Yep, I'm a fanboy:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2824/vprop2ee2.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3293/vprop4px3.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5069/vprop5zy9.jpg 

Au revoir les enfants (1987) - Semi autobiographical film from Louis Malle and it makes my top 10 films of all time. I would not change a frame of it.

Concerning the friendship between two boys at a safe haven catholic school in France 1944, before the war was over. One boy, a newcomer, at first threatens the other by matching him intellectually but is then also angered by him getting special treatment from the school staff. Eventually though, they become friends only to regret it later.

Its amazing in its scope, despite what may appear to be at first a fairly narrow focus. It's written and acted so well (I dont think kids have ever been this good) that you never once think you're watching a movie. It also helps that it achieves all that it sets out to do without a hint of hisrionics, melodrama or forced sentimentality.

By the time you finally realise where the title comes from, you already know you're watching a masterpiece.

9.5/10 

is that a real one from the movie? Did you buy it? Looks useful for scaring randoms.

Nitin, I like the sound of that film... I'm tempted to write down all your 9/10s and take the list down to the rental store next time I go :) 

It's an eBay ripoff I paid $30 for which is probably worth no more than $10. It is officially licensed, more yellow than white, but pretty accurate except for the shaping of the eyes (the movie mask has narrower eyes). The wig is a cheapy which I may replace with a more accurate, dark-brown and less poofeh wig. Also thought about airbrushing the mask the proper color, but in the right light it's not so bad.

If I spend any more money on this thing I'm better off buying a replica of this guy's:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1104/sc1188ql2.jpg

He has the DC replica mask (which is expensive) and is going to make molds from it. That's him with V's graphic novel artist, David Lloyd, by the way. 

by that Herzog guy.

Cut away 2/3 or half of the material and you got a good short film.

It just doesn't work as a real film. It's basically improvised story, stitched with unedited video footage with a soundtrack. Fun at times anyway. It could have been so much better. 

the footage is documentary-like but it's not as beautiful as it could be.

Sigh, it's impossible to talk about this without telling too much. 

didnt the one in the movie have a yellowish tinge ?


starbuck,

hehe, you could just go here, the 3.5 - 4 star ones are highly recommended. Imdb links if you want to know what the movie is about too.

http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=nitin 

The Thin Red Line - nice try but apart from some extremely fluid and skilled camerawork, I found it to be bloated, overponderous and ultimately unsuccesful.

I mean when you see the umpteenth symbolic gesture to reiterate the same point over and over again, that destruction is part of nature's cycle, you just wish that Malick would get on with it rather than have his cast spout philosophy 101 lines to explain said symbolism.

But the camerawork, as mentioned above, almost saves the day. Like all great cinematography, it's not just used as style here but pretty much becomes the substance to an extent.

But not enough to sustain a 163 min running time. Also, the never ending cameos became quite distracting too.

5/10 

Somewhat, but not nearly as tinged as this Warner Bros replica. 

Munich - this one really depends on what you go in expecting. From all the reviews at time of release about even-handedness and political arguments being debated, I was expecting something else.

As a standard genre-thriller, it's pretty damn good. Excellently directed and written in that regard. As anything more than that, it is not very convincing. Poorly directed and averagely written and there's a handful of truly misjudged scenes in that regard.

Also, the "accents" are very distracting at first, but once the genre plot starts, you dont really notice them because of the quality of the direction/writing.

Overall, it's quite good, despite me expecting something different.

7.5/10 

is a movie I would have to see again to make a
solid assessment.

As a standard genre-thriller, it's pretty damn good. Excellently directed and written in that regard. As anything more than that, it is not very convincing.

That statement I'm a bit intrigued by. I felt the same about parts of the movie as being unconvincing because of the usual Speilburg manipulation (of story elements I mean, not the politics) while other parts felt like the screenwriter got an inside scoop on how that game was played in the seventies.

For instance, the temperment of the French Anarchist in the movie who played the different sides during the cold war like Pagannini played a violin felt dead on perfect. It made you want to sip some wine in the South of France with the old man and listen to stories about the grand old days of the Resistance.

