you throw that rock…throw it HARD.” Geisler is played by Tony Shaloub who has a hit TV show on USA called Monk and if you haven’t watched it yet, you really oughta to as it’s a terrific show and amply demonstrates the amazing range of Tony Shaloub. You watch him in this movie and in Monk and it’s impossible for me to imagine that it’s the same actor playing these characters.

Barton has a next-door neighbor in the Hotel Earle, an insurance salesman named Charlie Meadows who tries to help Barton out with his writer’s block. Hell, Charlie figures that you can’t get more common man than him, but he soon finds that Barton is more interested in ranting about his own theories on what the common man wants than actually finding out what the common man thinks. The theme of Barton’s ignorance about what he thinks writing is supposed to be about runs through the entire movie and is handled in some very funny scenes. There’s one in which Barton having a picnic with Mayhew and his secretary and Barton is spouting his intellectual bullshit about writing and how it’s this divine calling and he cannot separate himself from his art. Mayhew gives him this really pitying look and says; “Hell, I just like making things up.”

But Barton Fink isn’t just about a writer’s trials and tribulations in Hollywood. It’s also about a grisly, horrifying murder and a frightening revelation concerning the jovial, amiable Charlie Meadows that just may have infernal origins. If you’ve seen Barton Fink then you know exactly what I’m talking about and I wouldn’t dream of spoiling it for those of you who haven’t. But at the same time Barton Fink is also a very funny movie and sometimes you don’t know if you should be laughing or not. And indeed, there are scenes where Barton himself doesn’t know if he should be taking the people he’s talking to seriously or not, including two police detectives who appear to take a perverse delight in the way they verbally ping-pong their interrogation of Barton back and forth like Abbott and Costello doing “Who’s On First?”

One of the fun things about this movie is that there’s always something new I see every time I view it (which is about once a year) and I delight in the performances of John Turturro (he’s been in a number of Spike Lee films) John Goodman, Judy Davis and John Mahoney (who delivers the funniest rendition of ‘Old Black Joe’ I’ve ever heard) as well as the way the story is told. Jon Polito is also on hand playing the virtual slave of a fierce studio boss (Michael Lerner) And if anybody can figure out just what the final scene of the movie is about, email me and give a brother a clue, wouldja?

116 minutes

Barton Fink is rated R for language and mature themes. There’s no graphic sex in the movie and the implied violence is more grisly than any violence we actually see.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

ANGEL HEART

1987

Usually the Independent Film Channel will run a Halloween horror movie marathon and I was overjoyed to see that this movie was on their schedule. I’ve only seen Angel Heart maybe two or three times since I saw it in it’s original theatrical run back in ’87 and I got myself ready on my couch with my goodies wondering: could it still have the same effect on me after all this time? My happy answer is: YES. Angel Heart remains one of my personal favorites because it is photographed so well, the performances are all outstanding and it combines the private eye and supernatural genres flawlessly. It’s a hell of a movie and given the subject matter, I mean that quite literally.

Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke) is a private detective in 1955 New York and he’s definitely not Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe. When we first see him he looks like he’s coming off a three-day binge. He’s contacted by a lawyer named Winesap (“Law & Order” regular Dann Florek) who represents a strange foreign gentleman named Louis Cyphre (Robert DeNiro) who wants Harry to find out if a 1940’s crooner named Johnny Favorite is still alive. When asked why, Cyphre simply states that Johnny Favorite owes him collateral for “certain services”. Harry is suspicious as all hell, but hey, Cyphre’s $5,000 check is good and Harry takes the case.

He would have been better off sticking to his divorce cases. Very shortly, Harry is up to his unshaven neck in a mystery that he rapidly realizes may cost more than his life to solve. The trail of the singer Johnny Favorite is a blood-soaked one that leads from a really strange church in Harlem to the voodoo haunted bayous of New Orleans and it occurs to Harry as he continues on his quest that the solution to the mystery may be more frightening than the mystery itself. But he goes on because it becomes more and more apparent that his very soul depends on him discovering the secret of Johnny Favorite.

Angel Heart has so much to recommend it; I hardly know where to begin. The performances are absolutely first rate. Mickey Rourke may have given the best performance of his career in this movie and many people cite his “I know who I am!” scene near the end as his finest. Robert DeNiro is not only sinister but also quite humorous in his role. Look closely at him in this movie because there are not only visual clues to his identity but the way he plays it and his appearance is a homage to the director Martin Scorsese and given what we find out about Louis Cyphre, it may give you a chuckle. Lisa Bonet (Epiphany Proudfoot) is really amazing in this movie. It’s such an incredibly different role and persona from what she was playing on “The Cosby Show” that even though she caught some flack for it, it gave her unshakable legitimacy as a serious actress.

If you recall anything about Angel Heart it’s probably because of two scenes Lisa Bonet has this movie. The first is a voodoo ritual scene and the second is a sex scene with her and Mickey Rourke. I’m not going to spoil either of these scenes for you in describing them save to say that I admire Lisa Bonet for taking such acting risks in scenes that could not have been easy to shoot but they do indeed contribute to the story and are not added for shock, although the sex scene is definitely not for the squeamish. In fact, there is a lot in Angel Heart that is not for the faint of heart. Most people say ‘horror movie’ and they think of “Friday The 13^th” or “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. When my friends and family ask me what horror movie should they rent for a Friday or Saturday night viewing I usually recommend either “Night Of The Hunter” (which should absolutely not be seen by yourself unless you’ve got nerves of steel) or Angel Heart.

The bottom line is this: if you have seen Angel Heart then you’re probably nodding your head in agreement while you’re reading this. If you haven’t seen Angel Heart then I recommend that you rent it the very next time you raid your local video store. Get yourself the movie goodies of your choice. Put the DVD in your player and turn off the lights. And then prepare yourself for one of the most frightening movie experiences ever put on screen. Yeah, Angel Heart IS that scary.

113 minutes

Rated R

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Manhattan Murder Mystery represents one of the last few gasps of creativity before Woody Allen’s career descended into self-parody (before he rebounded with Matchpoint). Made in 1993, Allen would follow up this murder mystery caper with a few bright spots (Bullets Over Broadway, Everyone Says I Love You, Deconstructing Harry) though, more often than not, he would spend the rest of the 1990’s, and much of the 2000’s producing disappointing dreck (Celebrity, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Anything Else). Manhattan Murder Mystery isn’t his strongest film, but it is one of his most entertaining.

Woody Allen and Diane Keaton (together in over a decade) star as Larry and Carol Lipton, a middle-aged couple who both feel they are in a rut with each other. Larry is a book editor and Carol is an aspiring restauranteur. They befriend an elderly couple in their building (Jerry Adler and Lynn Cohen), and are thrown into a whodunit when the wife dies suddenly. Carol, spurred by the monotony of her life, feels the wife’s death is suspicious, and views the husband as the prime suspect. Encouraged by a close divorced friend, Ted (Alan Alda), who has the hots for C