::Untraceable::2008

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0880578/

Brutal, Painful Death, Just a Mouse Click Away


Morally duplicitous torture porn: how else to describe “Untraceable,” a bleak, rain-washed horror thriller whose predatory villain delivers a scolding lecture about Internet voyeurism and the dark side of human nature? That lecture arrives as a contemptuous “I told you so” at the end of the movie, after the designated fiend has streamed live video of several of his hideous crimes on his own Web site, killwithme.com.

Paragraphs of technobabble spouted by Special Agent Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) of the F.B.I.’s cybercrime unit in Portland, Ore., explain why the Web site is untraceable. It takes a cyberwizard like Jennifer to catch a cyberwizard. Meanwhile the murders are carried out with different elaborate devices, each of which suggests a high-tech variation of something out of Edgar Allan Poe.

The killer’s cruel joke: The more people who visit the site, the faster the victims die. A counter records the accelerating number of hits as each new torture is unveiled. More than 27 million viewers rush to watch the spectacle of a woman strung upside down from the ceiling, as she is lowered inch by inch over rotating blades. Another victim is strapped inside a tank of water into which sulfuric acid is slowly dripped. Although his head and shoulders remain above water, the skin below peels away like wads of pink tissue paper as his eyes bug out and his face turns crimson.

The moral lesson: The act of watching makes us accessories to murder; without an audience, no one would die.

You may view “Untraceable,” as I do, as a repugnant example of the voyeurism it pretends to condemn. Or you may stand back and see it as a cleverly conceived, slickly executed genre movie that ranks somewhere between “Seven” and the “Saw” movies in sadistic ingenuity.

Gregory Hoblit, the director, was a producer and director on “L.A. Law” and “Hill Street Blues” in the 1980s and “NYPD Blue” in the 1990s. His best-known film, “Primal Fear,” made a star of Edward Norton in 1996. He has the clammy visual vocabulary and jittery rhythm of the crime-fighting movie down cold.

The killer’s spree begins with a grisly test run on a cat, in which he promises viewers to kill the animal once his site gets a certain number of hits. Jennifer, the smartest investigator in her unit, immediately intuits that this is just a prelude to something much worse.

The movie gives her a possible romantic interest in her fellow detective Eric (Billy Burke), who hovers protectively around her but keeps his hands off. She also has a nerdy younger partner, Griffin (Colin Hanks, Tom’s son), whose habit of making blind dates with women on the Internet leads him into the killer’s lair.

Jennifer is a stereotypically vulnerable target, a widowed single mother who lives in a dark, drafty house with her own mother, Stella (Mary Beth Hurt); her 8-year-old daughter, Annie (Perla Haney-Jardine); and a cat with a sixth sense. The place is begging to be invaded by a kidnapper, and the movie can’t resist toying with your fear that it is only a matter of time before either Jennifer or her daughter, or both, land in the killer’s gadget-clogged cellar.

Bringing her usual intensity to the role, Ms. Lane succeeds in making Jennifer a conflicted woman of some depth who is torn between her professional commitment and her family. The role of a high-strung thoroughbred with a streak of stubborn independence is one she has played before.

Lightness does not come easily to Ms. Lane. Even in her characters’ upbeat moments, you sense the shadows under the surface. The clench of her jaw, the taut tendons of her neck and her rigid posture evoke a loner bravely gritting her teeth as she gazes steadily into the darkness.

As cynical as it is, “Untraceable” leaves a sharp, lingering aftertaste. When the killer crows that it won’t be long before we are paying to download commercially sponsored atrocities on our cellphones, you have the uneasy feeling that he may be right.

“Untraceable” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has strong language and scenes of torture.

Directed by Gregory Hoblit; written by Robert Fyvolent, Mark R. Brinker and Allison Burnett, based on a story by Mr. Fyvolent and Mr. Brinker; director of photography, Anastas Michos; edited by David Rosenbloom; music by Christopher Young; production designer, Paul Eads; produced by Steven Pearl, Andy Cohen, Tom Rosenberg, Gary Lucchesi and Howard Koch Jr.; released by Screen Gems. Running time: 1 hour 40 minutes.

WITH: Diane Lane (Jennifer Marsh), Billy Burke (Detective Eric Box), Colin Hanks (Griffin Dowd), Joseph Cross (Owen), Perla Haney-Jardine (Annie) and Mary Beth Hurt (Stella).


Language:Spanish
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464141/

Haunting secrets of the past resurface when a child mysteriously disappears in the supernatural thriller The Orphanage, a spinetingler with a jaw-dropping twist that will take your very last breath away! Produced by Academy Award® nominated filmmaker Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth).

Visionary Guillermo del Toro and acclaimed director J. A. Bayona present The Orphanage, a “positively terrifying” (John Anderson, Newsday) new vision of the classic ghost story. Returning to her childhood home – a mysterious, seaside orphanage – Laura and her family unknowingly unleash a long-forgotten, evil spirit. Now, thrust into a chilling nightmare that involves the disappearance of her young son, Laura must confront the memories of her past before the ghosts of the orphanage destroy her… and everyone she has ever loved.

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXN3nADMhh0




::Moulin Rouge::(2001)



Won 2 Oscars. Another 65 wins & 83 nominations

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/


In Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, a whirling fantasia of rococo kitsch set in the legendary Paris nightclub circa 1900, the characters are ladies, gentlemen, dandies, courtesans, and bohemians -- a remembrance, in other words, of things very much past -- but we experience them in frenzied jump cut flashes, as if the director had staged the movie during an absinthe hallucination. When they open their mouths to express their inner selves, out come some of the most cherished pop songs of the late 20th century (''Roxanne,'' ''Like a Virgin,'' ''Smells Like Teen Spirit''), as well as snippets of ''The Sound of Music'' and other precounterculture standards.

Christian (Ewan McGregor), an idealistic young writer devoted to the pursuit of ''truth, beauty, and love,'' is ushered into the baroque sanctum of Satine (Nicole Kidman), the star of the Moulin Rouge's naughty stocking flash stage show and the most coveted courtesan in Paris. After a few stabs at conversation, he lapses into a woozy warm rendition of Elton John's ''Your Song,'' and damned if the movie doesn't caress our eardrums with romance. Moments later, the black sky has gone twirly psychedelic.

The rock opera, of course, is nothing new, but in ''Moulin Rouge,'' the spectacle of rock employed in a period setting, funny and absurd as it often appears, speaks to us in a new and galvanizing way. It slashes through the distance that so many of us feel toward musicals, not just because the songs here really are our songs, but because the very incongruity evokes that casual, private dream world in which rock has become the daily libretto of our lives. As someone who considers himself a happy child of ''A Hard Day's Night'' and ''Tommy,'' ''Scorpio Rising'' and ''Saturday Night Fever'' and MTV, I was more than willing to meet Luhrmann's flaky, bedazzled experiment halfway. Visually, the movie, with its sumptuous digitized landscapes that turn Paris into a nocturnal urban layer cake, is a mirage of fin de siècle decadence: the gloriously cluttered slope of Montmartre, the red light windmill that sits atop the Moulin Rouge, advertising sin as a kind of mock historical prerogative.

But ''Moulin Rouge,'' seductive as it can be, is also an extravaganza of shrill camp. What's wrong with the picture has nothing to do with its audacious soundtrack; it's that the film seems to have been directed by a madman with a palm buzzer. Luhrmann, who made ''Strictly Ballroom'' and the revved into incoherence ''William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet,'' shoves pinched and overly made up faces at us, and he smashes all sense of space and time, so that the floor of the Moulin Rouge comes off as a bad trip version of Studio 54 crossed with the ''Star Wars'' cantina. The place is decorated with grotesque caricatures like Toulouse-Lautrec, played by John Leguizamo with a lisp that redefines ''tongue-tied,'' and the rouged impresario Zidler (Jim Broadbent), a nightmare of unctuousness who makes the ''Cabaret'' emcee look demure. Luhrmann, it's clear, wants to be accused of going too far, but the result is a musical that substitutes irony for pop passion, misanthropic disjointedness for lyrical flow.

Luhrmann may turn out to be the Gen Y Ken Russell -- a put-on libertine who bends the world around his gaudy hysterical rhythms. In ''Moulin Rouge,'' for all of his glitzoid artifice, he's rarely successful at using songs to gratify the musical junkie's primal desire to merge with the characters' hearts. By the second half, most of the rock spirit has leaked out of the movie, replaced by lugubrious neostudio system clichés. One has to wonder: Can the new rock musical survive, even thrive? You better believe it will, even if it has to go further than ''Moulin Rouge'' does, refining and cultivating its own excess, to attain something like innocence.

