_**The sum of all OUR fears**_
A nuke falls into the hands of a neo-fascist madman who wants to pit America against Russia. Then the unthinkable happens.
Based on the Tom Clancy novel, "The Sum of All Fears" (2002) features Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, a CIA analyst-turned-operative; Morgan Freeman plays his boss; and James Cromwell is on hand as the president. There are several other notables; even the hulking Sven-Ole Thorsen shows up.
I’ve only see one other Clancy movie featuring Jack Ryan and that was “Patriot Games” (1992). While it was a’right, this one’s better; top-of-the-line actually. It’s a realistic globe-trotting political thriller that shows how the world is a tinder box and it’s not going to take much to set it on fire. It’s augmented by some welcome wit & low-key humor.
The film runs 2 hours, 4 minutes. The locations are too many to list.
GRADE: A-/B+

Let's see. Who else has 27,000 nukes for us to worry about?
The Sum of All Fears is directed by Phil Alden Robinson and adapted to screenplay by Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne from the novel of the same name written by Tom Clancy. It stars Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell, Ciaran Hinds, Liev Schreiber, Bridget Moynahan and Michael Byrne. Music is scored by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by John Lindley.
Film is the fourth film to feature the character Jack Ryan (Affleck). It is set in present day 2002 but with Ryan younger than in the other films and at the start of his career in the CIA. Plot is Cold War themed and finds America in a sweat when it is found that renegade terrorists have a nuclear weapon in their possession; just as a new supposed radical president takes up office in Russia.
Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.
2002 saw two great thrillers released that starred Ben Affleck, one was Changing Lanes, the other was this Jack Ryan based effort that attempted to reboot the series. Coming a year after the September 11 attacks and featuring a plot involving terrorists using a bomb that America supplied the Israelis in the 70s during the Yom Kippur War, it was material too close to the bone for some critics. Yet the film did well at the box office in the States and including Worldwide takings it garnered well over $100 million in profit. Impressive figures considering it's not an action blockbuster, it relies on brain over brawn and leading man Affleck was on the back of Pearl Harbor and bearing the brunt of critical scorn.
Each day we lose a little bit more of our separate, sovereign ability to determine our own futures... and each day the world comes a little bit closer to that terrible moment when the beating of a butterfly's wings unleashes a hurricane God himself cannot stop.
Comforted by the superb cast around him, which also includes the likes of Colm Feore, Phillip Baker Hall and Alan Bates in support slots, Affleck proves perfect for the material to hand. Without doubt he's no Harrison Ford, in the same way Moynahan is no Anne Archer, tough boots to fill in the roles of Jack and Cathy Ryan respectively, but in a re-jig of Ryan the character, we now have the arrogance of youth dressed up in slacks and t-shirt, a smart brained youngster beginning his CIA career at a perilous time, a time that thankfully is devoid of jingoistic flag waving, but of adult political sensibilities. Affleck's Ryan as a character is as refreshing as the writers' responsible attitude is.
You dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. You dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. Do not lecture me on Chechnya!
With shades of the Cuban Missile Crisis and a Fail-Safe like finale, The Sum of All Fears rounds out as a nail biter of a thriller. Dig deeper and some implausibilities surface, but we are asked to tune into the paranoia and get in deep with the characters trying to avert global catastrophe, to decry the film's cerebral thriller qualities is churlish. The Jack Ryan parts of the film involving Cathy the girlfriend are the least interesting, but here's the thing, young Jack Ryan is just one of the components making up a far bigger whole. The film isn't solely a Jack Ryan movie. The source novel was a door stopper, so inevitably much as been excised from it, and inevitably fans of the book have been vocal in their displeasure; though we would have needed another hour of film to even get close to Clancy's big block of fiction. So in place is a picture that is uncomplicated in structure and story telling and comes in at under two hours running time. It's credit to director Robinson that The Sum of All Fears engrosses from start to finish.
It was hoped that the reboot would herald the start of a run of more Jack Ryan based movies, but in spite of the great box office, this didn't materialise. But that is in no way any marker to the quality of the film, or its standing in the Jack Ryan series. Judge it on its own merits and ideas and the rewards are many, especially on a second viewing. At the time of writing Jack Ryan will return to the big screen in December 2013, titled simply as Jack Ryan, with another young actor, Chris Pine in the role of Ryan. Undoubtedly that will be high on action, such is the way of drawing in the young dollars at the multiplexes these days. But if it has half the tension and brains of Robinson's picture then we will be blessed. If not? Then there's an even bigger reason to treasure Jack Ryan's 2002 version. 7.5/10

