Reviews

I have just watched Fight Club for about the 10th time with the director/cast commentary and felt compelled to write about how much I love this film.

Whilst most films don't bear a second viewing, the joy of Fight Club is that with each viewing another incredible detail is uncovered. There is just so much happening in every scene that one viewing is not enough - and you will miss many of the hilarious references in the dialogue if you don't go back for a second look. Any film that is critical of Martha Stewart can't be bad.

I'm not going to bother with recapping the plot - too many writers on this site have already done that job for me. All I will say is that those people who were upset about the violence in Fight Club when it was released totally missed the point and probably shouldn't be seeing this sort of film anyway.... Oh, and I'm female so the explicit violence is not just for men.

All the performances were fabulous (and I have to comment on how incredibly hot Mr Pitt looked) and the bleak and at times strangely lit vision of David Fincher served the story brilliantly.

Probably the best film of its year and criminally overlooked during awards season, there is so much to enjoy about Fight Club. I recommend this film highly to those discerning viewers who go to see films to be challenged and to have a really good laugh because Fight Club is genuinely funny. I promise you won't be disappointed.

9/10 from me.

I am addicted to this show - it combines clever writing with an excellent cast and great production and comes up with something unlike anything else on TV.

Of the cast, James Marsters is my current fave (Spike always gets the best and funniest lines) but everyone is consistently good. I wasn't that keen on Tara to begin with but her character has developed well and is now one of the more interesting. SMG is, of course, terrific and carries the action with style.

What continues to make this show interesting is the quality of the minor characters (at the moment, the three dorks trying to take over Sunnydale are just hilarious) and the guest villains. I love the way characters come and go over several seasons and it is difficult to imagine that Joss Whedon hadn't planned many of these story arcs years in advance.

Although I was concerned where the series would go when Angel left (pretty hard to replace a man that gorgeous), Buffy has managed to keep evolving both in her professional (??) capacity as a slayer and as a person so that the Buffy we see in series 6 is unrecognisable from Buffy in series 1.

The writers are to be commended for the consistently witty but often challenging dialogue and all behind the scenes do a great job in making this series as fresh as it was when it first hit our screens.

Unlike many shows in TV, Buffy rewards the long-time viewer and continues to surprise. Let's hope it keeps going for many years to come.

This is a lovingly crafted, beautifully acted ensemble piece set in an English Country House which is superficially a murder mystery. In reality, it is damning indictment of the class system and the level of servitude expected from those at the top of the tree from those that wait upon them.

What was surprising was the level of humour that Altman brings to what is, as it unfolds, a very sad story of transgression and loss. Maggie Smith has all the funniest lines as a viscious but impoverished woman who comes to her family with begging cap in hand. Those playing characters "above stairs" all look and sound the part and effortlessly give the impression of wealth and privelege and the callousness that breeds.

Many of the "downstairs" characters drive the story and there are some wonderfully wry performances from the likes of Richard E Grant and Alan Bates. As the moral centre of the film, Kelly McDonald is excellent and is well matched by Emily Watson as Emily and Clive Owen as Parkes. Ruling the downstairs troop is Helen Mirren whose cool visage hides a seething mass of emotion. A well deserved nomination here.

Only Robert Altman could assemble a cast of this magnitude and distinction and have many of them speak no more than a few lines ! Greats of English theatre like Derek Jacobi have small but memorable roles and there is not a bad note struck from any of the predominantly English cast.

I was slightly puzzled by the character played by Ryan Phillipe (although his perforamce was fine) but felt that the intrusion of two Americans into this English mix worked well to highlight the entrenched class roles played by everyone in the house.

Whilst perhaps not his best work, this is a very good Altman film - we move in and out of conversations whilst never losing their import and the cimematography has a fluidity that few other film makers can match.

A classy piece of film-making that rewards careful attention from the viewer.

I saw the movie a week ago and still haven't been able to come up with a better word to describe LOTR than "thrilling". For once, words fail me.

Although I have read the books, I didn't go along expecting to see a totally faithful adaptation but Jackson included far more than I had hoped for and retained the sense of wonder I felt when first reading the books over 20 years ago.

