Well it is a Terry Gilliam film so was always going to be a bit eccentric - but the idea that the legendary Brothers Grimm were actually grifters was actually quite an fun one. Assemble a couple of A-listers and we should have been flying. Except, well - we are not. Instead of having some amiable horseplay as they fleece the gullible and the unwitting, we find "Jake" (Heath Legder) and "Will" (Matt Damon) in a village where the children have all gone missing. The local grandee "Gen. Delatombe" (Jonathan Pryce) is on to their scamming and decides it's time to get them to prove their worth. Where are the sprogs? Well to save their necks, the not so dynamic duo have to deal with a seriously malevolent and fantastic foe in the "Mirror Queen" (the sparingly used Monica Bellucci) who wants to take over the world kind of thing. What now ensues are a series of typical Gilliam-esque escapades using a mediaeval backdrop to facilitate the borderline slapstick antics of the siblings trying to save their bacon. At times it is quite amusing offering some enjoyable parodies of established fairy tales, and the script does deliver a few entertaining quips as we go along but it seems unsure just who it's for. There's some darkness and good, old-fashioned, evil - but not enough of that. It's as if it was trying to be scary but hadn't quite the courage (to settle for a higher age rating, maybe?). As it is, it falls between two stools leaving us with an undercooked and overlong, slightly repetitious, series of frying pan to fire scenarios that even the engaging Ledger can't spin out for two hours. Damon doesn't really add much and Pryce is just in uniformed ham mode through his brief appearances. If you know the works of the brothers, it will make much more sense and some of it's observations about superstitions and the society in which the peasantry and gentry lived are quite witty, but they are all to often lost in a sea of mediocrity.

Does it deserve 10 stars? No, but I look at this as a thumbs up or thumbs down thing, and it's getting thumbs up, sooo...disclaimer there.
I really liked this and I accept that I am in the minority. It has the Terry Gilliam comedic feel to it and it has the Terry Gilliam acid trip feel to it... and even at it's worst that is still absolutely entertaining and a pure joy to watch.
Someone mentioned wide angle work before and, yes, it has a lot of that wide angle close-up work that can only really be appreciated by people that thought they could out Thompson Hunter Thompson in their youth... wink wink nudge nudge, if you know what I mean.
The only real draw back is that Damon doesn't seem to fit in his role, and he doesn't really seem to fit in a Gilliam film...but surprisingly Ledger seems perfectly at home in that kind of world and you get the sense that he enjoyed acting the part as much as you are enjoying watching him act the part.
And then here and there you get a joke, a sight gag, a little hint that reminds you that, yeah, Gilliam was in Python wasn't he? That's something that you'd see in the Flying Circus shoved in there. Almost to the point where you can't but stop and wonder if he was channeling Idle or Chapman for some of the dialogue and physical humor.
It's a Gilliam film, made for adults, with Warner Brothers Cartoon violence. It's trippy and fun and it might not be your cup of tea, but I loved it.

47 Meters Down works on the old idea of great white sharks scaring a bunch of people (two sisters, in this case) but there's a bit of novelty (it takes place on an ocean bed) that makes the watch an enjoyable ride. While the dialogues - which seemed like they were just being spoken to help the audience understand the situation of the girls better - seemed inauthentic, everything else is pretty good here. A cool late-night watch with the family. TN.

**Let the surviving game begin in the deep and the cold ocean floor, surrounded by dangers!**
Obviously it is this year's 'The Shallows'. So anther shark attack film, but this time it goes down to the Mexico. Two sisters vacationing somewhere on the coast of the Mexico, decides to go cage diving to see sharks with the locals they have met in the pub. It was intentional tale, so it all goes straight to the point without wasting much time. When their turn comes to go below in the sea, something goes wrong and they end up 47 meters down on the ocean floor with the limited oxygen supply. It's a long way up and dangerous to get to the surface without proper gears. Their struggles to get out of from there safely and other adventurous events covered in the remaining film.
From the not so famous filmmaker and the actors. But it's good to see Mandy Moore after a some time. I don't know how much realistic it is, though a decent thriller. Yeah, there are better films on this similar theme, but still this is enjoyable, especially if you are not a regular film goer. There are some fine edgy moments, but it did not maintain that till the last. The end twist was not bad. I truly did not expect that. That does not mean it was awesome. It was okay, works decently for such random films. Well made with production quality. Short runtime as well. So I think it is slightly better than what it has been rated. That means not bad for watching it once.
_6/10_

