First of all it's a masterpiece, it's shows how the higher class actually judge the lower class people. At it looks like a normal story of a family who all are struggling hard to live, but their life gets changed when all four of them one by one get employed in park's house. After sometime we also got to see the frustration and anger of Kim family on park family because they were judged by them.their were no unnecessarily plot twist in the film which led the film very smoothly. All over it's a must watch film.

**_An uncategorisable masterpiece_**
>_We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service – two dishes, but to one table._
- William Shakespeare; _The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke_, 4.iii.23-24 (1599-1601)
What is one to make of the utterly uncategorisable and impossible-to-define _Gisaengchung_ [_Parasite_]? Only the third film to win both the Palme d'Or and the Academy Award for Best Picture, after Billy Wilder's _The Lost Weekend_ (1945) and Delbert Mann's _Marty_ (1955), _Parasite_ is one of the best-reviewed films of the century thus far and caused huge waves when it became the first non-English language film to win Best Picture. Co-writer and director Bong Joon-ho also tied with Walt Disney for the most Oscars awarded to one person in one night – four (Best Picture, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay). On top of that, he became the first person in history to win more than three Oscars for a single film. In short, Parasite has had a significant, and relatively unexpected, impact.
But what exactly is _Parasite_? Described on its official website as a "_pitch-black modern fairy-tale_", even a comprehensive plot summary wouldn't adequately delineate its real nature – part comedy of manners, part social satire, part heist film, part thriller, part horror, part family drama, part farce, part economic treatise, part social realism, part tragedy, part allegory. And that's just the opening scene! It's the _Ulysses_ of cinema, adopting and shedding genres so often and so seamlessly that it effectively becomes its own genre. And, like _Ulysses_, it's exceptional in just about every way – screenplay (co-written by Bong and Han Jin-won), directing, cinematography, _mise en scène_, editing, production design, sound design, score, acting. There's not a weak link here, in a film that achieves that rarest of things – it lives up to the hype.
The Kim family are down on their luck. Father Ki-taek (Song Kang-ho), mother Chung-sook (Chang Hyae-jin), daughter Ki-jeong (Park So-dam), and son Ki-woo (Choi Woo-shik) reside in a tiny basement apartment, with their only window looking out onto a popular urination spot in a back alley. With all four unemployed, they eke out a meagre living folding pizza boxes for a nearby restaurant. However, their fortunes change when Ki-Woo meets Min-hyuk (Park Seo-joon), a childhood friend who is now at university. Min-hyuk works as an English tutor for the daughter of a wealthy family, but he's soon to leave Korea, and so suggests that Ki-Woo take over. Armed with a fake diploma created by Ki-jeong on Photoshop, Ki-Woo successfully applies for the job. The Park family, father Dong-ik, (Lee Sun-kyun), mother Yeon-gyo (Cho Yeo-jeong), daughter Da-hye (Jung Ji-so), and son Da-song (Jung Hyeon-jun), welcomes Ki-woo into their lavish home, and upon discovering just how wealthy the Parks are, the Kims hatch an elaborate scheme to oust the Park's current domestic staff and take their places. And so, hiding the fact that they're all related, Ki-taek is hired as a chauffeur, Chung-Sook as a housekeeper, and Ki-jeong as an art therapist for Da-song. However, it doesn't take long before things start to go very, very awry for both families, in ways none of them (or the audience) could ever have imagined.
We live in an era where wealth is distributed upwards and the gap between the haves and have-nots is wider than ever. According to inequality.org, the richest 1% of the world's population controls 45% of global wealth. At the same time, adults with less than $10,000 capital make up 64% of the population and control less than 1% of the wealth. In 2018, Oxfam reported that the wealth of the 26 richest people in the world was equal to the combined wealth of the 3.5 billion poorest people. This is the _milieu_ of _Parasite_, a film which taps into some of the same ideological thinking as gave rise to "_Hell Joseon_" sentiments, wherein up to 75% of Koreans aged 19-34 want to leave the country.
Obviously enough, Bong's main themes are class division and class conflict, the artificiality of societal hierarchy, and the concomitant social inequality and differentiation in status that makes such a hierarchy possible in the first place. As thoroughly entertaining (and funny) as the film is, it remains, in essence, an economic treatise, albeit with a savagely satirical quality. However, make no mistake, this is a satire with teeth – the hilarity and playfulness of the long first act give way to a darker political vibe in the second, before Bong violently deconstructs his own allegory in the emotionally draining and batshit insane third act, ultimately driving the knife home in an epilogue that's about as different from the film's early scenes as you could imagine. Of course, this is far from the first time Bong has dealt with issues of class, touching obliquely on similar themes in _Sarinui Chueok_ [_Memories of Murder_] (2003), _Gwoemul_ [_The Host_] (2006), and _Madeo_ [_Mother_] (2009). _Parasite_'s engagement with class and economics, however, is far more overt, aligning it with Bong's English-language work, _Snowpiercer_ (2013) and _Okja_ (2015). Never before, however, has he been this caustic, this acerbic, but so too this compassionate, this witty. Indeed, _Parasite_ feels like a culmination, the film to which he's been building for his entire career.
In the film's press notes, Bong states;
>_I think that one way to portray the continuing polarisation and inequality of our society is as a sad comedy. We are living in an era when capitalism is the reigning order, and we have no other alternative. It's not just in Korea, but the entire world faces a situation where the tenets of capitalism cannot be ignored. In the real world, the paths of families like our four unemployed protagonists and the Park family are unlikely ever to cross. The only instance is in matters of employment between classes, as when someone is hired as a tutor or a domestic worker. In such cases there are moments when the two classes come into close enough proximity to feel each other's breath. In this film, even though there is no malevolent intention either side, the two classes are pulled into a situation where the slightest slip can lead to fissures and eruptions. In today's capitalistic society there are ranks and castes that are invisible to the eye. We keep them disguised and out of sight, and superficially look down on class hierarchies as a relic of the past, but the reality is that there are class lines that cannot be crossed._