::Premonition::(2007)




A Happy Housewife Does the Time Warp, and Madness Ensues

Blind faith that all will be revealed can keep you glued to a movie long after the arrival of that sinking feeling that none of what you’re seeing can possibly add up. As you watch “Premonition,” a psychological thriller that scrambles time in the life of a desperate housewife, you imagine that the director, Mennan Yapo, and the screenwriter, Bill Kelly, must have some notion of where they’re heading, so you suspend your doubts, invest your emotions and go along for the ride. After all, aren’t these Hollywood professionals who know something about storytelling? And didn’t a major star (Sandra Bullock) sign on to the project?

The movie seems to be headed in several possible directions. Is it a supernatural “Gaslight”? A Hitchockian psychological mystery like “Marnie” or “Vertigo”? An M. Night Shyamalan party trick with a jack-in-the-box ending? None of the above, it turns out.

The sloppy, absent-minded “Premonition” is a giant step backward for Ms. Bullock, who plays Linda Hanson, a woman with a perfect home, a perfect husband and two young daughters. Linda’s world suddenly crashes around her when the local sheriff knocks on the door and tells her that her husband, Jim (Julian McMahon), has died on a business trip when his car was hit by a truck.

Grief settles over the Hanson household. Linda gently breaks the news to her daughters, Bridgette (Courtney Taylor Burness) and Megan (Shyann McClure). And her mother, Joanne (Kate Nelligan), and best friend, Annie (Nia Long), rush to her side to flutter around offering solace.

But when Linda wakes up the next morning, she goes downstairs to find Jim contentedly sipping coffee and watching television. His death must have been a dream, she concludes. Soon after that she wakes to find the living room filled with anxious mourners. There is a spilled bottle of lithium in her bathroom sink. But the following morning she finds Jim in the shower. Is she losing her mind? After some tentative sleuthing, she decides that through a temporal mix-up, she has learned of Jim’s imminent death before it takes place.

The story brings in an ominous psychiatrist, Dr. Norman Roth (Peter Stormare), whom Linda has consulted but can’t remember; enigmatic answering-machine messages; and Jim’s blond co-worker Claire (Amber Valletta), who shows up at his burial and looks suspiciously like the Other Woman. There is some shady-seeming business involving Jim’s recently jiggered life insurance.

The movie veers toward horror, with Linda eventually dragged kicking and screaming to a mental hospital. Later, after we learn that the Hansons’ marriage has been in unspecified trouble for some time, the movie takes a turn toward the spiritual, with Linda consulting a priest who regales her with mumbo-jumbo about how her confusion stems from a lack of faith.

With a dozen loose strands still dangling at the two-thirds mark, “Premonition” abandons the psychiatric subplot to become a simple melodrama in which Linda, who has pieced together a timeline of past and future events, dashes to the scene of Jim’s accident to try to prevent it.

Ms. Bullock, who proved she could act in “Crash” and “Infamous,” returns to nonacting in “Premonition.” Embodying a paranoid but plucky Everywoman clutching at an elusive mate while trying to maintain her sanity, the best Ms. Bullock can manage is to seem glumly opaque.

Mr. McMahon, with his Mephistophelean eyebrows, dead eyes and slack mouth, walks the same line between Mr. Right and Mr. Wrong as his character, Dr. Christian Troy, does in the cable series “Nip/Tuck.” All he has to do to suggest sinister motives is to twist his features into a sour expression and address his wife in a blasé tone. Even in his Mr. Right mode, you’d be an idiot to trust him for a millisecond.

“Premonition” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It has mild sexual situations and some strong language.


Courtesy:New york Times

::Shooter::


The action's fast-paced, the actors fit their roles, and the 'don't trust the government' undertone is timely. Yet there's something off about Shooter that keeps it from being a real first-rate thriller. Plot holes and a couple of badly miscast supporting players hurt the film and unfortunately no amount of shooting or blowing things up can save Shooter from just missing its target.

  • Mark Wahlberg's definitely believable as an ex-military sharpshooter with attitude
  • It's nice to see the main female character's not a love interest
  • The action sequences are gripping
  • NRA enthusiasts may enjoy this film
Cons
  • What's up with Danny Glover's voice? It's very, very distracting.
  • Asks audiences to suspend logic as the plot takes hugely improbable twists
  • Sets things up well, then bungles crucial scenes

Description

  • Stars Mark Wahlberg, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, and Danny Glover
  • Based on Stephen Hunter's novel "Point of Impact," adapted by Jonathan Lemkin and directed by Antoine Fuqua
  • Rated R for strong graphic violence and some language
  • Theatrical Release Date: March 23, 2007.

::The Happening::2008


Something Lethal Lurks in the Rustling Trees


The knives had been out and sharpened long before M. Night Shyamalan’s latest movie, “The Happening,” opened on Friday. A fine craftsman with aspirations to the canon, this would-be auteur has, in the last few years, experienced a sensational fall from critical and commercial grace, partly through his own doing — by making bad movies and then, even after those movies failed, by continuing to feed his ego publicly — and partly through the entertainment media that, once they smell weakness, will always bite the hand they once slathered in drool.

The signal-to-noise ratio has become so lopsided when it comes to Mr. Shyamalan that “The Happening” was marked for failure even before it had a chance to fail — or succeed. Its worth as a cultural and aesthetic object had been rendered moot, never mind that it turns out to be a divertingly goofy thriller with an animistic bent, moments of shivery and twitchy suspense and a solid lead performance from Mark Wahlberg. Much like Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix in “Signs,” which this film resembles in mood, effectiveness and flaws, Mr. Wahlberg fits into the Shyamalan universe comfortably. He rides the spooky stuff with as much ease as he does the jokes, the manufactured sincerity and cornball messages.

I won’t say too much about the gimmick that Mr. Shyamalan has come up with this time around, only that it’s funny, dark and weird and involves some nasty payback from the natural world. The story opens on a bustlingly bright New York day with two women sharing a bench in Central Park. One hears something, the other doesn’t, and before you know it, one benchwarmer has slipped a hair stick out of her do and into her own neck. The blood continues to trickle, but soon runs into the streets as men and women across the city commit similarly inexplicable acts of self-annihilation, with bullets to the head or, in a queasy, presumably intentional visual echo of Sept. 11, plunges from on high.

This is the first R-rated feature from Mr. Shyamalan, who’s left the PG-13 world behind presumably to entice that much-coveted demographic, the young male bloodsucker. Going graphic has neither hurt nor harmed him, though from all the inventive ways he’s found to do away with characters, it’s hard not to wonder if he’s not extracting symbolic revenge on the fickle moviegoing public. Whatever the case, the opening’s body count works to his foundational purposes, creating an uneasy, unsettled atmosphere. Mr. Shyamalan’s words consistently fail him, as they have in the past. But working again with the cinematographer Tak Fujimoto (a longtime shooter for Jonathan Demme), he creates images — bodies falling, trees rustling — that at their most potent speak louder and more eloquently than those words.

As the suicides rage like the plague, Mr. Wahlberg’s Elliot, a Philadelphia high-school science teacher, heads out of town on a train with his wife, Alma (an oddly miscast, loony-looking Zooey Deschanel, working her big blue peepers like mad), and another teacher, Julian (John Leguizamo), who brings along his young daughter, Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez). The train conductors soon lose contact with the outside world, forcing passengers into the Pennsylvania backwoods. This allows Mr. Shyamalan to focus on his leads (and indulge in witless marital shtick); pick up a couple of crack scene stealers (Frank Collison and Betty Buckley); and frolic in the great outdoors with zippy cameras and special effects. Something wicked this way comes though, really, they’re already heeere.

Mr. Wahlberg’s earnest, committed presence anchors the story, giving it a sense of purpose (a reason to care). Unlike Ms. Deschanel, who looks mighty surprised to be in this movie or mighty alarmed, you hang on to Mr. Wahlberg, who smoothly navigates the broad, lurching comedy (notably a wonderfully eccentric and comic monologue) as well as the pockets of dread. Mr. Shyamalan’s bag of tricks is awfully familiar — the camera races forward, the characters stand locked in place, a child’s empty swing sways in the wind, eyes widen, mouths gape — but it’s time-tested and, with the right actors, effectual. There is, after all, real pleasure to be had from watching a magician pull even a mangy rabbit out of a battered top hat.

Mr. Shyamalan has come up with a doozy of a premise for “The Happening,” one that will appeal to the doomsday scenarist in every pessimist, so it’s a shame he doesn’t know what to do with it other than mow people down. One of his strengths, evident in his best film, “The Sixth Sense,” and even in misfires like “Lady in the Water,” is that he knows how to withhold enough information — goosing the quiet with well-timed boos and bangs — to keep you asking that crucial storytelling question: What happens next? But here, caught up in art-directing all this death, he forgets to set up the question from scene to scene. The movie unwinds like a series of ghastly tableaux vivants pasted together with sloppy domestic comedy.