I spend an inordinate amount of time watching shark movies. They're almost never good, and they're almost never well made. _47 Metres Down_ on the other hand **is** well made.
It's still not good though.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

**Missed Opportunity**
(Review is spoilerish)
Coming on the heels of last summer's surprise success _The Shallows_, comes this summer's laughable attempt to portray shark behavior. While shark movies since _Jaws_ have been scientifically inaccurate, you have to throw a movie like _Jaws_ a bone because, well, it's _Jaws_. It was a wonderfully made film, released at a time when we knew little to nothing about the nature of great white sharks. After 30 years of documentaries and Shark Week, the cinematic shark is still a mindless villain whose soul reason for existing is to move the plot forward, and eat it when it cannot.
I'd like to say what _47 Meters Down_ lacks in accuracy it makes up for in plot, suspense, and characters. But that's just not true. The script seemed to be a first draft, full of plot holes and non-existent characterization. It was a typical tell-not-show movie, where characters, through dialogue, literally explained themselves to the audience, rather than establish themselves through action.
The film opens with a pretentious and symbolic shot of a spilled drink to mimic blood in the water, I guess, in case, you didn't know this was a shark movie? We narrow our focus to two American sisters vacationing in Mexico. Later in the movie, when the script necessitates it, the younger sister, Kate, is portrayed as athletic, heroic, courageous, and endowed with other noble attributes. We learn this not through 20 minutes of established characterization, but through the older sister, Lisa, lamenting about how she is the shy, boring one, while Kate is more adventurous and outgoing.
Instead, the first 20 minutes of the film establishes Kate as nothing more than a party girl--making out with strange men, doing tequila shooters, dancing on the beach. We find out that Kate is kind of awesome, but only because Lisa, virtually, says to the audience, "My sister is awesome." But in the 20 minutes of exposition we get on the sisters, all we really have to work with is what amounts to a music video--quick shots of drinking and dancing.
Lisa's characterization--while presented in the amateur way of awkward dialogue (Hey, "sis"--in case you didn't get that they were sisters--I'm here because of this terrible thing that's going on with my boyfriend, and that's my motivation for the next 90 minutes)--is at least presented to us. However, in tripe ripped from the most unromantic and unfunny of romantic comedies, Lisa's every action--including, apparently, kissing another man--is to impress some guy back in the States who has already left her. You know, because a woman's self worth and sense of identity is tied directly to a man (insert eye roll here).
Now the movie becomes a movie. The sisters head out to sea to go shark diving, encountering a captain who goes back and forth between paternally concerned and grossly negligent, and a mate who is, for all intents a purposes, a total dick for reasons never explained.
After we've established that Lisa has never dove (dived?) before, and that Captain Taylor is perfectly fine with that (the equivalent of taking someone who's never driven before and entrust them with a semi on our highways), and that shark cage and winch system is faulty--essentially telegraphing everything that is going to go wrong--the girls get in the water, see some sharks swimming around and then, plummet to the bottom, 47 meters down.
The film becomes both engaging and obnoxious at this point. The sharks are out there, lurking in the darkness, popping up for scares here and there to jolt the audience. At that point it becomes like a monster movie--a haunted house type movie, with our two protagonists trapped in a metaphorical basement. That's all well and dandy, as are the scenes of pure suffocating terror. There's an almost psychological horror element in some scenes, with Lisa so disoriented in the darkness, she doesn't know which way to swim to reach safety.
However, the situational suspense wears thin quickly. Rather than using atmospheric suspense, the filmmakers relied on suspense through situations where everything goes wrong. Constantly. Putting on another tank of air takes 20 minutes. I was never sitting there saying, "Oh my God, how are they going to get out of this situation!?" I was going, "Oh my God, how long is the director going to milk this scene for!?" I wasn't in suspense; I was frustrated.
Finally, we have an ending that could have--should have--saved the whole movie. It's hard to go into specifics without giving away MAJOR SPOILERS to a kind M. Night Shamaylanesque "twist ending" so you may want to stop reading now, though I intend to be as vague as possible.
Okay, what works with the ending...
It provides a nice twist that I didn't see coming. I thought it was very clever.
What didn't work? Well, unless you have some familiarity with diving at certain depths, it might seem as if it's coming out of left field. I understood what was happening, so I understood the ending. But for the uninformed, it might be confusing--and that confusion would ruin the impact. There simply wasn't proper information given to the audience to decipher the ending for themselves unless they familiar with things such as the so-called "rapture-of-the-deep."
But where the ending really shot itself in the foot was the denouement that follows and ties everything up in a nice, safe, Hollywood ending. Basically, if the movie had ended two minutes sooner, with the camera slowing pulling back from a girl trapped in a shark cage, the rest of the movie's sins could have been over looked.
One of the drawbacks though is the same that plagued Blair Witch Project: The ending _is_ the movie. But the first 80 minutes are not strong enough to get you to the final ten more than once or twice. I'll probably never see this film again. Despite that, I didn't despise it. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it was the worst $11 I've ever spent or that I want the last two hours of my life back. It accomplished what it set out to do in the most shallowest of terms, and I'm good.
Despite it's many flaws, I was pleased with Mandy Moore's performance as Lisa. She seemed to be the only actor who was consistent in relying--through action, dialogue, demeanor and tone--exactly who her character was. Also, the film stayed away from the gratuitous T&A shots that plagued similar films like last year's _The Shallows_ (was Bake Lively's butt never _not_ in frame?) 2005's _Into the Blue_ that seemed to focus more on Paul Walker's abs and Jessica Alba's curves than the actual plot itself, and 1977's _The Deep_, best known for two hours of Jacqueline Bissett in a wet t-shirt.