In this manner, the film works as a literalisation of the theory that co-existence between the various classes is becoming increasingly difficult; the Kims and the Parks aren't simply differentiated due to wealth, rather they live in completely different worlds and have vastly different, and largely incompatible, ideologies.
One of the most deftly-handled elements of the film is Bong's avoidance of the clichés one so often finds in films dealing with economics – the Kims are by no means the default protagonists, a victimised family immediately worthy of sympathy, whilst the Parks are by no means the default antagonists, a callous family immediately worthy of scorn. Rather, the Parks are depicted as perfectly friendly and pleasant whilst the Kims are shown to be liars and scoundrels. Indeed, it's the Kims who are the more crassly materialistic of the two families – obsessed with their mobile phones and WhatsApp, we first meet them as they're wandering around their apartment, phones held aloft, trying to pick up their neighbour's WiFi signal. Later, as they ingratiate themselves with the Parks and acquire more and more access to a wealthy lifestyle, all four Kims start to carry themselves differently, as if being in such proximity to wealth has had a physiological effect.
There are no heroes and villains here – Bong is uninterested in trucking in black and white oppositions because such rigid diametrics aren't the norm in the real world. For all their scheming and lying, the Kims merely con their way into menial jobs, trying to earn enough to make survival a little easier. As for the Parks, their wealth has insulated them from the world of families such as the Kims, but their greatest crimes are disconnection and ignorance, nothing more. At the same time, the Kims are depicted as a far more unified and loving family than the Parks. Although all four Kims regularly occupy the same frame, to the best of my recollection, we never see the four Parks together in the same shot; Da-hye and Da-song rarely leave their rooms, Yeon-gyo spends most of her time in the kitchen and living room, and Dong-ik is seen most regularly in his car. It's a wonderful bit of cinematic shorthand to convey a thematic point, with Bong utilising the visual component of the medium to maximum effect – this is a filmmaker who knows precisely what he's doing.
It's in relation to the two family's status as heroes or villains that the film's title is so important. Strictly speaking, the Korean title, "_기생충_" ("gisaengchung"), means "helminth" rather than "parasite", but as a helminth is a parasitic worm, the slight difference in the translation isn't a big deal. In any case, a parasitic organism such as a helminth lives in or on a host and takes its nourishment from that host. A simple reading of this is that the Kims are the parasites and the Parks are the hosts, with the Kims feeding off the Parks' wealth and status. However, in a film where nothing is as it seems, things aren't that simple. Bong depicts the Parks as parasites as well – they've been rendered relatively helpless by their wealth, unable to complete basic tasks such as driving or cleaning without the assistant of working-class employees; i.e. they sustain themselves based off of the labour of their servants. And so, just as the Kims feed off the Parks, the Parks feed off the Kims, in what quickly becomes a symbiotic relationship. Concerning this issue, in his Director's Statement, Bong says,
>_it is increasingly the case in this sad world that humane relationships based on co-existence or symbiosis cannot hold, and one group is pushed into a parasitic relationship with another. In the midst of such a world, who can point their finger at a struggling family, locked in a fight for survival, and call them parasites? It's not that they were parasites from the start. They are our neighbours, friends and colleagues, who have merely been pushed to the edge of a precipice._
However, as strong as the film is narratively and thematically, it also has an aesthetic design to die for. Hong Kyung-pyo's cinematography, for example, is magnificent. Hong also shot Lee Chang-dong's superb _Beoning_ (2018), and the camerawork here has a similar smoothness and restlessness, gliding through the Parks house like it's a fifth member of the Kim family. Lee Ha-jun's production design is also praise-worthy, with the Kims' and Parks' living conditions contrasted in every way; the Parks live in a pristine post-modernist semi-open plan house, accessible only by an electronically controlled gate, and hidden from the street by tall trees and dense shrubs; the Kims, on the other hand, live in a cluttered and dilapidated apartment with barely any room, their toilet situated beside the aforementioned window looking into an alley.
It's also in relation to production design wherein one of the film's best metaphors is to be found, which is also a great example of just how much of a masterwork this is, how completely Bong is in control of his craft. As a film at least partly in the tradition of the "upstairs/downstairs" subgenre (think James Ivory's _The Remains of the Day_ or Robert Altman's _Gosford Park_), Bong literalises the separation between those above and those below insofar as stairways are a recurring motif. The Kims live in a basement apartment without stairs, mirroring their stagnation and inability to rise in a socio-economic sense. On the other hand, the Parks' lavish home has two main stairways – one going up, the other going down into the cellar. As Ki-jeong and Ki-woo gain more access to Da-song and Da-hye, they start to spend most of their time upstairs. Ki-taek and Chung-sook, however, along with Dong-ik and Yeon-gyo, spend most of their time downstairs, indicating a fissure between the adults and their children. The stairway to the cellar is its own unique animal, with Bong shooting it like he's suddenly directing a horror film (there's a thematic reason for this that I can't go into without spoilers). In this way, he bestows upon it an ominousness that, at first, makes little sense, but ultimately reveals itself to be a spectacular bit of foreshadowing. There's also a third stairway in the Park home, one not revealed until late in the second act, but one which has huge narrative and thematic importance.
_Parasite_ is a masterpiece, with Bong, operating at the peak of his abilities, never putting a foot wrong. It could have been a self-serving and didactic message-movie – a homily to the honour of the poor or a deconstruction of the unhappiness of the rich – but Bong is far too talented for that, avoiding rhetorical cant, and allowing the film to find its own space. Quite unlike anything I've ever seen, it works as allegory just as well as it works as social realism just as well as it works as comedy just as well as it works as tragedy, and so on. This is cinema as art; it's the best Palme d'Or winner since Terrence Malick's _The Tree of Life_ in 2011 and the best Best Picture winner since Kevin Costner's _Dances with Wolves_ in 1990. Bong is currently working with HBO to develop a limited series English-language adaptation, which fills me with dread, but no matter what happens with that project, no matter how good (or bad) it may be, here in 2020, Parasite has proven itself very much a game-changer, a film that deserves every bit of praise it's received.

