Another mindf*** from David Lynch has some great visuals and once I did some research afterward, some of it actually makes sense, though while watching there plenty wtf moments. Not sure I love it or not but appreciate many elements. **3.75/5**

**Lynch's Masterpiece.**
This is my favorite Lynch films, hands down.
First saw it in a theatre and the film's lighting was so weird and disorienting that at times you weren't sure if there was some weird exterior light source hitting the screen. Uber weird.
More twist and turns than the highway itself :P
For sure it's fun to try and nail down exactly what happened but IMHO it's a little more fun not to know - each time you rewatch it you might see/think/feel something different.

Oppresing and disturbing movie. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are superb and the OST is well chosen but the movie leaves too many questions open which leaves a bitter after taste.

The megalomanic Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) is bent on releasing the imprisoned Titans from their gilded cage deep inside the mountain. Using a magical bow and arrow he's stolen from Ares (Daniel Sharman) he is about to cause havoc when Zeus (Luke Evans) engages the services of Theseus (Henry Cavill) to help thwart his plans and thus save the Greeks from tyranny. With some sagely advice from John Hurt, he now embarks on a lively series of escapades that allows the full panoply of mythological beasts, a shirtless hero and lots of entertaining visual effects to fill a couple of hours. No, the acting isn't really great nor is the script, but it's a vehicle for some beautiful people to present some intricately choreographed action scenes whilst the CGI boys do their best to create an atmosphere that's ideal for this story of the mortal trying to save the day. Rourke delivers well, if really quite sparingly, as the menacing baddie and there's always Stephen Dorff to add to the bevvy of hunks on display here. If you like the genre, and I do, then this isn't really very substantial and the story all rather weak, but this isn't really about a story it's about a computer-enhanced aesthetic showcasing some handsome people plundering ancient legend for our entertainment. It's not "Clash of the Titans" (1981) but it's not terrible, either - and that metal roasting cow - yikes!

Immortals is like stepping into a Greek mythology fever dream where everyone looks like they just walked out of a tanning booth, but hey, it works for the aesthetic. The movie is a visual powerhouse, with Tarsem Singh crafting a bold, surreal take on mythology that feels more like a painting in motion than your average action flick. The fight scenes are undeniably the highlight, stylized, brutal, and dripping with energy. Henry Cavill shines as Theseus, delivering a performance that feels grounded amidst the chaos, while Mickey Rourke's Hyperion brings an intimidating presence, even if his character lacks complexity.
Where Immortals stumbles is in its story, which feels more like a vehicle for the visuals than an engaging narrative. The characters are serviceable, but most lack depth, leaving you wanting more from the emotional stakes. That said, if you’re here for striking visuals, intense action, and a unique twist on Greek mythology, it’s still a fun ride. Think of it as a movie you watch for the spectacle--not for the substance. Worth watching if you’re in the mood for a stylized, no-strings-attached mythological adventure.

Everyone talks about how _Immortals_ is a _300_ ripoff, and don't get me wrong, it absolutely is, but I haven't yet seen anyone talk about how it's also a bit of a _God of War_ ripoff.
I'm actually quite fond of historically-set mythology films, but I don't believe the problem with _Immortals_ isn't the setting or the genre, it's the motivation behind its being made the way it was. The _300_ movie exists to be an adaptation of the _300_ comic book, the _Immortals_ movie exists because the _300_ movie made money. (Don't get me wrong, I know that the real motivation behind both these, and of any other studio film, is money. But someone involved somewhere has to want more from their movie than that. And _Immortals_ doesn't give me the vibe that anyone did).
I can handle _Immortals_ doing what _300_ does. Hell, if enough people rip an idea off over a long enough period of time, in movies, we call that a genre. My issue is that it **only** exists to do what _300_ did, yet it does **all** of it so much worse. There are maybe two fights in _Immortals_ that last for longer than 30 seconds, even with all that slow-mo stretching the runtime, and neither are filmed as well as the ones in _300_. It's nowhere near as fun, it's not superior in any technical category, it's harder to tell what the fuck is going on. Even the acting, which is NOT _300's_ strong suit, is worse here than it is there. There were maybe flashes where you could glimpse a cohesive idea that desired to form, but it never even got close.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Total failure of doing a movie with the aesthetics and success of "300".
Mediocre story, bad planned action scenes, tons of Fx, poorly developed characters and tons of stereotypes.

QUALITY ACTING FROM ZOE SALADANA. THE SCRIPT IS A WEAK , STORY GREAT GREAT FEMALE REVENGE FILM. KIND OF REMINDS ME OF "THE PROFESSIONAL".