By the time the story shifts to a town where people are hanging from trees in overly neat formation, the image of mass suicides has been drained of its shock, and a human calamity is revealed to be an aesthetic choice. Something is happening, all right, but Mr. Shyamalan, who certainly appears to enjoy playing God, doesn’t seem to care much. But what is happening, exactly? Is it the end of the world, a blip on the green screen, a Chernobyl rerun, Al Gore’s worst nightmare? Mr. Shyamalan tells us, more or less, letting the kitty out of the bag early. But here’s the thing about doomsday scenarios: They require an escape hatch or the weight of tragedy. Just knocking off the world because you’re mad at it isn’t enough.

“The Happening” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Bloody death.

THE HAPPENING

Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan; director of photography, Tak Fujimoto; edited by Conrad Buff; music by James Newton Howard; production designer, Jeannine Oppewall; produced by Mr. Shyamalan, Sam Mercer and Barry Mendel; released by 20th Century Fox. Running time: 1 hour 39 minutes.

WITH: Mark Wahlberg (Elliot Moore), Zooey Deschanel (Alma Moore), John Leguizamo (Julian), Betty Buckley (Mrs. Jones), Frank Collison (Nursery Owner) and Ashlyn Sanchez (Jess).

::Air Force One::


When one sees Glenn Close portraying the vice-president, one begins to realize just how much she looks (and can act) like Gerald Ford.

Frankly, I was shocked to discover how much I liked Air Force One. Yes, it has villainous Russians who can never see our good guy President (Harrison Ford) when he's hiding right in front of them (much less shoot him). Yes, it has Secret Service guys who die at the hand of the enemy like flies in a bug zapper. Yes, it has the cheesiest special effects this side of of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yes, it features a rambling Gary Oldman in one of his clearly improvised looney-tune terrorist/psychopath roles. I could go on and on...

But I won't. Instead, I'll tell you that Air Force One (Die Hard on a plane with a President on it, thus distinguishing it from Die Hard 2, Passenger 57, and Executive Decision) is a spellbinding film, one that grips the viewer from the very start and doesn't let up until 140 minutes later, plot holes or no. It also may be the funniest movie I've seen all year -- and I still can't figure out if it was intentional or not!

And I don't care. Air Force One has great action, a good story, and once you get past the melodramatics of his co-stars, one of Harrison Ford's best performances, ever. In fact, I'd be so bold as to say that AFO is probably the best new film of 1997 to date.


An intricate and surprisingly moving guide to retaining ones own humanity while those around you lose theirs, The Shawshank Redemption is an actors dream. In the late 40s Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is a young and successful banker, content with life. Unfortunately the sky falls in when his wife and her golf pro lover are discovered riddled with bullets, barely hours after Andy learnt of her adultery. The final, crushing blow is that Andy actually drove up to the fateful house, loaded with whisky and bullets; a fact he readily admits to. Now, however, the stories related by Andy and the prosecuting DA diverge; according to the latter Andy took cold-blooded revenge, even pausing to reload his weapon. Faced with such a preponderance of evidence, Andy staggers from the courtroom under the load of two life sentences.

Inside Shawshank Prison, which hearsay calls the most brutal in New England, the inmates place bets. Spotting the lanky and out of place figure of Andy, Ellis "Red" Redding (Morgan Freeman) reckons that he'll be the first to crack. With little fanfare the reasoning behind this prediction becomes clear; the sadistic and swaggering figures of Warden Norton (Bob Gunton) and head guard Capt. Hadley (Clancy Brown). Driven by the need to prove that they run the tightest, toughest jail within hundreds of miles, arbitrary abuse is frequent. Andy seems to cotton onto this fact pretty quickly, which is why he's not the one who breaks down in a paroxysm of regret; that honour is reserved for Fat Ass (Frank Medrano). Regrettably he doesn't live to learn from his mistake; Shawshank is hard like that.

Based upon a short story by Stephen King, The Shawshank Redemption is unlike any other adaptation of his work. Mercifully free of cheap horror and overwrought dialogue, this tale celebrates the resilience of the human spirit. Set over a period of many decades, the film takes its time in drawing together the strands of prison life. Each thread has a different life story encoded within it, yet together they form a single design; that prison solves nothing. In contrast it condemns ordinary, if misguided, folk to the tedium of abuse. Whatever individuality once existed is stripped from them. This is a simplification of course; the power of The Shawshank Redemption is that it sucks you into this particular world and exposes you to one possible tale. This single fibre concerns the seemingly naive figure of Andy, trapped within a world of pain and danger. Where lesser men might have crumbled in time, Andy is a man with hidden reserves.

In its heart The Shawshank Redemption is driven by the strength of its performances. Fortunately director Frank Darabont saw fit to hire a talented cast, rather than a bevy of high-profile names; a decision which lifts his creation from the merely ordinary. Robbins is thoroughly excellent as the clever and utterly decent Andy. While innocent and overly trusting, this is the key to the strength that sustains him; nothing can crush his optimism. Over and above these broad strokes Robbins also excels in the details, throwing in a faint smile or a leading comment when necessary. Equally impressive, perhaps even more so, Freeman is scintillating as the institutionalised Red, ground down by a wasted life. Near enough an organic constituent of the stone walls, Freeman gives his character a depth that hints at loss, regret, bitterness and hopelessness without once admitting to it. To the usually onerous task of narration Freeman brings a captivating balance, being informative without overwhelming the action. This is how we get to see inside Andy, a crucial window into his ability to cope.

Elsewhere The Shawshank Redemption shines by virtue of its compelling minor characters. From the very good to the very bad, almost every speaking part adds something to the backdrop behind Robbins and Freeman. In no particular order, veteran thespian James Whitmore gives elderly librarian Brooks Hatlen a rich, resonant lustre. Effortlessly indicating how prison can drain everything worth cherishing from an inmate, before tossing the empty husk into an uncertain world, Whitmore is memorable. Youngster Gil Bellows, as delinquent Tommy, is also fine, casting a crucial joker into Andy's disastrous hand. At the other and of the scale, both Gunton and Sadler are titanium hard and blood-vomit repellent. There is nothing but agony in their words and actions, a state far harder to achieve than to describe. Placed together these roles illuminate the prison, moving but never distracting the focus from Andy and Red's friendship.

There are, of course, weaknesses to The Shawshank Redemption. For a start the prisoners are too erudite and not nearly nasty or brutish enough, while the guards are overly stereotyped. In addition there is a bundle of minor loose ends, a result of trying to cover so much expository ground; the most obvious of these is how the cast hardly appear to age. This is, however, being fairly picky. On the positive side the film has a terrific and intelligent script, reasonable photography and performances of real emotion. Instead of insulting its audience, The Shawshank Redemption asks them to feel, think and identify. This is a rare accomplishment.

::The Da Vinci Code::2006


Dan Brown's controversial best-selling novel about a powerful secret that's been kept under wraps for thousands of years comes to the screen in this suspense thriller from director Ron Howard. The stately silence of Paris' Louvre museum is broken when one of the gallery's leading curators is found dead on the grounds, with strange symbols carved into his body and left around the spot where he died. Hoping to learn the significance of the symbols, police bring in Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a gifted cryptographer who is also the victim's granddaughter. Needing help, Sophie calls on Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a leading symbologist from the United States. As Sophie and Robert dig deeper into the case, they discover the victim's involvement in the Priory of Sion, a secret society whose members have been privy to forbidden knowledge dating back to the birth of Christianity. In their search, Sophie and Robert happen upon evidence that could lead to the final resting place of the Holy Grail, while members of the priory and an underground Catholic society known as Opus Dei give chase, determined to prevent them from sharing their greatest secrets with the world. Also starring Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, and Alfred Molina, The Da Vinci Code was shot on location in France and the United Kingdom; the Louvre allowed the producers to film at the famous museum, but scenes taking place at Westminster Abbey had to filmed elsewhere when church officials declined permission.

::Black Hawk Down::


Columbia Pictures

Year Released: 2001
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Steven Zaillian, Ken Nolan (based on the book by Mark Bowden)
Cast: Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore, Eric Bana, William Fichtner, Ewan Bremner, Orlando Bloom, Sam Shepard.

Review by Rob Vaux

In the heat of battle, everything breaks down. Ideologies and politics cease to matter. Whatever nebulous justifications for fighting are swept away as soon as the first bullets fly. The only thing left is pure, relentless Darwinism, devoid of any reasoning or argument: I have to kill that man, or else he is going to kill me. Black Hawk Down understands the cold truth of combat, and presents it with unshakable aplomb. It exists on a purely sensual level, eschewing traditional notions of drama and storytelling. Though it adheres to a bare-bones plot, its energy lies somewhere beyond. It isn't so much a yarn as an immersive experience, an attempt to convey the foot soldier's viewpoint in the most primal and immediate manner possible.