Great watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
This is probably my favorite "body swap" trope movie. It's Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman for crying out loud. If you've ever liked anything they've ever done (aside from "Green Lantern") then you'll probably like this. Seeing them do "impressions" of each other is a bonus.
As far as "body swapping" goes, I think this is the only non-parent child, non-male female swap that I've seen, which is probably what makes it a lot of fun: there's no socio-political debate sitting in the background on single vs married, but all the fun of "now I have to deal with THIS". Maybe there are some issues of how redeemable the characters are in their flaw sets, but it's built into the premise.
With Leslie Mann and Olivia Wilde backing up the leads, everyone gives a stellar performance. The production value is clearly there, though I think most of it went into locations and cast budgets: this isn't an action-car-chase movie, it's a "body swap" dirt humor rom com.
The writing does skew dirty in the humor, but if you have an open mind, then the humor ends up being in the surprise of dealing with each others lives unprepared. Despite the juvenile basis of guys trying to do whatever they want, the movie is surprisingly touching and about togetherness.

The "I Know What You Did Last Summer" franchise has left a lasting impact on audiences, with the first film being particularly noteworthy for its thrilling and grounded portrayal of a vengeful antagonist. Ben Willis stands out as a compelling and underrated character, bringing a sense of realism to the story without delving into the supernatural realm. Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Jr. deliver captivating performances, drawing viewers in with their charisma and acting prowess.
The sequel, "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," takes the characters on a harrowing adventure to an island, adding another layer of suspense and terror to the franchise. While some may overlook this installment as a credible sequel, the addition of Brandy Norwood as Carla contributes to the film's appeal and intensity.
However, the franchise takes a misstep with "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer," introducing supernatural elements that detract from the grounded nature of the original films. This departure from reality diminishes the impact of the storyline and characters, leading to a disappointing third installment that lacks the involvement of the main cast.
The television series based on the franchise offers a different but enjoyable take on the story, adding credibility and entertainment value to the overall franchise. While the series was cut short, fans are eager for a reboot that promises to bring fresh energy to the familiar tale. It is hoped that the original cast will return, providing a seamless continuation of the beloved saga akin to the success of the "Scream" franchise.

I liked this movie. I wish there was more action and killing but overall pretty good. Has a good cast in it too.