Solid revenge/assassination thriller, story has some very emotional moments, well acted even, which still somehow fail to engage the audience. The action sequences are mostly very good contemporary quality, except for too many blur cuts in a certain "boss fight".
Pity this falls flat in some parts; main character(s) would've enough substance for a few sequels if developed further.
No regrets having watched it, I was entertained, but wouldn't re-watch.

"Helen" (Goldie Hawn) has always lived in the shadow of her friend, the successful actress "Madeline" (Meryl Streep), but when she loses her fiancée - renowned, if rather dowdy, plastic surgeon "Dr. Menville" (Bruce Willis) to her, she loses the plot. Eventually twice the size and evicted from her apartment with her hands still glued to the ice cream pot, she is sent to a mental institution were she finally concocts a plan for revenge. Meantime, the marriage has rather gone to seed. "Madeline" seeks comfort in the arms of younger men, but when her latest beau rejects her, she finds herself - via the kindly intervention of an almost unrecognisable Ian Ogilvy ("Chagall") - in the lair of the seductive "Lisle von Rhuman" (Isabella Rossellini) who offers her eternal youth. Of course there is a price - but will she pay it? What ensues for the last forty five minutes is really quite entertaining. Streep and Hawn look like they are enjoying themselves as their antics become comically macabre. Willis, the now bottle-hitting doctor - who has been largely reduced to manicuring corpses - is also clearly having some fun and Rossellini hams up wonderfully. The ending isn't my favourite, but I suppose it was "fair" and desserts were just. This is an amiable, feel-good, comedy with everyone on good form, some lovely snide dialogue and I liked it.

This is an amazing movie of survival on the open sea. I'm going to watch this again, in a few years from now, when I've forgotten the details. Highly recommended film. It's theme may not be one that lifts your mood, but still, watch it. You won't regret it, it restores faith in what we are able to pull through.

Awesome awesome movie. Now I wish their were sequels to this movie. The old lady freaked me out when I first saw this. That scene alone got me hooked on this movie.

This is definitely my favourite Hitchcock thriller. Adapted from Frederick Knott's equally enduring stage play; Ray Milland is wonderfully suave, debonaire and calculating as "Tony" who goes to some effort to enact the perfect murder to despatch his cheating wife (Grace Kelly). He hires petty crook Anthony Dawson to do the deed, but it all goes wrong and she ends up alive, well and leaving him with an unforeseen headache. Enter, in my view, the star of this film - John Williams ("Chief Inspector Hubbard") a resolutely persistent terrier of a police officer who is not at all convinced by the explanations he is getting and now we play the mother of all cat-and-mouse games. Dimitri Tiomkin's score adds tons to this expertly paced, thoroughly engrossing story that builds to a cleverly developed crescendo.

It is very obvious that this was written as a play. It is very heavy on exposition to cover almost all activities that take place outside of the "essentially" one room of the apartment. Nothing wrong with that, but it gives the film a different feel. This is more of an intellectual exercise than a action-packed murder mystery. It might have been better to have written Tony as a chess master than a former tennis star. It would have been a bit more in keeping with his plots and strategies. Even the action in the actual murder scene is "play-like" - a rather exaggerated initial reaction to being stabbed followed by the more drawn out dying, dying, dead finale.
Each time I watch this movie, I'm always struck by the strange idea that apparently every citizen is required to account for every pound note that they acquire and spend? I have no idea if this was remotely true in England in 1954, but it seems odd and unlikely. It's not critical, but it is jarring when they talk about it, because it seems so unnatural.
This is a great movie and a great story. However, the over-head camera angles for some scenes seems a strange choice, and Grace Kelly is clearly under-utilized in this role. Margot is such a compliant character that it seems very unlikely that she would engage in an extra-marital affair and then be so nonchalant about being with her former lover together with her husband.
While my criticisms might give the impression that I disliked the movie, these are only minor flaws in a superior film. Hitchcock is able to convey so much through an actor's mere glance - it is incredible!

While this is not one of the most popular Alfred Hitchcock films out there, it is still brilliant.
You can immediately recognise this film has Sir Alfred Hitchcock’s signature on it from the way the film is shot and its story is told.
I did not know anything about the film before I started watching it and I am glad I did it. There were plenty of surprises to see me going to the end of the film.
Would I watch it again? Possibly. Would I make my friends watch it? Definitely.