It's fitting that such a meditation would take place in the historic footnote of the Somali civil war: a conflict that ultimately involved both the U.S. Army and UN Peacekeepers. Sandwiched between Desert Storm and Bosnia -- a veritable hiccup in the New World Order -- it nonetheless placed thousands of soldiers in considerable jeopardy for murky and ill-defined goals. The all-but-forgotten operation thus becomes a cipher for war in general. Though the setting has a very fixed time and place, its essence transcends those boundaries. The fresh-faced young men on-screen could come from any country, and be a part of any conflict from the Peloponnesian War to the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

The film opens with a mob of starving Somalians charging a truck full of food, only to be fired upon by the armed thugs atop it. The food belongs to their warlord, the men say, and they'll kill anyone who tries to take it. A helicopter full of American soldiers circles the scene, its occupants itching to stop the brutality. No, their commanders inform them. The situation is not their concern.

In other hands, such a setup would lead the way for a gung-ho shoot 'em up: a jingoistic affirmation of American righteousness as Our Boys bash the appropriately foreign Forces of Evil. But Black Hawk Down has better things in mind, and knows that such simplistic reasoning just doesn't exist outside the multiplex. The soldiers in the chopper soon learn firsthand why such orders are given: the way even a minor skirmish can spiral out of control and how a desire to do the right thing may not make a damn bit of difference.

The bulk of the film involves a botched attempt to take several Somali war criminals into custody. A hundred-odd U.S. troops, traveling in choppers and Hum-Vees, surrounded a building in Mogadishu with the intention of capturing all those inside. The operation was supposed to take only 30 minutes; in the end, it lasted nearly a day and cost 19 American lives, along with God knows how many Somalis. Director Ridley Scott follows every part of the attack, but he isn't overly concerned about specific details. Instead, he keeps the proceedings abstract, concentrating on sights, sounds, and emotions. His ability to create complete cinematic universes finds a potent outlet here, in the wild streets and back alleys of Mogadishu. Under Scott's direction, the city becomes a forbidding, alien landscape where outsiders are not welcome. Mogadishu is a maze of roadblocks and tire fires, occupied by the resentful minions of the local warlord. Fights take place only a few blocks away from each other, yet they might as well be different planets. From the instant the soldiers hit the ground, we know they're in trouble. The American presence touches off a firestorm: thousands of militia members, armed to the teeth, take out their frustrations on anyone who steps into the crosshairs.

The characters are almost generic, with their shaved heads and mottled beige fatigues. Though we have an audience surrogate in Josh Hartnett's earnest sergeant, the film doesn't limit itself to his experience. It leaps back and forth between elements, following each aspect of the increasingly convoluted operation. Soon, one of the choppers goes down, followed by a second. The soldiers, who spent their time on base taking jump shots and debating the abstract reasons for their presence, find themselves cut off and surrounded by an enemy who desires their complete obliteration. Their efforts to survive highlights a lot of war film clichés -- bungled commands, the brotherhood of soldiers, an eager newbie who learns that combat really isn't cool after all -- but retain their core of truth in a way that other war films can't. Scott reaches into the heart of the incident and delivers it in wordless, gut-wrenching depth. At the same time, he deftly avoids political rationales, keeping right and wrong on the sidelines lest they interfere with the proceedings. The Americans' genuine morality is contrasted by their arrogant naïveté, their assumption that they can solve this crisis after so many others have failed. The Somalis are faceless, but never dehumanized, and we sense their agony as freshly as their rage. The result is a brilliant achievement, empathic and warm yet devoid of subjective judgement. There are no villains here, no faceless evils to be vanquished. Just an ugly situation and the way real people have to deal with it.

Black Hawk Down was co-produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, arguably Tinseltown's most exploitative hack. His knack for flashy, kinetic formalism finds an almost perfect expression here, transforming his cheap showmanship into something worthwhile. It allows us to momentarily forgive the countless cinematic abominations he has thrust upon us... and reminds us that Scott, one of our most underrated directors, remains a force to be reckoned with. Black Hawk Down is as good a film as he's ever made and one of the best pictures you're likely to see this year.


Bad horror movies can be good. However, horror sequels tend to be just plain bad and Wrong Turn 2 is no exception. From the opening sequence, we can tell that this is going to be a very long 93 minutes. It�s mostly the acting that throws off what should be a hook for the audience. Kimberly Caldwell�s performance provides no hope for the viewer that this might actually be an enjoyable horror film. Although watching her get chopped cleanly in half is rather hilarious because of the excessive unrealistic gore, this is not enough to save us from what follows.

In the same vein as other recent, horrendous horror sequels (The Hills Have Eyes 2), this film discredits and shames any merit that may be associated with the primary. Besides this film being heavily influenced by Wes Craven�s original The Hills Have Eyes, Wrong Turn 2 borrows from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and becomes a cheap imitation just like so many other horror films that focus more on gore rather than the horror. Granted, ridiculously gory films can be entertaining but that is only when that is their sole intention. This film tries to have some story and intense gore but loses itself and becomes a muddled piece of spat out Hollywood garbage.

It�s a shame that a story with such a decent premise, as far as horror goes, can go so hideously wrong. We have an inbred family of �hillbilly freaks� who use unsuspecting visitors for their twisted cannibalistic delight. Sounds fun. Even the much too obvious sequel plot of a reality show being shot out in no man�s land has its fit. The not so subtle parallel between the post apocalyptic show premise and the imminent real apocalypse provides, at the very least, a semi-interesting way to get the ball rolling. Unfortunately, the story quickly loses any audience draw and plays out as a story struggling to stay afloat.

The weak �industry� jargon and forced allusions to celebrities during the beginning slows down the pace and becomes a distraction when we should be the most engaged. It�s much too obvious and we�re left to wonder what an A-list actor would have said had he/she been forced to say such superfluous lines. Keep in mind, this is barely a half step into the first act. Already, there is inconsistency in tone. The opening had a humorous feel with the gore and familiar characters but then we switch gears as if someone said, �Okay, that was fun. Let�s try and make a real film now.� Trying to run after a shot in the foot never ends up well.

Besides the many obvious plot holes (Like: Why the entire complex setting of the reality game was setup without any interruption but as soon as it�s necessary, freaky cannibals show up for some fun. Maybe they just weren�t hungry yet), this film falls flat due to poor production quality (overused pans and revolving camera techniques; different visual feel than the predecessor) and, for lack of a better word, lame characters. Everyone is so stereotypically awful that we find ourselves rooting for them to be brutally murdered. Mara is the only person who there is a true sympathy for but that�s simply because she�s not an overdrawn pompous archetype. Plus, we don�t see that much of her so instead we�re stuck watching useless people run and perform unnecessary sexual acts that add absolutely nothing to the film. Not even shock value. I must say, fans of Henry Rollins will enjoy him in this film and find joy in seeing him fight his way through the lack of horror.

The story and writing of this film live up to the current idea that good horror has disappeared. With weak plants and payoffs, overly predictable twists (if we can call them that), and a forced backstory that adds a few minutes too many, Wrong Turn 2 fails to live up to the original. The forced ending and explanations by the grandfather try to say too much and ultimately fail at trying to paint these disgruntled freaks with a humanistic and understandable touch.

::Wrong Turn 1::2003


An efficient, unpleasant and tiresome hick horror flick, "Wrong Turn" is stocked with victims you won't care about, chased by villains you won't believe.

The photogenic fodder is four friends and a stranger (Desmond Harrington), who end up stranded in the country after a car crash. Vehicle-free, the group set out for help, but as they are in the woods, and this is in America, BAD THINGS are bound to happen.

Scott (Jeremy Sisto) knows this, and when they stumble upon a dilapidated, creepy old house, says to his companions, "I need to remind you of a little movie named "Deliverance"."

Except, of course, he doesn't: John Boorman's thriller is a familiar territory, as is "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", which this is inevitably derivative of, without being anywhere near as unrelenting or as scary (or scary, full stop).

Sisto is an engaging presence, but as he's the designated 'Funny Guy', you know it's only a matter of time before he's butchered, leaving the blander cast members to make a break for it.

Their pursuers, you've no doubt guessed by now, are variations on the theme of 'Grotesque Redneck Freak' - three inbred, deformed grunters, identified in the credits as Saw-Tooth, One-Eye, and Three Finger.

They're not very bright, but then neither is their prey, who on one occasion reject the chance to kill the killers in their sleep - opting instead to sneak out and be slaughtered themselves.

There are some decent jumps as the hunt tears on, but mainly of the cheap, BOOM! LOUD MUSIC type, while the dialogue is of the state-the-bleedin'-obvious variety ("They're trying to smoke us out!").

As the would-be gutsy totty, Eliza Dushku is surprisingly bad, while Harrington is reminiscent of Paul Walker ("2 Fast 2 Furious"), which tells its own story.