One scene where the Israelis and Palestinian groups are sharing a pad felt too pointed as a moralistic statement, especialy when Fienes and the PLO guy give speaches about their different views of the homeland. This sort of thematic excess is like marking a few pages of a novel with a yellow highlighter and writing in the margins, 'this is the point of it all.'
Quite distracting.

There were flaws of the anachronistic sort. For instance, the explanation given of why the PLO leader was a protected asset of the CIA while in London. In the pre-Church Committee era, self preservation would have been a far more convincing motive to keep out of North America than cash.

But I agree with you, as a genre spy thriller, this was real good stuff. You wont forget that honeypot's fate anytime soon. 

yep, agree on the usual spielberg sentimentality creeping in some scenes and detracting (the climax of the 72 flashback intercutting with something bana is doing in particular).

That scene at the pad you refer to is also another one I agree on, it's not a bad scene in itself but, given the genre stuff it's surrounded by, it's out of place.

The end scene between rush and bana is far more effective, if only because of the background it is shot against. 

Casshern (2004) - Well I guess there's definitely a first time for everything. I know I can be a bit harsh with scoring but this deserves nothing better than a big fat 0.

Quite possibly the worst thing I have ever seen, certainly nothing else comes to mind immediately. This is emabrassing in every department.

Oh, if you're still wondering, it's a Japanese film based on a manga about a sort of super warrior created who fights against an army of mutants in the future. Its main "attraction" (and I use that term very very loosely) is that its shot completely against green screen with CGI used for background, much like Sin City and Sky Captain. It's as bad a visual mess as you can get though.

0/10 

Ricky Gervais Live 1 Animals - Disappointing is probably the best way to put it. Sure, there were funny bits and Gervais' delivery made the material better but I thought most of it wasnt all that great, and definitely less clever than his tv stuff. I suppose thats a norm for standup comedy but given that most of it would have been preprepared, I dont count that as an excuse.

There is one 10 min sequence that is particularly good but the rest is probably why I dont like stand up comedu much - cheap jokes, with lots of sewaring to cover up for the lack of funniness.

5.5/10


Ricky Gervais Live 2 Politics - Very similar to theabove, but I would rate it slightly lower as its even less funnier.

5/10


Shoot the Piano Player (1960) - Truffaut's followup to The 400 Blows and he obviously wanted to make something lighter and more Snakes on a Plane.

But this comes across as if he didnt now what he really wanted and is an unsuccesful freeform exercise that is part film noir, part drama and part comedy, and neither part is successful in its execution. The freeform style does result in some great scenes, but overall I found it corny and silly.

4.5/10


Walk the Line - This is an opinion on the movie, I dont care for the music of Johnny cash (although surpisingly that element is not the main focus).

Anyway, I found it to be a fairly pedestrian affair, except that both Phoenix and Witherspoon were very impressive (even more so when they were on the screen together). Any scene without them, however, felt very hollow and average.

Phoenix gets more of the 'big' scenes but he does pull off his character quite well, without really going too histrionic. Witherspoon I found more impressive because she probably had 1-2 'big' scenes but her acting was great even when she wasnt doing these.

Also, good to see a biopic that manages to avoid most the trappings of the genre (although admittedly the start ticks all the boxes, as does the father/son relationship and the episodic nature). At least, they focused on the person, rather than what he did.

6/10 

The Girl on the Bridge (1998) - well, this is a bad movie. And it tries so hard, that it's laughably bad in some scenes. Patrice Leconte's hugely successful french movie is set in a bizarre fantasy world passing off as real life and the plot concerns a girl saved from jumping off a bridge by a knife thrower who offers her an alternative to jumping : become his assistant, and therefore get a bit of a kick out of life before it may or may not end at the end of one of his knives.

Shot in black and white, presumably to give it that otherworld feel I was talking about before (although this could have been achieved via colour, so I dont see the point since there is no other reason to do the black and white stuff here). It does have another great performance from Daniel Auteiul who somehow manages to play a very difficult character quite well, but I found Vanessa Paradis' character quite annoying.