Decent enough dark comedy/thriller, with nice performances and an engaging story, though not entirely sure it was Best Picture worthy though reserving judgment as I've only seen one other nominee, Joker which I loved but not worthy of a BP.
I don't know, maybe I'm a bit disappointed given the awards the film won and my viewpoint would've been different seeing it a couple weeks back. As it is, had some entertaining and thrilling moments, but emotionally can't say I was invested... **3.75/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Yes, I know. I'm late as hell. I don't really have anything to offer you besides my personal opinion. Theses and video essays are breaking down Parasite at such a deep level that I can't really write anything new. Nevertheless, I'll share my thoughts on it because it would be a massive miss from someone who considers himself as a film critic. I had this movie on my watchlist since last summer, but I kept delaying it, underestimating my time. So, no, I'm not just watching Parasite because it won Best Picture at the Oscars, I always planned on it.
In addition to that, yes, I also love it like most people, and no, I'm not writing this because I'm "following the pack". Bong Joon Ho simply delivered one of 2019's best films, and it's definitely cracking a spot in my Top10. I really enjoyed what Bong did with Okja, and I'm a massive fan of Snowpiercer. Therefore, this isn't just another South Korean flick. It's directed and co-written by someone who has been proving himself for quite some time. Even though I still defend that Sam Mendes deserved to win Best Director for his work on 1917, I'm more than happy that a foreign movie finally won Best Picture, and what a film to do it!
It can be described as a dark dramedy, but I think social satire is more adequate. The differences between the rich and the poor are beautifully shown on-screen exclusively through visuals. There's so little exposition, which is one of the reasons why Parasite has one of 2019's best screenplays. The balance between explaining something and leaving it ambiguous is perfect. Throughout the runtime, Bong Joon Ho leans on an actor's face so that the audience can understand what that character is feeling through its expressions, which will explain its actions later on.
There's a sequence that surely has been heavily discussed for the past months. It's raining, and Bong cleverly divides the screen with how the wealthy family is dealing with it against the poor neighborhood where the Kim family comes from. The gorgeous cinematography, the unforgettable musical score, the seamless editing... Everything about this sequence is technically flawless, and it carries such an emotionally powerful message. Something astonishing and beautiful to look at for some can be a horrible disaster for others.
It's a movie that balances a lot of tones. In ten minutes, the tone goes from funny to dramatic to suspenseful to scary to absolute tragedy... and it all feels incredibly realistic. That's one of my major compliments to Parasite: I never felt like it was fiction. I never thought "this is too much, this would never occur". Even in the third act, where the narrative takes some bold decisions, everything makes sense with what had been shown until then. From shocking character actions to surprising plot points, Bong and Han Jin-won's screenplay is excellent.
Everyone in the cast is fantastic, but Song Kang-ho is the standout, in my opinion. His role as the father of the Kim family is brilliant. I'm actually surprised he wasn't nominated for Best Actor in more award shows. I created a connection with this family in such a way that the ending truly impacted me. It's tough to deny that the writing is what makes Parasite the phenomenon that so many people fell in love with, myself included.
Technically, I don't have any defects to point out. It's one of those films that I firmly believe in having virtually no flaws. I'm in love with the score, I gasped several times at the impressive cinematography, and the editing is perfect. Whatever genre the story decides to go to, it's always entertaining and extremely captivating. Its comedy is very smart, and it made me laugh a lot of times. Its dramatic storylines kept my eyes always focused on what was happening. Even when it briefly delves into the horror territory, it's more suspenseful and scary than most of that genre's flicks nowadays.
All in all, Parasite genuinely surprised me. With so many people hyping it to a ridiculously high level, my expectations were very moderate. Nevertheless, I love it as much or more as everyone else. I know that watching it this late can make some people question my opinion/rating, but I would never love a movie because I "should" or because other people do. It deserves every award it received, especially the ones concerning the screenplay. It's one of the best original stories of the last few years, and it's written in such a brilliant manner, with beautiful visual storytelling instead of the overused exposition. An emotionally resonant message is present throughout the whole runtime, and the various tones are balanced seamlessly. Technically flawless: cinematography, score, editing... everything's absolutely perfect. Nothing is placed without purpose. Not a single line of dialogue is wasted. Bong Joon Ho is a phenomenal filmmaker, one that cares about the art and everything that comes with it. He truly put his heart and soul into this, and it would be a shame if anyone fails to watch this magnificent movie just because it's in a foreign language. Please, don't make such an awful mistake...
Rating: A+

"You know what kind of plan that never fails? No plan. No plan at all. You know why? Because life cannot be planned."
'Parasite' is absolutely fantastic. I'm still buzzing how good this movie is. Unpredictable and nuts. You know, this summer I was starting to get a little worn out with the endless sequels, remakes and soulless crash grabs, so I find it refreshing we get movies like this once awhile.
I admire Bong Joon-Ho as a director, especially his Korean movies. Not to say I dislike his English language films like 'Snowpiercer' and 'Okja', but in my personal opinion those don't match the same quality as his Korean movies and there isn't a sex pest trying to control his work. Anywhere, Bong Joon-Ho is one of the best working directors alive and 'Parasite' proves it.
The movie perfectly blends drama and comedy so effortlessly, it basically breaks the impossible. And the comedy is actually hilarious and well written with the execution being sold on the actors. The thing I love so much is how funny, thrilling and intense the movie can be, hijacking all senses and emotions all wrapped into one - only a few directors can pull something this unique.
The performances from everyone was brilliant and there's so much depth to each character, they make the movie as captivating as it is. The cinematography was beautiful, the music was remarkable, and the movie says so much it's the reason why I was engaged throughout.
I highly recommend people to avoid knowing anything before going in, because trust me it will add to your experience.
Overall rating: Finally, a breath of fresh air. My second favorite movie of this year.