As sub-"Friday the 13th"-style slashers go, there are plenty worse, but this is really only for desperate genre fans - who've already been there, seen it, and bought the bloody t-shirt.

End Credits

Director: Rob Schmidt

Writer: Alan B McElroy

Stars: Eliza Dushku, Desmond Harrington, Jeremy Sisto, Emmanuelle Chriqui, Lindy Booth

Genre: Horror, Thriller

Length: 84 minutes

Cinema: 27 June 2003

Country: USA

::Gangs of Newyork::


GANGS OF NEW YORK,'' Martin Scorsese's brutal, flawed and indelible epic of 19th-century urban criminality, begins in a mud-walled, torchlighted cavern, where a group of warriors prepare for battle, arming themselves with clubs and blades and armoring themselves in motley leather and cloth. Though this is Lower Manhattan in 1846, it might as well be the Middle Ages or the time of Gilgamesh: these warlike rituals have an archaic, archetypal feeling.

And the participants are aware of this. As the members of various colorfully named Irish gangs emerge into the winter daylight of Paradise Square (a place long since given over to high-rises and resurrected here on the grounds of the vast Cinecittà studio complex in Rome), their native-born Protestant enemies greet them with an invocation of ''the ancient laws of combat.'' The ensuing melee turns the new-fallen snow pink with blood and claims the life of Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), an Irish gang chieftain whose young son witnesses the carnage.

Sixteen years later, the boy, whose name is Amsterdam, has grown into Leonardo DiCaprio, his wide, implacable face framed by lank hair and a wispy Van Dyke. He returns from a long stint in the Hell Gate Reformatory to his old neighborhood, the Five Points, and finds it ruled by his father's killer, Bill Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), known as the Butcher, a swaggering monster who has turned the anniversary of Priest's death into a local holiday.

Like a figure out of Jacobean theater or a Dumas novel, Amsterdam is consumed by the need for revenge. With the help of a boyhood friend (Henry Thomas), he infiltrates the Butcher's inner circle, becoming a surrogate son to the man who assassinated his father and who now, in accordance with those ancient laws, venerates Priest's memory.

The New York evoked in Amsterdam's voice-over is ''a city full of tribes and war chiefs,'' whose streets are far meaner than any Mr. Scorsese has contemplated before. The Butcher has formed an alliance of convenience with Boss Tweed (Jim Broadbent), the kingpin of Tammany Hall, and together they administer an empire of graft, extortion and larceny that would put any 20th-century movie gangster or political boss to shame. Rival fire companies turn burning buildings into sites of rioting and plunder; crowds gather to witness hangings, bare-knuckled boxing contests and displays of knife throwing.

As new immigrants, from Ireland and elsewhere, pour off the ships in New York harbor, they are mustered into Tweed's Democratic Party and then, since they lack the $300 necessary to buy their way out, into the Union Army. Occasionally a detachment of reform-minded swells will tour the Points, availing themselves of the perennial privileges of squeamish titillation and easy moral superiority. This anarchic inferno is, in Amsterdam's words, not so much a city as ''a cauldron in which a great city might be forged.''

And in recreating it, Mr. Scorsese has made a near-great movie. His interest in violence, both random and organized, is matched by his love of street-level spectacle. His Old New York is a gaudy multiethnic carnival of misrule, music and impromptu theater, a Breughel painting come to life. Though the details of this lawless, teeming, vibrant milieu may be unfamiliar, we nonetheless instinctively recognize it, from the 19th-century novels of Dickens and Zola, from samurai movies and American westerns and from some of this director's previous films.

Most notably in ''Mean Streets, ''Goodfellas,'' ''The Age of Innocence'' and ''Casino,'' Mr. Scorsese has functioned as a kind of romantic visual anthropologist, fascinated by tribal lore and language, by half-acknowledged codes of honor and retribution and by the boundaries between loyalty and vengeance, between courtesy and violence, that underlie a given social order.

As in ''Casino'' and ''The Age of Innocence,'' the setting of ''Gangs'' is sometimes more interesting than the story. At 2 hours 45 minutes, the film, deftly edited by Mr. Scorsese's frequent collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker, moves swiftly and elegantly. It is never dull, but I must confess that I wish it were longer, so that the lives of the protagonists, rather than standing out in relief against a historical background, were more fully embedded within it. The quasi-Oedipal struggle between Amsterdam and Bill is meant to have a mythic resonance, but that makes it the most conventional element in the picture.

The relationship between the two men is triangulated by Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a flame-haired thief (and a protégée of Bill's) who catches Amsterdam's eye and steals his lucky religious medallion. But like Sharon Stone in ''Casino,'' Ms. Diaz ends up with no outlet for her spitfire energies, since her character is more a structural necessity -- the linchpin of male jealousy -- than a fully imagined person. The limitations of her role point to a more serious lapse, which is the movie's lack of curiosity about what women's lives might have been like in Old New York.

Like Tony Soprano's crew in the V.I.P. room at the Bada Bing, Bill and his minions spend a lot of time cavorting with half-naked prostitutes, which is fair (and for all I know accurate) enough. But all the glum evocation of lost fathers makes you wonder if any of these guys had mothers, and you wonder what a typical household in the Five Points might have looked like. (Though I, like just about everyone else, had been waiting impatiently for ''Gangs,'' I almost wish Mr. Scorsese and his screenwriters had been delayed long enough to take account of ''Paradise Alley,'' Kevin Baker's new novel about the draft riots of 1863, in which some of the events touched on in this movie are perceived through women's eyes.)

These objections should not detract from an appreciation of what Mr. Scorsese and his cast have done. Mr. DiCaprio and Ms. Diaz may be too pretty for the neighborhood, but one should hardly hold their being movie stars against them; they are smart, eager and intrepid actors as well. For his part Mr. Day-Lewis positively luxuriates in his character's villainy and turns Bill's flavorsome dialogue into vernacular poetry.

He understands the Shakespearean dimensions of the character and has enough art to fill them out. Surrounded by Irish brogues and deracinated British accents, Mr. Day-Lewis has the wit to speak an early version of Noo Yawkese, making the Butcher the butt of a marvelous historical joke: this bigoted, all-but-forgotten nativist, it turns out, bequeathed his speech patterns to the children of the immigrants he despised.

''Gangs of New York'' is an important film as well as an entertaining one. With this project, Mr. Scorsese has made his passionate ethnographic sensibility the vehicle of an especially grand ambition. He wants not only to reconstruct the details of life in a distant era but to construct, from the ground up, a narrative of historical change, to explain how we -- New Yorkers, Americans, modern folk who disdain hand-to-hand bloodletting and overt displays of corruption -- got from there to here, how the ancient laws gave way to modern ones.

Such an ambition is rare in American movies, and rarer still is the sense of tragedy and contradiction that Mr. Scorsese brings to his saga. There is very little in the history of American cinema to prepare us for the version of American history Mr. Scorsese presents here. It is not the usual triumphalist story of moral progress and enlightenment, but rather a blood-soaked revenger's tale, in which the modern world arrives in the form of a line of soldiers firing into a crowd.

The director's great accomplishment, the result of three decades of mulling and research inspired by Herbert Asbury's ''Gangs of New York'' -- a 1928 book nearly as legendary as the world it illuminates -- has been to bring to life not only the texture of the past but its force and velocity as well. For all its meticulously imagined costumes and sets (for which the production designer, Dante Ferretti, surely deserves an Oscar), this is no costume drama.

It is informed not by the polite antiquarianism of Merchant and Ivory but by the political ardor of someone like Luchino Visconti, one of Mr. Scorsese's heroes. ''Senso,'' Visconti's lavish 1953 melodrama set during the Italian Risorgimento (and his first color film), is one of the touchstones of ''My Voyage to Italy,'' Mr. Scorsese's fascinating, quasi-autobiographical documentary on postwar Italian cinema.

Though ''Gangs of New York'' throws in its lot with the rabble rather than the aristocracy, it shares with ''Senso'' (and also with ''The Leopard,'' Visconti's 1965 masterpiece) a feeling that the past, so full of ambiguity and complexity, of barbarism and nobility, continues to send its aftershocks into the present. It shows us a world on the brink of vanishing and manages to mourn that world without doubting the inevitability or the justice of its fate.

''America was born in the streets,'' the posters for ''Gangs'' proclaim. Later, Amsterdam Vallon, in the aftermath of the draft riots, muses that ''our great city was born in blood and tribulation.'' Nobody as steeped in film history as Mr. Scorsese could offer such a metaphor without conjuring the memory of D. W. Griffith's ''Birth of a Nation,'' and Griffith, along with John Ford and others, is one of the targets of Mr. Scorsese's revisionism.