_**The guilt will haunt you and maybe even KILL you**_
Released in 1997, "I Know What You Did Last Summer" takes place in coastal North Carolina where a group of just-graduated teens experience a tragic event and compound it by foolishly reacting. They swear to carry the secret to their graves, but the next summer it becomes clear that someone knows their secret and murders start piling up. The teens are played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Ryan Phillippe and Freddie Prinze Jr. Also on hand are Johnny Galecki, Anne Heche and Muse Watson.
This movie is full of slasher clichés, like the killer who's always in the same garb (this time a fisherman's slicker outfit), the slow-methodical walking of the killer (never running) and the undead dead. There are also two blatant "Yeah, right" scenes (noted below). Thankfully, it makes up for it by the stellar coastal locations (strangely shot on BOTH East and West coasts), a quality cast, some effective sequences and the potent moral on haunting guilt that slowly kills ya. The immediate aftermath of the opening accident is particularly well done.
The film runs 99 minutes and shot in Southport, North Carolina, and Jenner, California, and nearby regions of both coasts.
GRADE: B or B- (6.5/10 Stars)
***SPOILER ALERT*** (DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM)
Here are the two eye-rolling scenes:
1. The sequence where Max's corpse is found in the trunk with the crabs. It couldn't have been an illusion since Helen didn't yet know Max was dead, so it must've really happened. If so, how would the slicker-killer get the trunk cleaned-up so quickly with no one seeing him in a neighborhood in broad daylight? Also, how did he even get into trunk? Did he have his own personal key? The sequence is just too far-fetched.
2. After Barry is murdered by the killer at the pageant how does he know that the cop and Helen would be driving down the alley by-pass an hour or so later? (I realize the street was blocked off and he might've been the one who set it up, but how did he know this would be the precise route taken by the cop and Helen? And how would he even know Helen would be riding with the cop? It's not like she wouldn't have other friends & family in town with whom she could ride. Anyway, wouldn't people living in the downtown area or other passersby notice a man in full-slicker garb working on his truck?
Sequences like these take intelligent viewers right out of the story, which explains Roger Ebert's response: "After the screening was over and the lights went up, I observed a couple of my colleagues in deep and earnest conversation, trying to resolve twists in the plot. They were applying more thought to the movie than the makers did."

Ben the Bream.
Kevin Williamson, hot off of the success of his screenplay for Wes Craven's Scream, here adapted the Lois Duncan novel with mixed results.
A bunch of pretty teenagers in a coastal fishing town run over a man in the road and try to cover it up. Not a wise move at the best of times, even more so now as the victim, a hook wielding fisherman, is coming to get them.
And that's pretty much it. Williamson adds some humour into the play, while director Jim Gillespie plays his shock tactics well and keeps the pretty young cast annoying enough for us to want to see the fisherman guy enact revenge.
It sadly gets away from itself in the last quarter once the stalker is revealed, and in truth there's very little imagination gone into the whole pic. But it's a decent night in with beer and popcorn for those after a short sharp shock type horror. 6/10

It will probably be remembered for it's chariot race long after all of the rest of it has faded away, but this is more than just that. It is a story about friendship, religion, power and opportunity - it is also about sheer bloody-mindedness and cruelty. It resonates all the more because these are all human traits that abound in all of us to some extent. The film looks truly amazing and Miklós Rósza is on top form with a score that encapsulates the Imperial grandeur of the Roman State in all of it's Tiberian pomp. The story, though, is a less impressive affair. Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd demonstrate how love can turn to hate splendidly when on screen together, the rest of the time neither performance really delivers much beyond the script. Jack Hawkins tries hard, but again doesn't quite hit the mark as the Consul. Hugh Griffith is a star as the mischievous, avaricious Sheik Ilderim and Sam Jaffe is also a good addition to this cast. It is way too long; after the chariot race it turns a little too much into the "tale of the Christ" referred to by author General Lew Wallace at the very start and for me, somehow loses it's way. The battle scenes at sea are great and the sumptuous costumes, cinematography and sound all well deserving of their golden statuettes. A very good, but not quite great, cinema epic.

What can be said about this film that hasnt already been said?
I could (justly) use every superlative known and it still does not cover just how amazing this film is. It is the essence of EPIC (and not just historical epic).
It is easy to see why it was not matched in the number of Oscars given for 50 years (and those 'equals' did not include any acting oscars and had more categories to choose from).
I first watched this as a kid and struggled to stay awake to see the end late at night. And despite it not having the spectacle of say the Ten Commandments, it became a favourite which I have watched over and over again.
I adore everything in this film - from the gritty stoic-ness of Heston's acting and cockiness of Boyd's, the fleshed out minor characters, the jaw-dropping sets, stirring score from Rozsa, the stunning costumes and of course to the incredible set pieces.
This is film perfection that does not feel like its (nearly) 4 hour run time.