And the script is embarassing really, barring one or two scenes.

4/10


The African queen (1951) - Bogart's a gun in my eyes and John huston has made some great films, but this was absolutely terrible. I have still yet to understand why Katherine Hepburn was held in such high regard because once again I found her performance to be quite phony and unconvincing.

The script is not very good, and Bogart is the only reason to keep watching. He does well with what he's given, but even he has some cringeworthy scenes that he cannot rescue.

3.5/10


Elevator to the Gallows (1959) - This was Louis Malle's first movie, and whilst it doesnt make my top 10 like Au Revoir Les Enfants, it's still a great film.

Terrific noir thriller about a couple who plan a crime that we see, but they dont, fall apart piece by piece. It unfurls its details expertly and then it all comes together so deftly that it's hard not to be impressed with the script and the confident, assured direction. Jeanne Moreau is great as one half of the couple too. Miles davis' jazz score also works well, and it's shot very nicely.

8.5/10 

I have still yet to understand why Katherine Hepburn was held in such high regard because once again I found her performance to be quite phony and unconvincing.

She represented a 'strong-willed, independent woman' at the very time (post-war) that feminism was becoming ascendent, so her lack of acting abilaty was overlooked and that distracting speach impedement she possessed that some people would call an accent was somehow tolerated. Gawd, that Ma&Pa Kettle metalic hiss of a voice hurts my ears just thinking about it even though I haven't seen a film she was in in over a decade. 

I know it doesnt mean much but 14 oscar noms ?

So someone obviously thought she had some acting ability. Some of it was there in philadelphia story but I cant say I've really seen it. 

I know it doesnt mean much but 14 oscar noms ?

It doesn't mean much. 

One of those movie perfromances she was nominated
for was in the African Queen which you too would
agree was not as good as its reputation. I too agree that the only entertainment value it had was in Bogart's salty performance.

Time tends to weed out of the mix those who were overrated in their time due to social trends that have since waned. Hepburn is a prime candidate. 

what I was getting at was that she couldnt even put in a good performance. By that I mean that people like Bogart, Cary grant etc werent the greatest of actors but they were definitely able to put in a good performance. Hepburn didnt even achieve that in the movies I've seen her in (closest was Philadelphia Stoy like I sad).

The Inside Man - intelligent, well made movie that, apart from a few missteps, is a nice meld between a genre caper film and a Spike Lee film. Denzel Washington is good in an extension of his role from Devil in a Blue Dress and Clive Owen is well cast as the mastermind bank robber.

It's well scripted with occasionally some great dialogue (especially when referencing movies from the 70's), and the overall plot is fairly reasonable (although there's some plot holes but they arent major enough to detract too much). I thought the final act was a bit rushed and clumsily handled, but apart from that it's solid piece of work that's well made (nice use of the strobing camera too by Lee).

One thing that did stand out was the score, works in some places but is very badly matched in others I felt. Also, was a bit surprised to see Lee using a Bollywood song to open and close the movie. But, at least he picked one of the best tracks in recent Bollywood history (although it was remixed)

7.5/10 

I might be letting my strong dislike of the person get in the way of our communication. But in this case, it is a person who never really gets into the character of a script from several movies I have seen her in (I haven't seen Philadelphia Story), it is always Katherine Hepburn being Katherine Hepburn barely bothering to interpert her lines. Contrast to most actresses who are more stars than actresses, from Audrey to Julia Roberts; they do assume characters and don't hender the narrative by their very presence. At least it is a rare occasion when they do, and when they do so they don't get praised for it.

I guess, when you made a similar point in the review of African Queen, it hit an old nerve. ;)

BTW, Inside Man is my favorite flick so far this year. Clive Owen is the man to watch out for. 

with him and the kid in the vault playing the video game is pure gold. A rare indulgent kind of scene that doesn't advance the plotline, but does much to reveal the nature of Owen's character. 

yeah owen should be bigger than he is, has talent, looks and charisma. 