The production design, acting and effects were all first class and Jackson's vision was truly breathtaking. I could single out various performers but that would do a disservice to everyone involved. The New Zealand setting was beautiful (and this from an Australian !!) and although there were a few scenes when the CGI were obvious, they didn't detract from the whole experience. Like some other reviewers on this site, I found the cinematography in the fight scenes somewhat offputting but these are minor grips when compared with all that is good about LOTR.

The best compliment I can give this movie is that I saw it with my parents who are both in their 60s and who NEVER like any movie I like and we all loved every minute.

Bravo New Line for having the guts to put up the money and then let the director do his stuff with what appears to be minimal interference. Can't believe that this came out in the same year as the equally expensive but totally stupid "Pearl Harbour" - talk about from the sublime to the ridiculous. LOTR should win Best Picture at the oscars - the Academy can then rest easy by rewarding a film that made stacks of money (surely the Academy's main motivator - think Forest Gump, Titanic) with the added bonus that it has artistic merit.

See it and be transported to another world for three magical hours.

This must be one of the most offensive movies ever made and I am truly appalled at the central theme, namely that being stupid makes you a better person. Everything about this film is patronising and overwrought. Can't believe that Tom Hanks (surely the most over-rated actor on the planet) won an Oscar for this pulp and if this was the best film of 1994 then god help us all.

Don't waste your money at the video store - rent something (anything) other than this garbage.

Every so often, all the elements come together to create a truly memorable viewing experience. LA Confidential is such a movie.

From the taut, clever (and often funny) script to the outstanding casting, from the exceptional production design to the inspired direction, this film has everything going for it and easily bears repeated viewing.

The story of three very different policemen and the manner in which their lives intersect is handled with skill and intelligence by all involved and, as the story unfolds, the twists and turns leave the viewer engrossed. Bud White (Russell Crowe), Jack Vincennes(Kevin Spacey) and Edmund Exley (Guy Pearce) represent three different types of men all searching for a form of salvation - the ambitious and prim Exley to be released from the shadow of his father's murder, the vain and showy Vincennes for validation through a quasi-fame and the abusing and abused White for love. How these men change as events force them to confront their demons is the film's emotional core.

All the major players are excellent (Guy Pearce and James Cromwell being the standouts for me) but it is the minor players who really hold the film together. Think of Mrs Lefferts and her sad, little life or the slimy, morally bankrupt DA. The casting of all the characters is exceptional and a major contributor to the film's success.

The script is intelligent and does justice to James Ellroy's book and the cinematography, costuming and design evoke the feel of LA in the 50s.

Curtis Hanson has fashioned a film noir for the 90s which was criminally overlooked at the Academy Awards in favour of the risible Titanic. The three main leads could all have won Best Actor (and should have all been nominated) and Cromwell should have won Best Supporting Actor.

If you enjoy intelligent, compelling film-making, then this is the film for you.

As an Australian who has spent many years extolling the virtues of Australian movies to friends in other countries, I am proud of the Australian film industry for continuing to produce challenging movies for people over the age of 18.

There is much to admire in a film like Lantana, particularly in a year when the quality of the movies Hollywood has produced has been so uniformly poor. Lantana shows that a good script in the hands of a talented cast and a subtle director can be made into a clever and interesting experience.

I was particularly taken by the supporting cast rather than the headliners (La Paglia, Armstrong, Hershey and Rush). Vince Colosimo and Daniella Facinelli (hope that's the right spelling) were a convincing and realistic couple and it was great to see the likes of Peter Phelps and Glenn Robbins cast against type. For my money, the pick of the performances was Rachel Blake whose role as a not particularly likeable but incredibly real woman was played with empathy and conviction.

It is interesting to see a movie based almost entirely on one emotional premise - trust between partners being all important in a relationship. All of the main relationships (bar one) flounder on the basis of diminishing trust and it is this that drives the action. A clever and adult idea which highlights the movie's origins in a play.

My only gripe was that the movie was perhaps 10 minutes too long and I found the ending slightly too convenient, although I was the only one in my group who felt that so perhaps I'm just a cynic.

In a year of movies made to appeal to people whose IQ is less than their age, it is nice to see a group of talented people aiming high and almost achieving all they set out to do.