Majestic in scope and story telling.
The truth is, is that Ben-Hur deserved every award that was showered upon it. It's a titanic film both in structure and scope. It doesn't need me to go over old ground about how much the film cost to make, the number of extras, the number of sets and etc, it's now folklore that this film could have bankrupted MGM such was the investment, but they needn't have worried since the film went on to make 40 million and still counting.
Every cent spent was worth it because it's a magnificent film, the kind that you can get swept away with, the minute the overture starts you feel little tingles as the hairs on your arms stand up on end, you are aware that for over three hours director William Wyler and lead actor Charlton Heston are going to own you.
The story centres around Judah Ben-Hur (Heston) who through his staunch loyalty to the Jewish race falls out with his dear Roman friend Messala (Stephen Boyd). He is dispatched to be a slave in the galleys and swears revenge on Messala. After pirates attack the ship he is slaved on, he manages to escape and in the process he saves Roman Admiral Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) and this sets Juda on his destiny to enact revenge on his old friend as Quintus makes him a citizen of Rome.
It sounds so simple yet it's a story of the highest order because crucial to the film's core strength is Judah's encounters with Christ, and it's only during the harsh and upsetting final reel that we realise the whole point of the film. There's also strong themes involving family love and loyalty, friendships formed or broken under race and creed banners, and of course religious beliefs and all that comes with that kettle of fish...
It's epic, it's simply beautiful, it's actually essential viewing for any serious cinema fan, the film's set pieces are still wondrous even today. You will marvel at the chariot race (a stunning 20 minutes long), you will hoist the flag during the pirate attack, and if you have the emotion in you? You will be hit with sombre silence as Christ is crucified. Come the closing music I personally feel like clapping such is the appreciation I have for this truly wonderful film, if you haven't seen it then make a point of doing so because everything that is great about cinema is right here. 10/10

Eh, it's OK.

Barrow, Alaska. The most northern town in the United States, where for 30 days every year it is has no sunlight.
This is the perfect opportunity for a gang of merciless, & blood-thirsty vampires to feed on the remaining inhabitants of this small town, after most leave for the month of darkness.
As people are leaving, and others are making preparations for their time of hibernation, mysterious occurrences are uncovered; mobile phones stolen, and destroyed, an entire team of sled dogs butchered. The ground work for the impending doom of a malevolent force.
Once the killings and feedings begin there is no let up. I have watched my share of vampire films, and frankly this is definitely one of the best made, its stripped back, bare, and unromanticized. This group of vampires, led by the visceral Marlow (Houston) take no pity on the town of Barrow as they tear it apart looking for their prey, and using people as bait to lure hiding survivors out into the cold and snowed out streets of the isolated mining town.
The second half of the film becomes a tale of survival, as town Sheriff Eben Olemun (Hartnett) and his soon to be ex-wife Stella (George), lead a group of survivors who manage to hide themselves away by staying in an attic, scared and cold they realize that it is only a matter of time before they are discovered and killed.
Even though this is a film that does involve a fair amount of blood and gore, the film's real heart lies in the way it scares you with what it doesn't show in the lead up to the early killings, this for me is true horror, show me next to nothing, and build the most amount of tension, then deliver the shock, and you'll have me pissing my pants every time. There is also a fair amount of brutality shown, not only in how the vampires kill their prey, but also how they are dispensed by Eben and the others.
On an interesting note, this is a film based on a graphic novel written by Steve Niles, who co-wrote the screenplay to the film. Niles had actually pitched the original idea as a film some years before, but reworked it to graphic novel after being knocked back by several producers, it was then picked up afterwards by one of those producers to make this film we have now.