In Griffith's film, adapted from ''The Clansman,'' a best-selling novel by Thomas Dixon, the American republic was reborn after Reconstruction, when the native-born whites of the North and South overcame their sectional differences in the name of racial supremacy. Ford's myth of American origins -- which involved the subjugation of the frontier and the equivocal replacement of antique honor by modern justice -- also typically took place after the Civil War.

In ''Gangs,'' which opens nationwide today, the pivotal event in our history is the riot that convulsed New York in July of 1863. While this emphasis places the immigrant urban working class at the center of the American story -- a fairly radical notion in itself -- the film hardly sentimentalizes the insurrection, which was both a revolt against local and federal authority and a vicious massacre of the black citizens of New York.

The rioters are seen as exploited, oppressed and destined to be cannon fodder in a war they barely understand, but they are far from heroic, and the violence of the riots makes the film's opening gang battle seem quaint and decorous. What we are witnessing is the eclipse of warlordism and the catastrophic birth of a modern society. Like the old order, the new one is riven by class resentment, racism and political hypocrisy, attributes that change their form at every stage of history but that seem to be as embedded in human nature as the capacity for decency, solidarity and courage.

This is historical filmmaking without the balm of right-thinking ideology, either liberal or conservative. Mr. Scorsese's bravery and integrity in advancing this vision can hardly be underestimated.

This movie was a long time in the making, but its life has barely begun. Now that the industry gossip about it has subsided, let us hope that a more substantial discussion can start. People who care about American history, professionally and otherwise, will no doubt weigh in on the accuracy of its particulars and the validity of its interpretation; they will also, I hope, revisit some of their own suppositions in light of its unsparing and uncompromised imagining of the past. I said earlier that ''Gangs of New York'' is nearly a great movie. I suspect that, over time, it will make up the distance.

''Gangs of New York'' is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). The pervasiveness of its violence makes you realize how much New York has changed in a century and a half. On the other hand, the nudity, profanity and sexual references may lead you to think that it has barely changed at all.

GANGS OF NEW YORK

Directed by Martin Scorsese; written by Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan, based on a story by Mr. Cocks; director of photography, Michael Ballhaus; edited by Thelma Schoonmaker; music by Howard Shore; production designer, Dante Ferretti; produced by Alberto Grimaldi and Harvey Weinstein; released by Miramax Films. Running time: 165 minutes. This film is rated R.

WITH: Leonardo DiCaprio (Amsterdam Vallon), Daniel Day-Lewis (Bill the Butcher), Cameron Diaz (Jenny Everdeane), Liam Neeson (Priest Vallon), Jim Broadbent (Boss Tweed), John C. Reilly (Happy Jack), Henry Thomas (Johnny) and Brendan Gleeson (Monk McGinn).


When you think of perfume, you very rarely think about movies. One reason for this is that the two give you such different sensations. Perfume is an olfactory sensation – a smell. Movies give you both audible and visual sensations – images and sounds. It is almost implausible to think that these two sensory experiences could ever cross paths. But don’t tell that to the makers of Perfume: The Story ofPerfume: The Story of a Murderer a Murderer, for they seem to think that even a film can omit a scent.

But before we go into whether Perfume comes out smelling like a rose or manure, it is necessary to understand what the film is all about. Perfume is the story of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw), a boy born with a highly superior olfactory sense who becomes obsessed with preserving all of the world’s smells. There to help him (and profit from his amazingly keen sense of smell) is Italian perfumer Giuseppe Baldini (Dustin Hoffman), who shows Grenouille how to turn scent into oil and make fine perfumes.

And it is up to this point that the film feels almost normal, at its worst just a dark fairy tale. That is, until Grenouille’s obsession takes a strange turn. He becomes so infatuated with making the perfect perfume that he travels to Grasse, a city filled with immaculate scents and beautiful young women, whose smell is also quite attractive to Grenouille. Incapable of just loving women like a normal 18th century Frenchman, Grenouille sets forth on a path of murder, slaying a dozen or so beautiful women so that he can use their scents to possibly make a perfume that would bring a man to his knees.

And from there on out the film is just one twisted, disturbing and yet whimsical twist after another, leading right up to one of the most jaw-dropping endings that I have seen in a while. You won’t drop your jaw because you didn’t see it coming, but you will think to yourself, “I can’t believe they actually did that.” It is a visual that you just have to experience for yourself.

::Flight 93::


Paul Greengrass has crafted one of the most difficult films to sit through with his intense and unforgettable drama, United 93, a film which details the tragic events of September 11th, 2001. Using mostly unknown actors and without inserting a political agenda into the picture, Greengrass has managed to create a taut, extraordinarily haunting film that not only recreates but also honors the last hours in the lives of the passengers and crew aboard the doomed United Airlines Flight 93.
The events of the morning of September 11 play out in as close to real time as possible, with Greengrass shifting focus between the passengers of Flight 93, air traffic control towers in Boston and New York, the FAA base in Virginia, and a military control center.

United 93 begins with the four hijackers of Flight 93 preparing for the day’s devastating events by praying and shaving their bodies. The film proceeds to show the passengers and crew of UA Flight 93 boarding the plane, with one man racing to catch the flight at the last minute. Delayed on the tarmac at Newark, strangers begin the ritual of making small talk while waiting for the plane to take-off. Nothing extraordinary is going on. At that point, it’s a day just like any other.

Greengrass then shifts the story to follow air traffic controllers as they begin to realize there’s something unusual going on in the skies above America. A controller out of Boston is the first to suspect a plane has been hijacked. Losing touch with American Flight 11, his repeated attempts to raise the plane on the radio are met with silence. Then a voice speaking with a heavy accent is heard and the hijacking is all but confirmed.

David Alan Basche as UA Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer in United 93.

Even with the evidence piling up, his supervisor and other controllers are unsure how to proceed. Hijackings are so rare, no one really understands how to handle the news. Soon chaos breaks out as more planes are suspected of being hijacked. The FAA’s newly promoted operations manager, Ben Sliney, is quickly overloaded and overwhelmed. Sliney can’t get the information he needs from the control towers. He can’t find his military liaison to brief him and get the military into the loop. It’s Sliney’s first day on the job and he’s expected to handle a situation no one in their wildest dreams imagined would ever happen. [Interesting note: Ben Sliney plays himself in the film]

As we all know now, and as Greengrass illustrates so well in United 93, the people in charge on the ground had no idea the planes were going to crash into buildings. Listening to the air traffic controllers and the military try and figure out where the hijackers were going to land is actually sickening. It’s obvious one hand doesn’t know what the other’s doing, but Greengrass restrains himself from placing blame and instead lays out the story as matter of factly as possible. We have the benefit of hindsight; those trying to decipher the events as they were unfolding did not.

The last act of United 93 plays out with the passengers and crew of UA Flight 93 confronting the hijackers. Via phone calls with friends and relatives, the passengers collectively come to the realization the hijackers don't intend to land the plane. By the time the hijackers take control of Flight 93, three other planes had hit their targets. The people aboard UA Flight 93 knew they were going to crash and that their only course of action was to try and take back the plane. United 93 allows us to be the fly on the wall as the passengers and flight crew work out a plan of attack. Together this group of strangers, these heroes, say good-bye to loved ones and then rush the cockpit.

Granted, we will never know for sure exactly what happened that day on that plane, but Greengrass (Bloody Sunday) did everything he could - with the assistance of family members of the deceased passengers – to recreate the events as they likely played out. He portrays everyone in the film, from the hijackers to the innocent passengers and crew aboard the four planes to the air traffic controllers to members of the military, as ordinary human beings. Each has his or her own motivation; each has their own story to tell.

My first words upon exiting the theater – and I recall this distinctly – were, “How can I possibly review that?” What I meant was how do you suggest to strangers, and to Americans in particular, that they should go pay $10 to watch a film this gut-wrenching, this emotionally difficult to handle? Your decision whether or not to see United 93 shouldn’t be based on reviews of the film. It’s a choice each individual needs to make based on your own state of mind.

Greengrass’ documentary-like style may be too unemotional for some, but I believe Greengrass accomplished what he set out to do with United 93 by paying attention to the facts. The reaction to watching United 93 in a theater is emotional enough, the film doesn’t need to employ any ruses to move audience members.

If you believe you can watch this from an objective point of view, think again. This isn’t so much a film as a memorial to the victims of 9/11. My advice is if you’re willing to put yourself through the experience, bring plenty of tissues.

GRADE: A

United 93 was directed by Paul Greengrass and is rated R for language and some intense sequences of terror and violence.

::Blood Diamond::2006


For most of us diamonds are a symbol of status and wealth, but in the countries where they are mined it stands for nothing more than racial oppression and economic exploitation.

Edward Zwick's "Blood Diamond" is a blend of gripping drama and frightening reality that captures the conflict for the possession of precious stones.