Proof - Not the recent movie with Gwyneth playing some mathematician, but the 1992 Aussie film with Hugo Weaving and Russell Crowe. Weaving plays a blind man who doesnt trust people describing how things appear, and takes photos as 'proof' of what's there. He becomes friends with Crowe and trusts the latter enough to describe his photos to him, thereby gaining a view of the world that is real according to his proof.

Nice premise, and it starts off great, but as is the problem with most aussie films, it knows where it wants to get to, it just doesnt know how to get there. So we get a less impressive middle act and an unconvincing final act. Weaving and Crwe are both very good in their roles, and its nicely directed but the script could have used more polishing.

6.5/10


There's Something About Mary - I remember seeing this at the cinema when it came out, so that was about year 12. I also remember finding it hilarous at the time and havent seen it since.

Anyway, I thought I'd revisit it to see if I still like it given how much my taste has changed. And while it's not as hilarious as I found it back then, it's still pretty good. Nothing matches the initial twenty minutes I dont think, but it's still an easy watch for the whole length. There's still a bit of Ben Still overkill, but not as muh some of his recent stuff thankfully.

Matt Dillon really works for me here. Actually, most the cast is fairly decent.

7/10 

Dangerous Liasions (1987) - fairly good, but nothing great. What carries it is two excellent performances from Glenn Close and John Malkovich. Close is great as the Marquise, icy and restrained and changing moods readily. Malkovich's performance is a bit self-conscious but he delivers his dialogue fantastically. It also helps that he has some great lines to deliver.

However, the self consciousness in his performance makes the final act a bit unconvincing. The script is partly to blame for that but so is Malkovich. Also, I thought the supporting actors were not very good, although admittedly they had limited material to work with. Both uma Thurman and Michelle Pfeiffer came across as stiff and uncomfortable in their roles.

7/10


Open Your Eyes (1997) - Vanilla Sky was a terrible film, but the original version by Amelio Amenabar is a first rate drama/thriller. I cant recall Vanilla Sky well enough to remember whethr it was indeed a shot for shot remake but I do remember enough to see that it kept most of the original intact. But, it all works so much better here. And its success can be put to the following factors I think :

- Amenabar doesnt resort to stupidly insulting exposition in the final scene

- Tom Cruise was horribly miscast

- Penelope Cruz is more comfortable in her native language and can actually put in a performance

- Moving the movie to new York killed the mood and atmosphere preset in the original

- Vanilla Sky had an awful soundtrack

- Most importantly, Vanilla Sky had really bad dialogue in key scenes, which wasnt present in this version ("I'm blowing your mind, arent I" comes immediately to mind).

I still think the occasional scene doesnt fit well and some of the scenes included simply for symbolism's sake were distracting, but overall this is very good.

7.5/10


Lost Highway (1997) - The first thing that comes to mind is how much it does resemble Mulholland Drive. Same patented lucid noir style, virtually the same general plot (although different structure), and similar scenes of self indulgence.

With that much in common, you have to compare and I would say that Mulholland Drive is the better film because although this is a bit more focused and probably just as comprehensible (in fact I would say that although this leaves a little more to piece together for the viewer, its esier to follow because of the struture), the buildup in Mulholland Drive was more intriguing than the buildup in this one. And, generally, Lynch films are all about the buildup to me, the endings are usually unimportant.

Its also well directed, Lynch again making great use of sound and music to create a foreboding atmosphere, but its also quite self indulgent in a few scenes. If some of these scenes had been trimmed, I think it would have been better. I also didnt care for the soundtrack (not the original score but where music from bands was used), it just didnt fit well with what was on screen.

Worth a watch, but I think he repeated it more successfully with Mulholland Drive.

6.5/10


Elizabeth - horribly paced, badly written and poorly directed. Acting is above average but all involved have been better. I found it to be a tedious mess.

Also, looked a little cramped in 1:85:1, might hav been better served in 2:35:1.

3.5/10