**The following is a long form review that I originally wrote in 2010.**
A new-age, brilliant vampire movie that never got the acclaim it rightfully deserved.
_30 Days of Night_ is one of the few films I like that I can never understand why other people don’t. Though I do prefer other movies like _Revolver, Doomsday and Donnie Darko_ to it, with those I can always understand when people don’t see in them what I do. With _30 Days of Night_, if you don’t have a problem with gore, then you shouldn’t have a problem with the film. And yet I have personal friends as well as people I’ve heard from online who totally dig horror, gore, vampires etc. and yet don’t like _30 Days of Night_, which confuses me all to Hell, let me tell you.
Though I was mildly aggravated by the inconstancies in the number of vampires around, other than that I can find virtually nothing bad to say about _30 Days of Night_. Firstly you have Josh Hartnett (_The Faculty_) as Sheriff Eben, protagonist, secondly you have Danny Huston (_The Proposition_) as Marlow, leader of the vampires, who attack Alaska during the winter period of 30 days without sun (which in and of itself is an awesome concept, and thirdly there’s Ben Foster (_Pandorum_) as the vampire’s human lapdog, all of whom are personal favourites of mine. That’s not even mentioning the fact that Eben’s wife is played by Australian Melissa George (_Triangle_), who was born in my hometown, so even if she wasn’t a great actor, she’d get auto-points.
Basically every point in which _30 Days of Night_ differentiates from the comic it’s based on is an improvement to the story, which is (gasp, shock, horror) a mildly realistic Vampire film. God forbid. I love the vampires in this. Though they’re not quite as sexy and well-dressed as they are in _Underworld _or as demonic as they are in _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_, they bring a totally new brutality to the vampire class. They wear what you’d expect late 30-ish people living in 2007 to wear, they’re stronger than the average human, but not impossibly so, they hunt in packs and give off bloodcurdling, atavistic shrieks (of which I give quite a good impression; sidenote) they’re unrelenting an animalistic but just as intelligent as a regular person, they’re quick, dark and deadly.
There’s no camp to be found here, not always a good thing, but in _30 Days of Night_, it is. I honestly cannot recommend this one enough, despite its intense gore and general panning, I implore you to at the very least give it a go, and decide for yourself.
Both the human survivors and the vampire invaders are there simply trying to stay alive, the vamps through their sadistic, systematic hunting of the local populace for their food-source, blood, and the people by trying to both hide, and fight back, but mostly the former. Ironically, it’s the “humanity” of the humans that causes every one of their downfalls, while they’re leached from above by a far superior race, who goes so far as to call humans a “plague” and invent a new language all for themselves, just so as to not have to speak the same filthy way we lower-beings do (and I mean, if your choice was between that and having to put up with American-English, wouldn’t you?).
86%
-_Gimly_

These sites all missed the point. It's farce, it's funny. I actually liked the creature! He's kinda gruesomely-cute! Don't expect drama. It's all tongue-in-cheek, reminiscent of the old Godzilla creature films.

This is a monster horror movie that really tries, to the point where they don’t give a clear view of the creature in the previews, presumably not to ruin the initial shock moment for the viewer. It is in Korean with English subtitles, with a few bursts of English with Korean subtitles when the speaker is American.
The movie focuses on one family’s ongoing battle: not merely against the monster but also struggling against the authorities who want to capture them, suspecting they have been infected with a virus by coming in contact with the creature.
The dialogue is pretty ordinary. I seem to recall a few unintentionally funny moments, though I cannot say for sure that it wasn’t due to the translation. I don’t intend to be hyper critical here: I sort of let the movie wash over me to get to the end, and you may or may not need to do the same.
I found I was a little confused as to the final fate of one of the family members at the end. Perhaps I was inattentive and it would have been cleared up if I backed it up and watched again, but unfortunately I wasn’t quite inversted in the movie enough to do that. I put in my time and that was sufficient unto the day.

Clint Eastwood is at the top of his game in this thriller. He is bank robber Frank Morris, Incarcerated in one of America's most impregnable prisons, under the menacing gaze of warden Patrick McGoohan. He quickly concludes that he has little left to live for but escape. Together with twins Clarence and John Anglin (Fred Ward and Jack Thibeau) he puts together an intricate plan to escape their prison by using the utility tunnels to escape the complex then some makeshift inflatables to get across San Francisco bay. The facts of the story mean the ending is never in doubt - insofar as we actually know what the ending was/is! Now that rather detracts from any sense of jeopardy with the screenplay, but is one of the aspects that make Eastwood all the more compelling - his meticulous planning, ingenuity and sheer perspicacity is enthralling - ok, at times a little slow - to watch. He has to deal with the odd internal fracas, most notably from "Wolf" (Bruce Fisher) who would have some fun with him, if you get my drift... but none of that detracts him from his goal. Aside from this mission, Don Siegel offers us quite a detailed glimpse into life behind bars towards the end of this crumbling building's life; and we are exposed to the relentless tedium and despair of many which engenders some sympathy - however evil they may have been to be sent there in the first place. What Siegel doesn't really do, though, is use McGoohan to much effect. His usual less-is-more style of performance is certainly here, but all to infrequently to really build an sense of menace. Still, it's Eastwood's film and he is great...