Just with a glance at the cast list and the knowledge that it's directed by the legendary film-making genius Alfred Hitchcock, you know it's going to be good. This taut, nicely-done thriller was originally filmed in 3D, though I wouldn't say it's any less effective when viewed normally. Ray Milland and Grace Kelly are both very accomplished actors, and are very enjoyable here. Watch for John Williams as Inspector Hubbard from Scotland Yard; he's like a British Columbo! The story moves along at a good clip, with interesting dialogue and good twists. Watch out for that lethal pair of scissors!

No, I'm afraid my murders would be something like my bridge: I'd make some stupid mistake and never realize it until I found everybody was looking at me.
Middle tier Hitchcock it may be, by his own admission, but it's still one of the finest mystery thrillers around. Ray Milland plays Tony Wendice, a former tennis player married to Grace Kelly's Margot, who is the source of his wealth. Fearing his lifestyle is about to come to an end due to her dalliances with American mystery writer, Mark Halliday (Robert Cummins), Tony hatches a plan to have her murdered by an old acquaintance whom he has over a barrel with blackmail. However, the plan backfires and a whole new strategy is needed to save Tony from suspicion.
Based on the popular and successful play by Frederick Knott (who adapts for the screenplay here), Dial M For Murder was a film Hitchcock had little time for. In fact, having already started work on Rear Window, Hitch treated Dial M For Murder as a jobbing assignment. His mood was further darkened by Jack Warner's insistence that the film be shot in 3D, with all the camera restraints that such a production brings. Perhaps unsurprisingly though, the restraints and general mood of the director brought about very pleasing results. Choosing to go for a claustrophobic single set shoot, Hitchcock resisted the urge to launch things around for 3D effects, instead he used the process to highlight props and angles of the Wendice home. His use of colours here first rate, particularly around his new found favourite actress, Grace Kelly.
Having never seen the 3D version (who has I wonder?) I can't say what impact, if any, the gimmick had. But regardless of Hitch's grumblings and general disdain towards the film, he rose to the challenge by challenging himself and actually produced a fine and technically sound picture. Ray Milland is icy cold yet debonair, while John Williams as Chief Inspector Hubbard strides in and walks off with the film. Kelly is adequate enough, it's her least effective turn for Hitch, so early in her career, she was a bit free with her physical love on the set (source "A Life in Darkness and Light"), but this highly appealed to (and amused) Hitch and he of course would use her for better rewards post this production. Sadly Cummings is awfully bland and threatens to lose the film momentum when things start to spice up in the last quarter.
Hugely entertaining picture though, one that is ripe with characterisations and of much interest to Hitchcock purists in how he works around the 3D format for his own filmic senses, Dial M For Murder holds up well today as a disquieting mystery thriller. 8/10

I used to consider this second-tier Hitchcock, but a re-watch proved to me just how excellent the script and directing were, as well as how stellar and underrated both Grace Kelly and Ray Milland tend to be, at least presently, three generations after the fact. The suspense is tied tighter than the proverbial drum.
Needless to say, to this day, I never keep scissors on top of my desk anymore...

**A failed high school romance and one more chance to fix it in the later years.**
Based on one of the Nicholas Sparks book of the same name. The story of a failed high school romance who meet again later in their lives. But the flashback comes right away after the initial segment to reveal theirs young romance and what made them part away. Between the present and the past, it keeps up the momentum and concludes the tale with a twist. Though you would know mile away what's coming.
I did not like all the films based on the stories from the original author. But this one looked okay to me, not so good or too bad. All his films are romance theme, but in this film, that part was very weak. I did not expect that, particularly emotionless when compared to his other flicks. Still, the filmmaking was decent, with the good actors. But the casting was confusing at the beginning for having two sets of actors and then soon it cleared out all the doubts.
Kind of supernatural theme, but not a fantasy. Feels a bit long, because the story developments were slow and most of the parts are not interesting. This is not a romance film I was looking for, but different where everything was dragged to the final twist, especially since the accident that happened at the opening. I did not watch it till now, because I did not feel I wanted to after watching its trailer. But I knew some day I would see it and that is now. I don't know what you thought of it, but for me it is an average film.
_6/10_

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/worst-dinner-partynbspever-the-invitation-review
It’s a bold choice to decide to set a movie exclusively during a dinner party. In this film, the singular setting adds a well-crafted sense of claustrophobia that radiates from the screen to the audience. Karyn Kusama’s _The Invitation_ is Hitchcockian in the level of dread that builds from the beginning as the camera winds its way up into the Hollywood Hills.