errbnb
News that Adam McCay is collaborating with Bong Joon Ho to retool Parasite as a Netflix series makes me positively giddy. Parasite is easily the best movie I've seen since the Big Short. Joon Ho's compelling ease of execution alongside the effortless lure of the plot's trappings had me hooked in an instant. I would have been happy watching this family fold pizza boxes for two hours. The story, like the family, takes on a life of its own, rapidly elevating to a setup impossible to sustain. The Bunuelesque occupy-the-rich scheme gleefully, blissfully ascends to lofty heights only, inevitably, to hit the fatal fan. The poor buggers ultimately find themselves literally chin deep in their own sh*t. The hotsy-totsy aristocrats, meanwhile, host a lovely garden party that flips into a tragic Shakespearean bloodbath. It's all fun and games till someone loses a daughter. (Note to the rich: Check the references of new hires and think twice before inviting riffraff to your afternoon functions). Decades in the making, the implosion of a middle income buffer and a widening disparity between social classes make Parasite a must-see for all income brackets. You don't have to be rich or detest or envy the rich to enjoy this instant classic. But please, whatever you do, don't try this a home, folks. Never combine the rich and poor without safety goggles or outside the confines of a controlled and supervised laboratory setting.

This is VERY HIGHLY OVERRATED.
The most part of the movie is foul-playing, most of those scenes seem to have been copied from the 1999/old Vijay’s movie: Minsaara Kannan [IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7562630/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_2], (Warning: This again might be a copy of some other movie as well].
“Morse code” has been used in a much better way in 2017 Ajith’s film: Vivegam [IMDB:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6878378/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0] [Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/film/vivegam/]
I just don’t understand what makes this movie so special that it has been appraised so highly. It is not even 10% of the Tamil movies at this level/standard.
People who’re praising this movie must start watching Tamil movies instead of Korean, there are so many gems that have gone unnoticed.
There is really nothing special in this movie that stands out.
Cannot digest that an average movie like this has got so much limelight. Btw: Where does this kinda BS trend start off?

The working class and down on their luck Kim family struggle to make ends meet. When a friend of the son, Ki-Woo’s, who is an English tutor for the daughter in the wealthy Park family, has to leave his position, he recommends Ki-Woo for the job. Now having an "in" with the wealthy family, the Kims begin plotting the downfall of the current household servants and inserting themselves into those vacant positions, making them all gainfully employed and with money finally flowing into the household. But not everything is as it seems in the Park house or with their previous servants.
This movie starts out as a comedy and quickly goes into social commentary, pointing out the differences between the poor working class family and the wealthy privileged family. The differences are ones that get commonly pointed out with the well-to-do having what usually gets termed as first-world-problems, while the poor family is literally trying to survive and save meager possessions in a flood. It doesn’t shy away or try to be subtle about it, but interestingly enough, we don’t feel beaten over the head with it either, which is a major change from the ham-fisted approach taken by most filmmakers. Couching this in a comedy is a good approach, as well, as the audience’s guard is let down and we become more receptive to the ideas.
However, I do say it’s MOSTLY a comedy. The third act takes a dark, dark turn, and the contrast, not to mention general disdain and even indifference, between the classes becomes much more severe. This gets into some hard territory, and characters that we’ve found quirky and even come to like in some ways show very different sides of themselves. At the same time, it doesn’t feel unexpected, almost like we could tell that this was under the surface all the time and tried to ignore it, but aren’t surprised by it when it does show up. This is some masterful characterization!
Another aspect of note is that this film is rich in allegory and metaphor. It’s a smart film, yet at the same time the filmmakers are not condescending about it. They give the audience credit for being able to understand the symbolism and don’t spoon feed you everything, which is a refreshing change from the usual head-beating most filmmakers go for. At the same time, they understand that not every audience member will understand or immediately pick up on every symbol, but they have crafted this so carefully and so perfectly that you don’t have to understand each and every one. That understanding merely enriches the experience, but isn’t essential to it.
This film has gotten some recognition, and deservedly so. It is rich, intelligent, and polished to a degree that we sadly don’t see as often as we should nowadays, showing the filmmakers are masters of their craft. This is easily one of the best films I’ve seen in 2019. Highly recommended!

What makes ‘Parasite’ so satisfying is that it commits neither error. It’s an engrossing, stylish and near perfect movie, and its underlying themes go beyond merely pointing out class exploitation to challenge the logic of capital. Though he is often juggling a mosaic of characters, themes and social issues, Bong never eschews his anarchic impulses and dark humour. It’s a movie that should be seen as widely as possible, if only so that Bong Joon-ho gets more chances to make movies for modern audiences that badly need them.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-parasite-a-bloodthirsty-and-very-funny-look-at-class-warfare
Head to https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/sff for more Sydney Film Festival reviews.