Seen this one several times and still is a well done and straight forward, well shot, escape-thriller with fine performances all around. Nothing fancy and just enough character development to make you care. **4.0/5**

Gotta feel for this due to the later emergence of 'The Shawshank Redemption' and even 'Prison Break', but 'Escape From Alcatraz' still merits its own props as a great film.
I love a good prison escape flick, shown by my love for those two aforementioned productions which do improve on the formula; TSR - one of my favourite films, fwiw - particularly must've took a lot of inspiration from this, I noted a fair few similarities.
With the cast, you have an excellent performance from Clint Eastwood. Patrick McGoohan fits his role nicely, while Paul Benjamin and Larry Hankin are the best of the rest. I would've liked more development for the characters of Fred Ward and Jack Thibeau, who felt a little tacked on. Elsewhere, Danny Glover makes his acting debut in a tiny, tiny role.
I found the pacing to be very good, sure the story I guess is obvious in terms of its direction but I still got tense and edgy whilst watching the escape take place. The ambience of the film is a positive too, with the exception of one moment early on where there's an overly on the nose lightning strike as one of the characters mentions Alcatraz - nothing major, it's a nit-pick and it's my only one so that's a big plus.
Interesting to note this was the final collaboration between Eastwood and director Don Siegel, take out 'Coogan's Bluff' and that was an extremely effective partnership - this 1979 release and 'Two Mules for Sister Sara' being my favourites.

**_Scares the hell out of ya_**
This was based on the actual story of a German girl who died while being exorcised in the late 1970s. The priest was then put on trial for neglectful homicide. Google it for details.
Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) plays an agnostic who defends the priest (Tom Wilkinson) while the prosecutor (Campbell Scott) is a believer. This creates some problems: How can an unbeliever defend a believer who performs a service that apparently kills the young woman? How can a believer come against another believer who was simply trying to deliver the girl from spiritual malevolence?
The prosecutor makes the case that the woman was ill with various mental disorders and that the exorcism was just a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo. By contrast, Erin Bruner argues that these illnesses were the RESULT OF possession -- that the girl's possession brought on the symptoms. This makes sense in light of the scriptural evidence of Jesus Christ delivering people from evil spirits who induced insanity, muteness and deafness.
Another important argument of the defense is that a potent drug that Emily was prescribed trapped her in a mode that was resistant to the exorcism.
The fascinating story provokes many questions. We need to take an honest look at our mental health practices and institutions. Although there are some genuinely good people working in this field who care about the patients, it seems that the best we can do is drug people and make them, more or less, numbed-up living zombies or even mindless vegetables. Unfortunately this is how they're damned to live the rest of their lives, subservient and dependent on the mental health establishment (that actually needs them to stay ill in order to exist).
Such people don't need more drugs and "therapy." What they need is delivered. They need delivered from evil spiritual powers that have possessed them. They need FREED. Don't mistake me here, I'm not against mental health people or facilities because I realize they're just doing what they know to do. It's just not working. Again, the mentally ill need delivered not force-fed more drugs and essentially locked-up for the rest of their lives. That's not life, it's living death!
Of course, releasing a horde of religious wackos into our mental institutions isn't the answer. Yet, what if some believers who walked in the boldness and authority of Jesus Christ were available, people who show documented evidence of DELIVERING the mentally ill? The New Testament relays case after case of Jesus Christ exorcising demons from hundreds of people, maybe thousands. He didn't numb 'em up and sentence them to a life of living death. Rather he came to set the prisoners free from darkness, heal the sick and heal the brokenhearted! If there are people out there who walk in this same anointing of power and freedom, shouldn't we allow them to minister to our mentally ill?
Unfortunately a large percentage of the church is very weak in regards to spiritual deliverance. Except for offering eternal salvation, which is wonderful, their gospel is powerless and next to worthless. Yet this wasn't the way of the early Church. Paul, Peter and others offered total deliverance. Thankfully, there are still a remnant of these types of believers and these are the ones who can help our mentally ill, as long as the oppressed WANT freedom, healing and deliverance (since some WANT to stay dependent and "cared for").
I'm only raising such moral/theological/philosophical questions because the film provokes it. So please don't be irked at me for getting all heavy and theological.
Despite the numerous courtroom scenes (which I'm not a fan of) there are certainly enough horrifying elements in "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" to please most horror fans, just don't expect Freddy or Jason shenanigans.
Interestingly, while it's horrifying "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is also somehow warm and faith-affirming, even sometimes beautiful.
My only criticism is a theological theory introduced late in the movie. This theory is incredible wrong. I won't elaborate except to say that God would never allow the option of Emily's possession as a supposed testimony to the world of the existence of dark spiritual powers, rather the God's purpose is always to deliver such people, which not only testifies to the existence of the malevolent powers but, more importantly, sets the person FREE and gives glory to the Almighty.
The film runs 119 (the unrated version 122 minutes) and was shot in Vancouver, BC.
GRADE: A