It's weird enough when your ex invites you to a dinner party with friends and her new significant other, but "The Invitation" piles on more uncomfortable / weird circumstances until it really goes off the rails (in a good way).

The Invitation incites audiences to attend the most anxiety-inducing dinner party ever. Grief. The melancholic turmoil of loss. A catalyst for unwanted prominent personality alterations that change the very fabric of who we are. Each individual experiences sorrow and subsists through a variety of different methods. Some forgive and forget. Others harness the inability to progress, experiencing a stumbling block of anguish as they continually inflict psychological suffering upon themselves. It is irrefutably the most difficult emotion to overcome, and can overwhelm the strongest of personalities. Kusama’s thrilling episode of ‘Come Dine With Me’ gradually explores the weight of life itself, simply by allowing a group of long-time friends the chance to discuss such a topic. Yet, what enables Kusama’s slow-burn thriller to elevate itself into the top echelon of effective profoundness, is its simplicity.
There are no extravagant plot devices. No sublimely utilised twists. And certainly no misplaced character conveniences. By equipping grief and depression as a manifestation of the narrative, Kusama was able to demonstrate her incredibly astute direction through natural plausibilities. Will, portrayed accurately and captivatingly by Marshall-Green, exhumed indications of paranoia. A heightened consequence of his raging anguish. Constantly questioning the actions of other characters, such as locked doors, barred windows and unknown guests, he assumes the role of the audience’s perception. We, as the viewer, examine and query each character reveal and emotional complexity simultaneously to Will’s interrogative persona. He, essentially, is us. Instantly allowing viewers to relate to him in this unusual circumstance.
Something is not right with this dinner party. He feels it. We feel it. But his instincts are muted by the other guests, naturally due to his heightened state of sorrow, in order to maintain a civilised appearance. That, right there, is the representation of depression. Forced to hide what we really are enduring, with despondent thoughts circling our synapses. It’s abundantly intelligent on Kusama’s part, who elevated the screenplay to the stratosphere of uneasy, anxiety-inducing storytelling. With the assistance of Shore’s cinematography, constantly blurring the outskirts and backgrounds of frames to enhance personable abandonment and solitude, Kusama hosted one of the most engaging dinner parties I’ve ever attended. Inviting a naturally diverse cast of actors, ranging from different ethnicities to sexual orientation, who inhibit their own character qualities.
An array of components culminating in a third act that switches from first gear to a gear with incalculable speeds. The wine was served, my heart rate increased. I required a towel, I was sweating that much from anxiety. Ignoring the last minute of the feature, which was an eye-rolling moment to say the least, a slow-burn thriller such as this utilises a substantial amount of foreshadowing as its narrative device. Unfortunately, it is inescapable. However, Hay and Manfredi do their utmost best to keep the conversation flowing during times of prognostication. Shapiro’s score is also worth mentioning for its sharp string-based chords that increase the chance of sweaty palms.
The Invitation, from the offset, is an incredibly simple thriller. Games are played, wine is served and a few arguments are bound to occur. However, if you cut through Kusama’s simplistic exterior, you’ll find an extraordinarily intelligent dinner party that evokes a powerful emotional connection. Just, y’know, think twice before accepting an invitation...

**Think carefully before attending your ex's party invite!**
My first impression was, not another 'The Perfect Host'. And it is not, but the same category. This is a comeback film for the director after the average 'Jennifer's Body' that released half a decade ago. Some people liked it, but for me it was an average film, because I've seen the better one. Still, I appreciate the effort, like handling the narration. You know these days viewers are bit clever, they begin to predict from the early stage, so this story quite interestingly upheld the suspense.
Till the final act it keeps developing, not the story or the characters wisely, but the event where the plot evolves. A at a same time it leaves behind some clues about what might come later. That part is very confusing, I did not know what to believe and what not. Because I don't want to be a fool when twist happens. This was a lot dramatised and when the crucial event comes into play, the pace increased. The first 80 per cent of the film was what I enjoyed, but the twist ruined my party and then the final scene was so smart. The best way to conclude for such a thriller.
There are none tense moments, except in the final segment, but the curiosity of the event's states gets higher like particularly everybody is waiting for the twist to come. That's where some people would be disappointed. If you are not expecting too much, you would enjoy the remaining part as well. There's nothing to praise about the actors, all were just good. The script should have been a bit smarter in some parts. For one time watch it will do fine, that's what I favour.
_6/10_

This film was a very nice surprise for me. I didn't know much about the plot, which helped.
Right from the start you are increasingly presented with atmospheric stimuli that help to increase the overall tension for the story. The photography and the sounds and the acting might seem off putting for some, but for me it all worked well together.
You start to **get** what is going on and to **think** you know what is going to happen, and they make you doubt yourself...
Very intense film that kept me very entertained and I highly recommend.