Directed by Peter Weir and starring Jim Carrey in a career-defining role, the film tells the story of Truman Burbank, a man living unknowingly in a reality TV show. This premise alone sets it apart in cinematic history. Truman felt real, relatable, and honestly, just amazing.
What makes this movie special is how unique the story is. Back in 1998, the idea of someone’s life being filmed without them knowing was way ahead of its time. The film captured and critiqued a cultural shift before it fully unfolded. Watching Truman figure out that his whole world is fake and trying to break free is equal parts heartbreaking and inspiring. It really makes you think about how much of your life is influenced by the world around you and what’s actually real.
The choice of location was genius, the town Truman lives in, Seahaven, is picture-perfect. It was filmed in Seaside, Florida, and honestly, it looks like something out of a postcard. But that’s the point, it feels like the kind of place you'd dream of but quickly realize is too good to be true, just like Truman’s life. The way they shot the movie is genius too. Cinematographer Peter Biziou masterfully used unconventional angles, hidden-camera perspectives, and subtle vignetting to make you feel like you’re watching Truman through the eyes of the people spying on him.
Thematically, The Truman Show hits hard. It’s about the constructed realities we live in, whether imposed by media, society, or even ourselves. It explores what it means to live authentically and the cost of breaking free from comfort and illusion. And honestly, how many movies make you question the nature of your own life?
Beyond the story, the film’s legacy is remarkable. It anticipated a world of mass surveillance and reality TV, making it more than just a movie, it’s a cultural touchstone. Even now, its themes feel fresh and unsettling, like it was made for today.
It’s not just an entertaining watch but a thought-provoking experience that stays with you long after the credits roll. Whether it’s your first time watching or a revisit, The Truman Show feels like a mirror to our times.

If you think Simon Cowell is a television control freak, just meet "Christof" (Ed Harris) who built an huge great dome you can see from space, populated by dozens of ever-changing actors all so the ever-curious world can follow the life of one man. "Truman Burbank" (Jim Carrey) has lived what he considers to be a perfectly normal, trouble-free, life that has led him to his currently, happily married, status with "Meryl" (Laura Linney). He hasn't quite seemed to clock that every day bears a striking resemblance to the one before, but if it ain't broke... Then he begins to notice things that trigger some cerebral rebellion to his Elysian existence. He begins to realise just how unnaturally predicable everything in his life is whilst recalling his old flame "Lauren" (Natascha McElhone) who was inexplicably whisked away from a midnight seaside rendezvous. When his car radio accidentally picks up the talkback frequency and he quickly thereafter stumbles upon some sloppy scene-setting, he begins to question his whole reality - and boy is he in for one hell of a shock! What can he do, though? Every attempt to "escape" is thwarted and we know he is terrified of the water... Will he get to the truth? Easily Carrey's best role in my book, as he plays the good natured but slightly vacuous character whom we see evolve into someone much more capable than many - including his puppet-master - think possible. It's a comically savage indictment on the routine nature of the life so many people go through as one year follows another with little, if any, change to the safe daily regimen. The writing allows Carrey to deliver a plausibly characterful effort that's entertaining and engaging and hats also ought to come of to his on-screen wife (Linney) who presumably sacrifices quite a lot for her art and watches the man she cares for become a bit of a personality car crash. Could it ever happen? Maybe the old sailors were right - and there is an end of the flat world, as we know it...?

How the heck did they make so much money off advertisements?!

Seen this one numerous times, including in the theater, and still holds up so well, and is engrossing from beginning to end. It was the first time seeing how versatile Jim Carrey was. Just a great all around movie. **4.5/5**

Such a well executed plot. So much fun to watch.
Jim Carrey, an actor I always enjoying watching, is terrific in the lead as Truman - he kills every moment, very much the perfect person to play this role. Laura Linney (Hannah), Ed Harris (Christof) and Noah Emmerich (Louis) are the best of the rest, while Paul Giamatti (Simeon) even appears.
'The Truman Show' is one of those films that I've heard a great deal about down the years so I'm happy to have finally got around to seeing it. It's excellent. It's well paced and just a really entertaining and thoughtful premise to watch unfold. Brilliant film.

In a world experimenting with big brother reality shows and questioning what is real in a mtrix kind of way, The Truman Show is a splendid and well executed movie about a man owned by a corporation from birth, who lives on the set while not being aware of the fact that everything around him is fake. Brilliant Jim Carey.

On the surface, The Truman Show is about a man who has lived his life trapped inside of a bubble. He tries the entire movie to pop the bubble, and he eventually does.
Under that layer, though, is a complex theme. Does Truman really enjoy his cell? He seemed to for years. At the same time, he struggled with memories, but don't we all?
As the viewer, we're left to determine the morality of the happiness of millions versus the freedom of one. We're also left to consider whether Truman's cage was better than his freedom. A child born into a system that doesn't have a great track record or a life of relative safety with no knowledge of the cage.
The viewer also has to determine the sturdy nature of reality. What is reality besides our perception of it? What's real to Jim or to Bob? Are the things that are real to them real to me if I've never seen or heard about them?
Beyond the philosophical questions the movie poses, the film itself is solid. Jim Carrey pulls off the part wonderfully. He's more than just a comedian, although he can bring the humor the instant the scene needs it. The supporting cast fell right in line.
The pacing may be a little slow early on for many viewers, but that is remedied once the action begins to pick up.
If you want something light and silly, go watch something else by Carrey.

Truman...One of my favourite films. It's just hilarious. The whole concept that this man thinks he is living in the real world.
Very well done to the Director and Writers!

**"The Truman Show"** dares to question the reality. It's original, complex, and philosophical. It manages to make you feel truly frustrated and **claustrophobic**.
Perhaps many of us can relate to Truman as we live in a time of routines. We often live our lives without giving a second thought to the simplicity and meaninglessness of life itself. Our limited perspectives keep us from seeing. The lies we are told keep us from the truth. If we could push the boundaries of our reality, what are the odds that we'd face what Truman faced in the end?
It was a joy to watch **"Jim Carrey"** as **"Truman"**, it is yet another proof that Jim isn't just a comedian.