It is an edge-of-the-seat action thriller with morality as its subtext. It's difficult to find a superlative for Zwick's excellent craftsmanship which keeps you hooked till the end.

As the story unfolds you gasp in shock, flinch in pain, shudder at the unrestrained brutality and by the time the movie reaches its climax you are dismayed and disgusted seeing the so-called civilised people losing their sanity in quest for diamonds.

It is one of those rare films that leave you satiated but at the same time has lingering effect on the mind. You are haunted by the images of innocent children, who are kidnapped, brainwashed, drugged and forced to take up arms to terrorise and kill people.

You are likely to have an aversion to the precious stones after watching the film.

Set in Sierra Leone during the 1990's civil war, it revolves around a diamond smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), an ex-mercenary who can go to any length to possess a pink diamond found by Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsoun), a fisherman.

Vandy is a victim of the civil war carried on by hell-raising rebels executing one of the most brutal military campaigns to make more money for themselves and the so-called sophisticated diamond merchants.

During an attack by a rebel group, Vandy is captured and separated from his family. The rebels forced him to work in a diamond field and while digging for the precious stones he finds a rare pink diamond and hides it. But, before he could retrieve the priceless stone, the diamond field is attacked.

What happens after that forms the climax of the film!

Performance wise it is flawless! DiCaprio is simply awesome. He has certainly come a long from his days of "Gangs of New York". His maturity as an actor is evident in his two back-to-back releases - "The Departed" and "Blood Diamond".

His character has many shades in the film and he excels in each of them, especially in scenes where he brings forth his character's internal conflict.

Djimon Hounsou as Vandy, one of the many Africans who dreams of a normal life, immensely impresses you with his performance. The chemistry between DiCaprio and Hounsou is indeed a highlight of the film.

Apart from DiCaprio and Hounsou, Jennifer Connelly too impresses as a journalist who tries to expose the consequences of the conflict through her write-ups. However, she is aware that it will not have the desired effect on people tucked away in a safe world.

She knows people will read it, discuss it and then go back to their routine lives.

There was a lot of hype about Indian actor Gaurav Chopra sharing screen space with Hollywood biggies, but he just has a blink-and-miss role in the film.

The director has not only succeeded in extracting the best from each of his actors but has also managed to put across a moral message without making it too preachy and melodramatic.

"Blood diamond" is a must see.

::Children of Heaven::


``Children of Heaven'' is very nearly a perfect movie for children, and of course that means adults will like it, too. It lacks the cynicism and smart-mouth attitudes of so much American entertainment for kids and glows with a kind of good-hearted purity. To see this movie is to be reminded of a time when the children in movies were children and not miniature stand-up comics.

The movie is from Iran. Immediately you think kids would not be interested in such a movie. It has subtitles. Good lord! Kids will have to read them! But its subtitles are easy for 8- or 9-year-olds, who can whisper them to their siblings, and maybe this is their perfect introduction to subtitles. As for Iran: The theme of this movie is so universal there is not a child who will not be wide-eyed with interest and suspense.

The film is about a boy who loses his sister's shoes. He takes them to the cobbler for repairs, and on the way home, when he stops to pick up vegetables for his mother, a blind trash collector accidentally carries them away. Of course, the boy, named Ali, is afraid to tell his parents. Of course, his sister, named Zahra, wants to know how she is supposed to go to school without shoes. The children feverishly write notes to each other, right under their parent's noses.

The answer is simple: Zahra will wear Ali's sneakers to school every morning, and then run home so that Ali can put them on for his school in the afternoon. But Zahra cannot always run fast enough, and Ali, who is a good student, gets in trouble for being late to class. And there is a heartbreaking scene where Zahra solemnly regards her own precious lost shoes, now on the feet of the ragpicker's daughter.

I submit that this situation is scarier and more absorbing for children than a movie about Godzilla or other manufactured entertainments. Even when you're a kid, you know you're not likely to be squished by a giant lizard, but losing something that has been entrusted to you? And getting in trouble at school? That's big time.

Majid Majidi's film has a wonderful scene where Ali and his father bicycle from the almost medieval streets and alleys of the old town to the high-rises and luxury homes where the rich people live. The father hopes for work as a gardener, but he is intimidated by the challenge of speaking into the intercoms on the gates of the wealthy. His son jumps in, with offers of pruning, weeding, spraying and trimming. It is a great triumph.

And then there is a footrace for the poor children of the quarter. The winner gets two weeks in a summer camp and other prizes. Ali doesn't care. He wants to place third, because the prize is a new pair of sneakers, which he can give to his sister. My guess is that the race and its outcome will be as exciting for many kids as anything they've seen at the movies.

``Children of Heaven'' is about a home without unhappiness. About a brother and sister who love one another, instead of fighting. About situations any child can identify with. In this film from Iran, I found a sweetness and innocence that shames the land of Mutant Turtles, Power Rangers and violent video games. Why do we teach our kids to see through things, before they even learn to see them?



An intoxicating shot of cinematic adrenaline, "City of God" starts with a desperate chicken escaping slaughter and being chased by a gang of pistol-packing prepubescents.

It's an apt allegory for the frantic fight for survival of the protagonists in this ferocious blast of gangster mayhem.

Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues) narrates our journey into the slums of Rio de Janeiro, the City of God. A child of the 60s, he witnesses two decades of barbarity, greed, rape and revenge which fuel a catastrophic gang war.

Fear and an instinct for self-preservation keep him on the straight and narrow, but his childhood associate Li'l Zé (Leandro Firmino da Hora) grows into the ghetto's godfather - a ruthless, demented killer who makes Joe Pesci's "GoodFellas" psycho look like Mary Poppins.

Comparison's with Scorsese's crime classic are inevitable, given the hyperkinetic action, tar black comedy, and eye-snatching visual panache. But while there's no doubting the genius of "GoodFellas", for all its brutality it remained a caper, a gripping spectacle of hood vs hood, where the mobsters chose their glamour-filled lifestyle and ultimately got what they deserved.

In "City of God", desperation drives children to acts of outrageous violence, crime appears to be the only option in the moral and economic wasteland of the Brazilian favelas. Even the grotesque Li'l Zé is not without humanity, while the fate of other so-called gangsters is poignant.

For all its whiz-bang camerawork and outrageous entertainment value, the movie is grounded by its true life origins (Paulo Lins' fact-based novel), and the superb performances of a largely non-professional cast recruited from the streets. Gut-troubling horror follows cruel bellylaughs, and the relentless action is underscored by unforgiving poverty.

Shocking, frightening, thrilling and funny, "City of God" has the substance to match its lashings of style. Cinema doesn't get more exhilarating than this.


Ashton Kutcher plays Evan Treborn, a troubled man who suffered blackouts as a child. When he discovers a way to travel back into the body of his past self, his time trips start to cause negative results on his present. As he uses his powers to try to fix his past and present, the effect escalates, creating alternate realities, many of which are worse than the past that he is trying to change.

The Butterfly Effect is a terrific thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The previews looked very intense and the whole film is pretty much like that. It held onto the audience right at the start and it didn't let go until the end. The plot is nothing new but the execution was very nice. It offers a bunch of interesting and unpredictable twists so it's hard to see where things are going. The whole film is like that, just one long engaging thrill ride.

The acting is okay, some people did better than others. Ashton Kutcher is surprisingly good as Evan and he does a good job for his first serious movie. Amy Smart is very pretty and talented and she plays Kayleigh perfectly. The only person I didn't really like was Melora Walters. She was pretty wooden and unconvincing. Besides for her, the acting was pretty good and convincing. No one really did a bad job.

This film was directed and written by both Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber. They did make their mistakes but the film is still pretty good. The critics never gave this movie a chance. As soon as they heard Ashton Kutcher was in it, they all prepared to give it thumbs down. The movie moves around a lot that its hard to keep up but it also keeps you paying attention. Plenty of movies have gone back in time before but this one does it so more effectively that its almost original in that sense. The beginning is done well, the middle it starts dragging but it starts picking up and the ending is done extremely well. This is one of the best films of 2004 and certainly an entertaining one. In the end, this underrated gem is worth checking out. Rating 8/10

::The Butterfly Effect 2::


Cast: Eric Lively, Erica Durance, Dustin Milligan, Gina Holden, JR Bourne
Director: John R. Leonetti
Screenplay: Michael D. Weiss

The original The Butterfly Effect was the brainchild of writer-directors Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber, who had previously written a sequel for another gimmicky series in Final Destination 2. There's more than that connection to link these two different series, as both feature sequels that are only tangentially related to the others, essentially remakes more so than continuations of previous storylines. The problem with a film like The Butterfly Effect 2 is that, unlike the gory, humorous Final Destination series, there really isn't much joy in the plot itself after understanding it the first time. Since we all know where it's going, we have little vested interest in the artificial storyline, and without any humor or titillation to speak of, it's little more than a mechanical, joyless regurgitation, except with no-name stars and lesser production values.