A relatively basic rom-com plot, elevated by Amy Schumer and Bill Hader. Schumer injects humour and reality to her character, even if you can see every story beat coming a mile a way. Not the best nor the worst Apatow film, it is heavy handed at times and a little too long. I also hate how these characters always completely quit drinking and partying for their partner, can't there be a happy medium?
Still, I laughed out loud on multiple occasions, and you can't ask for much more with a rom-com

> The same old romance formula, but a woman's version.
I never saw the trailer, but I thought it was Rebel Wilson's film, that's who I saw on the poster and decided to go for it. In the movie she never came, then realised I was tricked or I failed to pay attention while choosing the film. So then, who the heck was this actress. Never seen or heard before, Not so romantic or funny, totally boring. I thought She might be Will Ferrell's sister. I'm kind of frustrated because of either the movie or the actors were not excited to keep going with my watch.
This is the same old story, but instead it's a woman's version. A playgirl loses the someone who loves her sincerely for what she's and later finds the one true love of her life, but it ends in a disaster due to her past. So how everything is going to be fixed is what brings curtain to the narration.
It might be a well known plot, but a well crafted movie as well by one of the best comedy filmmaker who has given many awesome ones. Despite his effort to make it big it is also his bottom of the list from his filmography. Well, not all the actors were so bad, John Cena was so funny with his gay jokes, but lot like in a guest appearance. The basketball superstar that I don't know him. Definitely better than average only if a quality movie like this would have had a proper lead actress. I think some people would find it hilarious, but not to me and I wanted to like it, but I couldn't.
5/10

Hats off to Rob Marshall for taking a cast not necessarily obvious for this story and moulding them into an entertaining trio. The screenplay has been sanitised a bit, and proves really quite thin: "Roxie" (Renée Zellweger) and "Velma" (Catherine Zeta-Jones) are both convicted murderesses who will do just about anything to escape death row. Using their skills as dancers, and their gifts for attracting publicity they must try to engage dodgy lawyer "Billy Flynn" (Richard Gere) to help get them out of the clutches of prison warden "Mama Morton" (a superb Queen Latifah). That's all pretty incidental to the stunning look of this film. At times a little confusing as the costumes seems to straddle timelines from the 1920s to things one might see in "Saturday Night Fever", but it is all about the style; and both principals have it in spades. Zeta-Jones, especially, has a classy sexiness about her performance; Zellweger more of an innocence, and Gere is the perfect man for the job proving he, too, can get his (and our) toes tapping. The original Fosse play remains the bedrock for this and the Kander and Ebb songs performed strongly with "All That Jazz"; Funny Honey" and "Razzle Dazzle" all delightfully choreographed and delivered. I still prefer the intimacy (and grittiness) of the stage production, but as cinematic adaptations go - this is highly entertaining and well worth a watch.

SPOILERS AHEAD!
From Rob Marshall ("Into the Woods") and Bill Condon ("Dreamgirls") comes this charming satirical stab on celebrity criminals. Based on the 1975 stage play and starring Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Richard Gere.
Set in the jazz age of Chicago, Illinois. "Chicago" tells the story of two women on murderess row who hope that fame and fortune will keep them out of the gallows. Velma Kelly (Zeta-Jones) is a vaudevillian performer who plugs her sister and husband right before a performance. Roxie Hart (Zellweger) is watching the performance while idolizeing Velma and hopes one day to be on the stage just like her. Convinced that with Fred Casely's (Dominic West) help she will get what she wants.
But, when Casely turns out to be an abusive lying womanizer Roxie is angered and betrayed. Causing her to kill him as revenge, she tries to convince her husband Amos (John C. Reilly) to take the blame. However, his story does not phase the Harrison (Colm Feore) and Roxie is arrested and learns that she could face the death penalty. Roxie later meets the corrupt but nurturing jail matron Mama Morton (Queen Latifah), who gives her some helpful advice on how to win the court's appeal. Roxie later finds herself being a client of the corrupt smooth-talking Billy Flynn (Gere), who is determined to help her win her case.
Billy corrupts the press with a story about how Roxie killed Fred out of self-defense. At the same time she butts heads with Velma after the press starts putting her name in the headlines. Roxie's fame is almost short-lived until she fakes a pregnancy. Now with a swelled head, she fires Billy convinced she can win the case on her own. Unfortunately, she is forced to take Billy back after seeing that another inmate will be executed. At the same time Amos starts to wonder about Roxie's "baby." Convinced that it is not his baby he decides to file for divorce. The day of the trial Billy turns the court room upside down and is able to convince the jury that Roxie is innocent, Amos learns that the pregnancy was a ruse and finally leaves her.
Now that Roxie is free she tries to make her dream come true, but Velma explains to her that a one woman act is not what Chicago is looking for. Roxie rejects the offer because of Velma's resentment towards her and the lack of hospitality when they were on murderess row. Velma finally convinces her that they don't have to be friends in order to be partners. Roxie's dream becomes a reality as she and Velma are now the hottest act in Chicago.
But one question remains did it really happen or is it all in Roxie's head?
Highly Recommended. This movie has some of the best singing and acting I have ever seen. It deserved all six of the awards.