Certainly not one of Disney's better animations from a technical perspective - the artwork lacks the vibrancy and detail of many of their earlier stories; but the combined efforts of Sir Tim Rice, Elton John and Hans Zimmer make this an enjoyable fantasy adventure. It is told in two parts - the first sees a son "Simba" born to the king "Mufasa"; a curious little fella who, alongside his friend "Nala" is inquisitive and mischievous - a real pain in the neck to the king's major-domo "Zazu". One fan the new cub really doesn't have, however, is the king's rather unimpressed brother "Scar" who hatches a plan to depose his brother and take over the kingdom. He manages to achieve exactly this and to get the youngster to blame himself and head off, alone, into exile. The second part is much more fun; he falls in with a warthog and is soon eating colourful grubs and living a peaceful, jolly life far from home. That idyllic existence is not to last long, however - "Nala" discovers he is still alive and races to alert him of the disaster that has befallen the kingdom under the rule of his uncle and his trusty band of hyenas. The musical numbers help it build to a gripping denouement, with clever, quite witty dialogue from some good - though not great - voice talents from the likes of James Earl Jones, Jeremy Irons, Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick and Whoopi Goldberg to keep the pot boiling. It is an enjoyable film to watch but I wasn't captivated by it.

If you enjoy reading my reviews, please follow my blog :)
First of all, this is (obviously) a SPOILER review. I mean, who hasn’t seen this movie yet? If by some extraordinary circumstances you’re one of those unlucky souls, stop. Spend the next hour and a half watching this animated masterpiece and come back here. I will still avoid mentioning key details because I’m just used to it, and The Lion King has so many things to compliment that I don’t really need to get in-depth on spoilers. So, in case you haven’t notice it through my Twitter or occasional mentions in other reviews, The Lion King is one of my favorite films of all-time (animated or not)!
I rewatched it for the 312358th time this last weekend, and I cried more than when I was just a child. That’s how much this movie means to me. The sense of nostalgia plus the overwhelming emotions throughout the runtime are tear-inducing aspects that I can’t simply avoid. I literally cried (waterfalls) in four (!) different scenes. The opening sequence (Circle of Life) filled my eyes with nostalgia’s tears. Mufasa’s tragic moment obviously wrecked me (one of the most emotionally powerful scenes in the history of cinema). Simba receiving the whole “remember who you are” speech from Mufasa in the clouds is incredibly inspirational and therefore worthy of some sobbing. Finally, one of the last scenes, Simba climbing his way to the top of Pride Rock with Hans Zimmer‘s score, leaving me absolutely destroyed.
And I want to pick up on that last aspect: the score. It’s one of the most crucial technical features of a film, in my opinion. It can transform an “okay” scene into something magical or something pretty terrible, depending on what kind of score it is. Consequently, it can make a “good” movie turn into a “great” one. Hans Zimmer is one of my favorite composers ever. His soundtracks are always filled with such an epic vibe. Even if the film itself isn’t that good, his scores are still able to elevate it in some way. The Lion King is one of his most memorable scores due to how emotionally compelling it is, even in the subtlest moments.
During the stampede sequence, the score doesn’t lend you time to breathe. Its high rhythm and continuously growing music keep any viewer at the edge of the seat, waiting for it to be over. Then, when Simba descends and approaches his dad, the score is so subtle. Completely opposite to the previous sumptuous and grand sound. It’s that nuance plus the impact of the scene itself that make me cry. In the last scene that I mentioned above, it’s solely the score that brings in the chill-inducing tears. If Simba climbed Pride Rock with no soundtrack, it would just be a good ending. However, from the exact moment that the score fades in, it instantly turns that sequence into an epic finale. The slow-motion walk to the top, the immersive score, Simba’s roar … Damn it, I’m crying again!
The animation is some of Disney’s best. It’s not by chance that the Disney Renaissance Era (1989-1999), which was the return to form by Disney, has the best animation quality of its history, and a lot of the memorable movies that marked everyone’s childhood. Its expressiveness and ease to make animals emote elevates the story and its characters. There’s no need for any kind of dialogue when you can see how the characters are reacting and understand what they’re feeling. The wide shots are beautiful to look at and worthy of being anyone’s wallpaper even today.
The songs are remarkable and they influenced an entire generation. Can You Feel the Love Tonight, Circle of Life, Be Prepared, Hakuna Matata, … Every single song is someone’s favorite. The voice work is perfect. James Earl Jones gives such an outstanding vocal performance that even when discussing his career’s biggest role, Darth Vader isn’t the obvious choice. Jeremy Irons and his raspy voice elevate Scar as the villainous character. If you close your eyes and only hear every character’s voice, without having watched the film previously, you can easily identify who’s the “bad guy”, and that’s unbelievably good. Everyone else is amazing, but these two gentlemen are astonishing, and they deserve to be remembered forever as the voices of these iconic roles.
Nevertheless, in the end, the two pillars of every movie always matter the most: story and characters. The Lion King has an especially compelling screenplay, one that teaches its viewers how to handle loss, but also how to grow up and overcome our worst fears. It’s true that most people cry watching this film, but those same people are filled with joy by the end because they accompanied Simba’s journey. From being a reckless and innocent cub to becoming the king that everyone needed, while also making his father extremely proud. Even though it’s a very tragic movie, Timon and Pumbaa are two hilarious characters that keep bringing some sense of happiness by delivering some well-needed laughs. Their laid-back lifestyle is something that everyone desires, but when you have responsibilities, you can’t just hide from them. You must learn how to be what everyone needs you to be, without losing the essence of who you are.
It’s a masterpiece! It doesn’t matter if it’s an animated film. It doesn’t matter if it was “made for kids”. People need to stop looking at animated flicks as something juvenile that only children can watch while parents can do something else. If parents watched this kind of inspirational animated movies as well, maybe the world would be a better place. The Lion King is one of my favorite films of all-time, and it’s undeniably one of Disney’s best original movies. From the gorgeous animation to the beautiful score, from the emotionally compelling story to the life journey Simba goes through, from the chill-inducing tearful moments to the loud laughs … The Lion King is just perfect. Hopefully, its “live-action” remake will keep its essence and deliver these feelings once again.
Rating: A+