During the trial for his events, a lawyer tries to help her client, a priest, seek the truth about what happened to the young woman who died under his care while performing an exorcism to cure her of a demonic possession and eventually lets the truth about it be known.
This wasn't anywhere as bad as it could've been. The film is really split into two halves here with this one being basically helped greatly by its really good possession and shock scenes. The opening scene that sets her up to becoming possessed is one of it's best sequences, as the long hallway and the unearthly voices floating around give it an unearthly feel while the first scene in the classroom where she sees a demonic face appearing in the window through a cloud of mist and turns around to see a student's face turn into a distorted demon's face giving off an unearthly roar makes it quite shocking. Running out into the rain and seeing more demonic faces give off the same unearthly roar is a bit clichéd, but it still helps to sell the mood while the finale in the church giving this a quite creepy conclusion. The different manners of how she’s become afflicted are quite memorable moments with the frenzied bug-eating, speaking in tongues or just contorting her body into such impossible positions that it really becomes obvious something is wrong with her, and the long, suspenseful and chilling exorcism is the film's selling point, coming off with any number of creepy ideas and scenes in such a drawn-out style is one of the best scenes in the film. Otherwise, beyond the shocks and the exorcism, there isn't much else to like about it. Therefore, everything else in it doesn't really work which is only relegated to the courtroom battle drama. It's marketed as being a supernatural possession film, and the best moments come from those scenes, but the fact that the majority of the film is a courtroom battle with the supernatural elements coming in the form of flashbacks is a real misstep and is likely to confuse those coming in expecting the other kind of film. It's not that they're boring or anything, it's just that it's out of nowhere that it becomes that way, and it can be a disappointment. The fact that these are slow and really long don't help matters, extending this out far longer than it should. This could've easily been an hour and a half, or maybe a little longer, but the two hours running time forces it to keep the courtroom antics going for no reason other than to extend the running time. A few extraneous scenes could've been snipped as well, including the introductory scenes at the bar that repeat information we already know and also keep the running time going, and most of the time simply elicit a feeling of wanting to move along and get to the good scenes. These really harm the film.
Rated PG-13: Language, Mild Violence and intense demonic and spiritual themes.

You will either love it, or think it absurd.
Aronofsky is at full symbolic best in this film, so if you buy into it, buy his vision and embrace the meditation on themes it is glorious.
If you want an engaging narrative and some cool sci fi, go watch Gravity.

Full of symbolism and pretty pictures this movie will strike your soul if you have one. Once the credits roll it will be like waking from a dream.

Contrary to many opinions of this film, The Fountain stands as an all time favourite of mine. The layering of timelines combined with Aronofsky's eye just made for a beautiful experience.
A truly underrated masterpiece.

A simple story told in a very complicated way. Not the best of Aronofsky's works.

SCI-FI Lovers BEWARE! What a MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT! I thought this was going to be some awesome Sci-fi flick traveling through time and fighting to be with each other. (You know like all the other new Sci-fi flicks today). I was WRONG. Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman are both amazing actors, however I found the Fountain to be WAY TO artsy / independent film for me.

Quite an experience, and in a great way as well!
Went into this one totally blind as to its contents, truth is, is that I was mooching round the shops yesterday and came across an Asian triple pack DVD at a bargain price, since one of the films was Jet Li starrer Unleashed, i thought it was worth the cheap price on offer. Got home and the write up on the back of the case didn't give much away as regards plot for Kung Fu Hustle, an Axe Gang, some guy named Sing wants to be in the gang, and that some creaky old residents in a place called Pig Sty Ally are tougher than they look.
What I got was what I can only describe as a live cartoon full of class and style, the sort of flip side to the more arty Asian films that have (rightly) become massively popular in the subsequent decadse. Written, directed, produced and starring Stephen Chow (Sing), Kung Fu Hustle is a remarkably breathless piece of work, the plot is threadbare for sure, but it really matters not, because Chow has fused the grand old genre staple punch up with balletic comedy, it's quite something to behold. It's as loud as a face off between Motorhead & Iron Maiden, yet it's just so flipping tender at the same time! Incredible sequences will dazzle you one moment and then have you laughing the next, I'm quite annoyed that I didn't catch on to this film back in 2004, but even now some years later this film is still a breath of fresh air on the home format release. See it and roll with it, enjoy. 9/10