Gazillions of babes frolicking around in showgirl costumes and lingerie
In mid-20’s Chicago Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and Roxie Hart (Renée Zellweger) find themselves on death row for murdering their lovers and fan the fame that will keep them from the gallows with the assistance of a slick lawyer (Richard Gere). John C. Reilly plays Roxie’s likable but dimwitted husband while Latifah is on hand as the avaricious prison matron.
People criticize this amusing satirical musical for being sleazy, but it would be hard to lampoon and ridicule the corrupt targets of the media and the legal (in)justice system without showing, um, sleaze. That's the point of the original 1926 play “Chicago” and all its successive incarnations, including this acclaimed 2002 movie: illustrating and sarcastically denouncing sleaze via a droll musical. “Chicago” without sleaze would be akin to “Apocalypse Now” without war.
Believe it or not, the movie is based on real women, Beulah Annan (represented by Roxie) and Belva Gaertner (Velma), who were imprisoned for killing lovers in spring, 1924, in two unrelated incidents. The actual accounts were salacious with loads of sex & violence; and both were ultimately acquitted. Maurine Dallas Watkins wrote the original play, which was intended as a stinging satire of the lack of morals in Chicago during the roaring 20s. Watkins was, interestingly, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who covered the popular trials and is represented by Mary Sunshine (Christine Baranski) in the film. Several of the peripheral characters are also based on real-life individuals who played a part in the unfolding drama, e.g. journalists, attorneys, officials and convicts.
I’m not big on musicals beyond ones like “Moulin Rouge” (1952) and “The Wizard of Oz” (1939), but “Chicago” works for me simple due to the scores of beautiful women prancing around in scanty showgirl apparel of the 20s. It’s the same reason I love figure skating. After the passage of the 19th Amendment, American women were basking in their newfound freedoms and “Chicago” depicts this euphoric emancipation.
I also appreciate “Chicago” because Gere is great and there are some creative pieces, like the puppet one and the tap-dancing part. All the musical skits are in Roxie’s imagination, except for the opening “All that Jazz” performed by Velma at the club and the climatic one, which features both Velma & Roxie.
The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes.
GRADE: B

Gregory Peck is small-town lawyer "Atticus Finch" who is drafted in on a seemingly routine case defending a black man "Tom Robinson" (Brock Peters), accused of raping a young white girl. I say routine, because no-one in their town of "Maycomb" doubts the verdict the jury will return. What ensues is a testament to Peck's Oscar-winning acting abilities as he must get to the truth amongst a community where that is the least of anyone's concerns. Racism, bigotry and hatred are rife and soon, after he resists their repeated attempts to go with the flow, these odious emotions are pointed at him and his two young children "Jem" (Philip Alford) and "Scout" (Mary Badham). By way of a side-story, the kids are obsessed with a mysterious house in which lives the enigmatic "Boo Radley" (Robert Duvall), a lad with learning difficulties that is rarely, if ever, seen during daylight hours. The courtroom drama leads events to turn positively sinister; the scene with the two children returning home through the woods from their fancy dress party has to be amongst the most effectively tense pieces of cinema ever made. Clearly the story addresses the specific issues pertaining to the depression-era attitudes in America's southern states, but the potency of the original Harper Lee story; and the expertly crafted characterisations from all here ensure that scenario is transferable to many others around the world, and even now resonate succinctly. Rarely do the nuances of a novel like this transfer well to cinema, but Robert Mulligan and Horton Foote have done a sterling job at adapting this most human of stories that ought to be compulsory viewing - even now, 60 years after it was made.