Every now and again when you watch antiques programmes on television and somebody turns up with a toy in it's original box - that turns out to be worth more than his car - I regret that I no longer possess any from my childhood. I do recall, however, being especially fickle - the favourite one day was never likely to reign long before being supplanted by another. That's the case here for cowboy "Woody". He is the favourite of owner "Andy" amongst, it has to be said, rather a lot of different ones. Until, that is - one birthday, we meet Space Ranger "Buzz Lightyear". He's actually quite an affable chap, but the green eyed monster is now in charge and "Woody" tries to relegate his successor down the side of the bed. That goes wrong and, accidentally, out of the window he goes. The other toys are horrified, leaving "Woody" with no option but to get over his laser envy, rescue his new rival and repatriate him before the whole family move to a new home! What now ensues are some fun escapades, near misses and they fall into the hands of another young boy who really does want to blast "Buzz" into space. The vocal talents of Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are enthusiastic and entertaining, those of Don Rickles ("Mr. Potato Head") sometimes a little nearer the bone for the grown ups and they are all helped along by a good soundtrack and a wittily written script offering us plenty of scenarios that draw the viewer (of whatever age) into this simple, pretty timeless story. It's interesting, for 1995, to note the wide variety of toys this young boy has, too - no gender stereotyping, which is quite refreshing. This is quickly paced and enjoyable animation that touches on the values of trust, companionship and team spirt - as well as the demerits of envy and selfishness - and I really enjoyed it.

A stunning feature film entrance from Pixar! 'Toy Story' is a true delight, from the first second to the last.
The CGI animation is excellent. All the toys look brilliant, as does the world itself - I love the feel of it. The music is very good, Randy Newman does a nice job - "You've Got a Friend in Me" is a cracker.
Tom Hanks leads a strong cast. Hanks plays Woody, to fantastic effect. He is the best part of this film. Tim Allen is great, too, as Buzz Lightyear. Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), Wallace Shawn (Rex) and John Ratzenberger (Hamm) also bring fun.
Everything else is just as terrific: the humour, the pacing, the plot - I enjoy it all. There are probably some flaws in parts, namely Buzz's supposed unawareness, but nothing impacts the viewing experience. Go watch!

Decided to revisit this after many years and still holds up so well. Great movie for both kids and adults with wonderful teachable moments. Just a groundbreaking animated movie all around. **4.5/5**

This movie came out when I was three. Now I'm twenty seven and the goddamn thing still holds up.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

It's one thing saying this isn't "Lord of the Rings" but it's quite another trying to watch without constantly comparing them. The same style of production with wonderful visual effects, Howard Shore's superb score and for much of the time it features many of the same actors from the earlier Peter Jackson trilogy. Similarly, it takes an age to get going. This first of three struggles in a different way too - there are no clearly defined roles for the characters; no "fellowship" if you like, for either the characters or the audience to focus on, so we are effectively starting from scratch with a whole slew of new characters whilst having to adjust to the new timelines for those we already know. Much less of a problem for those who have read the books, but for us other mortals that takes a while - and to be honest, I wasn't so impressed with the casting this time round. Martin Freeman was fine as "Dr Watson" in the BBC iteration of "Sherlock" but here, he is frankly quite annoying as "Bilbo", newbie to the franchise Richard Armitage fares slightly better as Dwarf king "Thorin" but it is an otherwise unremarkable cast that joins Sir Ian McKellen's "Gandalf" as they set off to reclaim their underground kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon "Smaug". To be fair, the story itself is not so good so the team have less to work with; and we are also now very used to the style and look of events from Middle Earth, so this was always going to make less of an impact - but the acting could have been considerably more robust. The saintly elves are bit too wholesome for me - though Cate "loads of audio reverb" Blanchett looks stunning as "Galadriel". There are plenty of evil orcs, goblins, and wargs to keep their perilous task engaging enough, though, and we are mercifully spared much of the infuriating "Gollum" (Andy Serkis) whom I cheered into the volcano at the end of "Return of the King" (2003). It is a good film, the two hours fly by and as a fan of the first trilogy, I shall stick with these - but I fear this is really a big screen experience that loses much on a smaller one with far to much dialogue and padding and not enough action.

There is no doubt that Peter Jackson does a great job bring Tolkien’s fantasies to life, much better, I imagine, than anyone must have assumed when they heard about the Lord of the Rings series way back when.
I must confess that I don’t like them as much as I enjoyed reading the books. I am sure there are complex reasons applicable to me. I read them when I was very young and it would be difficult to match that first-time experience. Also, the fighting and battles seem more central to the story than I remember. Perhaps that relates more to the modern movie audience rather than my memory.
As a funny side note, the film seemed to resemble in places that other fantasy series: the Jurassic Park franchise, in that they seemed to always be going from one close call to another, and the Wizard or somebody repeatedly yelled, “Run!” This series certainly sends the message that if you ever go on a dangerous adventure, it helps to have a wizard along for the journey.

Of course off the level of its 'The Lord of the Rings' predecessors, but I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'.
It has good lure to it, the plot is more than interesting, it features pleasant callbacks and - like LOTR - looks exquisite. As for the casting, I like 'em. Martin Freeman (Bilbo) is, like Elijah Wood, an actor I've always found hit-and-miss, but I really did enjoy Freeman's performance here - the humour is his usual schtick, though the rest of his showing is strong.
Ian McKellen (Gandalf) returns and is as much a joy to watch as before. None of the others, though all good, stand out massively, James Nesbitt (Bofur) does bring decent comedic stuff.
Hopefully the two sequels to this are just as fantastic!