This episode, wholly unrelated to the first film, features Eric Lively (Speak, The Pact) portraying Nick, a 20-something man on the verge of a personal and professional boom. It's his girlfriend Julie's (Durance, "Smallville") birthday, and as special as he wants her day to be, he must unfortunately head back to work, as he is jockeying for a big promotion, and doesn't want the job handed to someone seen as more loyal to the company. Tragedy strikes when he loses control of the car, causing the big rig behind him to smash into his SUV, killing off Julie, his potential promotion, and his happiness. A year passes and he is still not over the event, but he has begun to feel strange effects in the pictures he looks at, finally culminating in regressing himself back into the moments depicted in the photos, this time with the ability to change his future. However, when he returns to the present, Nick doesn't always like what he finds.

Given that I didn't really enjoy the first film, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I also don't have much love for this very redundant sequel. The short summation is that it is essentially the same movie with different characters and situations, and instead of a diary, the time-travel is done through photographs. Even if you did like the first film, I can't really understand what would appeal to you about seeing it done again, as the script by Michael Weiss (Crocodile, Octopus) gives no new twists on the formula, and doesn't ever try to explain how such a bizarre phenomenon could actually happen and why.

Since I can't recommend the film to people that liked The Butterfly Effect, the only audience out there that I could see actually finding this story intriguing would be those that have never seen the original but find the premise interesting. About the kindest thing I can say about this rehash is that it isn't as dark in its tone and themes, making it much easier to take for those squeamish about sadistically repugnant scenes of child abuse. I should point out that, even if I had never seen the original, it is highly doubtful that this would have actually thrilled me as a standalone entry enough to give this a higher rating than I have here.

I suppose there is an irony in knowing that this sequel/remake is the opposite of the main premise of the film. In the fictional story, someone goes back to relive the same events but takes a different direction; in the reality of this sequel, the makers of The Butterfly Effect 2 have chosen to relive different events and choose the same direction. Regardless of the differences, both the fiction and the reality do come up with the same conclusion:- going back and reliving past events doesn't always produce better results in the present.

::Enemy at the Gates ::


Tagline: "Some Men Are Born To Be Heroes."

Length: 131 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for strong graphic war violence and some sexuality.

Early on in Enemy at the Gates, we're shown a map of Europe with Germany colored brown overprinted with a large black swastika and the Soviet Union colored red overprinted with a large white hammer and sickle. Then the brown starts to spread over most of the map as a voice intones, "Autumn, 1942. Europe lies crushed beneath the Nazi jackboot. The German Third Reich is at the height of its power. Hitler's armies are charging through the heart of the Soviet Union towards the oil fields of Asia. One last obstacle remains: the city on the Volga where the fate of the world is being decided -- Stalingrad." From this point on, we're in for an old-fashioned World War II story with exciting action sequences, a heavy-handed musical score, and a legendary hero.

We're soon shown a harrowing combat sequence where the desperate Soviets throw everything they have into the defense of Stalingrad. But the Soviets don't even have enough rifles to issue one to each soldier, so they issue as many as they can and send all the soldiers into combat with the instructions: "The one with the rifle shoots. The one without, follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots." The Soviet troops are slaughtered when they charge the Germans, but when some of them try to retreat, they're shot by their own officers.

In the chaos of battle, two Soviet soldiers wind up in a large, ornate fountain in the city center. One of these is Sergeant Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), a former shepherd who is extraordinarily proficient with a rifle since he grew up in the Urals shooting wolves. The other is an idealistic political officer named Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), a gifted public relations man whose combat skills are minimal. Danilov watches as Vassili kills five Germans, and the two Russians are able to get back to the Soviet lines safely.

Meanwhile, ruthless Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is determined to hold Stalingrad at all costs, partly because of its strategic importance, but also for psychological reasons: The city has been named after him. Stalin's envoy Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) comes to Stalingrad and warns a group of Soviet political officers, "If the Germans capture this city, the entire country will collapse." Khrushchev demands suggestions as to how to motivate Soviet troops to stand up to the Germans, and Danilov proposes, "What we need are heroes." "Do you know any heroes around here?" asks Khrushchev, to which Danilov replies, "Yes, Comrade, I know one."

With Khrushchev's support, Danilov uses newspapers and radio to make Vassili a national hero. Vassili is transferred to a sniper unit, where he rattles German nerves by gradually picking off dozens of their officers in Stalingrad. Soon Vassili has to answer boxes of fan mail, but his writing skills are so limited that his responses are dictated by the wordsmith Danilov.

One day Vassili and Danilov meet the attractive Sergeant Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz), and we eventually learn that women served in combat positions in the Red Army during World War II. Both Vassili and Danilov fall in love with Tania, but Tania loves only Vassili. Later in the film there's a tender scene where Tania and Vassili lie in a room filled with Soviet soldiers sleeping fitfully because they all know that most of them will be killed the next day. Tania removes her glove and pushes her bare hand down inside the front of Vassili's trousers, and moments later they make love with the lower parts of their bodies covered by a blanket.

Meanwhile, the German high command has become painfully aware of Vassili and sends their top sharpshooter, Major Konig (Ed Harris), to kill him. Konig is an aristocratic Bavarian whose son died at the hands of the Russians at Stalingrad. When Konig arrives to carry out his mission, German General Paulus asks him, "How are you going to go about finding this young Russian?" "I'll fix it," answers Konig, "so that he is the one who finds me." This sets up the most involving part of the film as Vassili and Konig enter into a deadly cat-and-mouse game in bombed-out stores and factories.

Through Tania, Vassili befriends her neighbor, a young boy named Sacha (Gabriel Marshall-Thomson). Sacha quickly comes to idolize Vassili. But Sacha also works as a shoeshine boy, and one day he shines the boots of Major Konig. Thus, Sacha becomes the only direct link between Vassili and Konig, and Konig plies the boy with chocolate in the hope of getting information about his adversary. One day Konig asks Sacha about Vassili, "Is there a girl he loves in his village?" "Not in his village," answers Sacha. "Here!" "Does she love him?" Konig asks, and Sacha responds, "Yes, because he's handsome! Because he's brave! And she's very beautiful. I know her well. She's from my neighborhood... Later, the two of them will get married." But Sacha has put himself in grave danger because Konig now realizes that the boy's admiration for Vassili is so great that he won't betray him.

Quite a few twists and turns remain, but the movie goes on to show the tragic fate of young Sacha. We also see an unexpected act of heroism by Danilov and learn how the sniper duel between Vassili and Major Konig comes out. In a brief epilogue, we see the Soviets celebrating victory, and we find out a little more about what happened to Vassili and Tania. This is an old-fashioned picture where all the loose ends are neatly tidied up.

Enemy at the Gates is a heavy-handed movie, and anyone expecting subtlety will be disappointed. But I see this film as spectacle, and viewed that way, it works well. The huge battle scenes are absolutely terrific, and the sniper scenes in a department store and a chemical factory are gripping. Also, when larger-than-life characters get to make speeches -- like when Bob Hoskins as Nikita Khrushchev says, "Vodka is a luxury we have. Caviar is a luxury we have. Time is not." -- it's great stuff.

It's too bad, though, that Enemy at the Gates isn't really successful at balancing its grandiose scenes with intimate moments when we get to know two or three of the individual characters better. It seems to me that all the raw materials were present in this movie for me to be exhilarated at some moments and deeply saddened at others, but this didn't happen because the human dimension to the story is largely missing. In particular, even though Jude Law is a good actor, his character Vassili Zaitsev is written in such a way that he doesn't evoke much of an emotional response. I can't help comparing Law's Vassili with Gary Cooper's portrayal of the title character in Sergeant York, and it seems to me that Cooper's York comes off as the more heroic figure by far.

It may be a little impolite of me, but perhaps I should say something about the language conventions used in Enemy at the Gates. Since the film is aimed at English-speaking audiences, it's not surprising that all the Russians always speak in English. However, the Russians print and write in Russian, so if it's important for English-speakers to know what's printed or written, English subtitles are used. This treatment of the Russian characters isn't too strange, but it seems very peculiar to me that the Germans speak in German, unless it's important for English-speakers to know what they're saying, in which case they speak in English! It's possible that the conventions chosen were the best way of dealing with the language problems posed by this movie, but I sometimes found this a little jarring.

I would say that Enemy at the Gates is a good, but not a great, movie. During the film's combat scenes and the duel between Vassili and Konig, it's very good indeed. But when it tries to show the conflicted friendship between Vassili and Danilov or the romantic relationship between Vassily and Tania, the movie falters. Still, I recommend Enemy at the Gates as a good chance to learn a little about history and be entertained at the same time.

;;