Over a decade after a little-known director from New Zealand managed to con New Line Cinema into giving him $300 million to make a trilogy based on JRR Tolkien's seminal fantasy (and long considered unfilmable) work The Lord of the Rings, the cinematic landscape for fantasy has changed drastically. Much like Tolkien's tome, the Lord of the Rings films came to utterly define high fantasy in film, with even competing fantasy adaptations like The Chronicles of Narnia and Alice in Wonderland cribbing from Peter Jackon's critically-acclaimed, audience-adored multipart epic. Now Jackson has returned to the land that made him famous for a go-round with Tolkien's earlier work, The Hobbit.
Tolkien's The Hobbit is far more modest in scope than its enormous sequel, and geared for a younger audience. It introduced the world to Bilbo Baggins, a typically quiet hobbit who is coaxed into adventure by the grey wizard Gandalf, enlisted to aid thirteen dwarves in reclaiming their long-lost homeland.
Jackson had the unenviable task of following up on his blockbuster Academy Award-winning masterpiece, and initially passed off the directing responsibilities to fantasy master Guillermo del Toro. Difficulties securing the film rights led to delay after delay, and del Toro finally departed, leaving the original creative team the ability to step back into place and create a follow-up/lead-in with the same creative staff in front of and behind the camera. Jackson returned as director, co-writing with Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens (though del Toro retains a screenwriting credit), Andrew Lesnie as cinematographer, and Howard Shore as composer, along with all of the other stalwarts of the original trilogy.
The lone exception to that is the recasting of Martin Freeman as the titular hobbit, taking over for the aging Ian Holm. Holm appears in the film's framing sequence (a scene that takes place immediately prior to the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring), along with that trilogy's star, Elijah Wood. But this time out, it's Freeman's show, and he's as charming, witty, and engaging as you could imagine. He also makes a perfect Young Ian Holm. The casting is truly inspired. Sir Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf (here playing his more impish grey incarnation, rather than the frankly humorless white version) and the heralded thespian manages to imbue his character with both immense power and gravitas, while still throwing in little flourishes that sell Gandalf as an imperfect man, rather than just an all-knowing power. Rounding out the third of this film's main characters, and an addition to this world, is Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the motley crew of dwarves. Armitage likewise manages to imbue Thorin with both rage and honor, and is easily believable as someone who could lead these dwarves into life-threatening battle. The other twelve dwarves are something of a blur, but a few of them manage to make an impression, even with limited screen time. I imagine the two future installments of the series will afford them each the chance to shine.
Which brings up the most contentious point of this whole Hobbit affair: the fact that it's a three-part epic. The Hobbit, as written, is a comparatively slim tome of around 300 pages (compare that to The Lord of the Rings' combined 1,600). This installment alone is ten minutes shy of a whopping three hours. And as anyone who's seen The Return of the King can attest, Jackson can get rather indulgent at times (the end[s] of that film). Initially the film was going to be split in twain, then later divvied up into three parts. Tolkien, ever the completist, wrote volumes of backstories for this world, and Jackson decided to pull from them to bulk out these films.
I've seen a lot of hay being made about the film being bloated and, yes, indulgent. I'm an editor at heart, and am generally hyper-sensitive about cutting down to the bone. But the strangest thing happened on the way to the Lonely Mountain: I found myself simply rolling along with the shaggy-dog pace of the film. It's astonishing in hindsight. The film virtually redefines "taking the scenic route," but the crazy thing is I didn't mind it in the least. I believe it's because of the lowered stakes of The Hobbit. Every single frame of The Lord of the Rings was suffused with overbearing doom; that trilogy's "save the world" plot became as heavy a burden to bear as the ring hung around Frodo's neck. But The Hobbit is lighter, freer, funnier, and doesn't have the weight of the world on its shoulders. It's rather the difference between having an appointment you need to get to in heavy traffic and taking a weekend to just drive around, stopping when and where you like. This pace will likely have a dire impact on the film's rewatchability, but sitting in the theater for a midnight showing? Magic.
The structure of the film itself seems to have ADD. Its innumerable diversions began to remind me of a live-action Family Guy episode, with character or event mentions that suddenly cause the film to cut away to a dramatization of said. But again, and I can't stress enough how unexpected this was for me, I didn't mind in the least (with one exception: it appears to be an inviolable rule that any scene in Rivendell will stop a film dead in its tracks).
The craft of the film manages to best that of its predecessor trilogy: Howard Shore turns in one of his most stirring scores, the production design and art direction are again immersive and beautiful, and Andrew Lesnie continues his unique style of cinematography combining gorgeous shots (wonderful) with frequently blowing out highlights (distracting and ugly).
One complaint I do have is Jackon's newfound over-reliance on CGI. Azog the Defiler (a chief antagonist of the film) and the Goblin King (a bit of a lark) are the sorts of character that would have (and should have) been practical effects in the original trilogy. Here they're fully CGI, and their menace is undermined by it. Gollum returns for his most famous scene, and looks wonderful; Andy Serkis' performance and the CGI truly sell this pitiful creature. CGI can be pitiful but not threatening, it appears.
I don't know what the other two installments of The Hobbit have in store. What I do know is that this return to Middle-earth is off to a great start, and if this is any indication of things to come, I'll most assuredly enjoy the ride.

An other great master peace has been added the the Lord of The Rings collection. This movie was an excellent example of how great actors, an amazing story and a beautiful world can be produced in such an excellent way. Peter Jackson has out done his self by creating this great film. There are differences from the book but I can't complain about any of them, yes I love the original story but this one is still one of the best. All in all a amazing movie.

Peter Jackson creates the same world that he already shown us in the LOTR, but that's not the only thing he repeats.
He also repeats ripping Tolkiens book into a sucession of endless races and actions scenes with orcs falling everywhere and several "inventions" that mess the beautiful story created by the English author.
He also repeats those several minutes of platform game inside caves that we saw in Moria and in his version of King Kong.
If you loved the previous movies from Jackson, you will love this too.
If you are looking for some quality, you will only finding in the re-creation of the Middle Earth and the peformances of Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman and Cate Blanchett.