It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an _Ice Age_ film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far hope that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all _The Adventures of Buck Wild_ is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
**Full review:** https://hubpages.com/entertainment/The-Ice-Age-Adventures-of-Buck-Wild-2022-Review-An-Inept-Spleen-Powered-Blemish-of-Animation

A movie with a difficult story and interesting plot. A gift for the cast and a McAvoy who performs great.
Don't watch it if you don't have a deep skin and tons of sense of humor since it is quite disturbing but enjoyable at times ...
Quite an example of the humor in UK but not just that ...

I loved this movie

Unnecessary and forgettable but still somewhat entertaining flick that excels due to Samuel L. Jackson, while Jessie T. Usher shows he's a really bad actor. Nothing special but still managed to beat my low expectations. **3.0/5**

I don't often use the word masterpiece. I've seen 1,040 films in my life, totalling 1,549 hours of filmography. There's maybe 7 I would label a masterpiece with full usage and definition of the word.
The Wailing is the eighth film of one thousand and forty films I very willingly, gladly and without hesitation give the title of Masterpiece to.
I'm not too big of a fan of Asian supernatural horror. Whilst I very much enjoy it and give most films a pretty decent average rating, I find a lot of them bleed into one another with similar plots and a very safe view on the supernatural. In Japan it tends to be curses that have people die in mysterious ways, South Korea, a cursed object that has people murder each other are the most common ones I come across.
When I clicked The Wailing was supernatural, I prepared myself for a 6 or maybe 7 out of 10 movie that was good but wouldn't hold its own too well in the vast expanse of horror.
The Wailing gave me some stunning frames. The cinematography in this is beautiful. The gore frames are gruesome, unadulterated and unapologetic. The ritualism and belief of South Korea are shown in their full glory without fear. Na Hong Jin doesn't shy away from racial tension between the Japanese and South Koreans with a slightly historical take with a beautiful twisting story that left me with my mouth gaping open but still feeling just slightly uncomfortable - something I believe Hong Jin did on purpose. I was shown acting that was so well done, no matter what I watch these actors in from now on, I will always know them from The Wailing. The varying supernatural aspects were unique, something that stunned me, unafraid to step out of genre restrictions and lead the way with something new. With a story line that is intriguing, stunning and just raw, this two and a half hour journey was worth watching.
This is a film deserving of the hype that numerous other Asian horrors got but turned out to be predictable messed. THIS is the Korean horror of 2016, the one that should have lead the forefront of South Korean, or even Asian, horror into 2017. This is a film that shows prowess, promise and skill. Hong Jin treats us to such wonderful skills from not just himself but his script writer, his cast, his editing team, his make up team, etc, everyone involved. You can feel the passion and love and pure dedication that went into this movie.
A full 10/10 is just not enough for this film.
A twisting, numbing, horrifying masterpiece.

Watching "The Wailing" is quite an undertaking. With a runtime of almost 3 hours this Korean Horror-Triller is a shear beast. Unfortunately I feel like pretty much more than half the runtime should have been cut. "The Wailing" circles around in a seemingly endless "who done it" or, to be more precise, "who is it" and even though the acting of our lead Do-won Kwak was not too bad, the dialogues bothered me constantly. I find myself repeating this for about every Asian movie and I assume it must be a cultural thing. I mostly find the talk so generic and pointless, that you could reduce some movies to 5-10 important lines and let them be quiet for the entire rest of the runtime. And this movie is no different. The best acting performance was delivered by Jun Kunimura, who not only presented a great play with mimic, but also refused to talk much (I bet he knew I would appreciate that). The cinematography was pretty good and I liked the realistic appearing gore effects. Not so much on the "possessed zombies" but therefore on the crime scenes and such. With that many pro's and con's "The Wailing" ends up somewhere in the middle and can therefore be labeled average.

**A father's struggle to see his daughter to get well.**
A new film from the writer, director of 'The Chaser' and 'The Yellow Sea'. This time its a horror-thriller that focused on a rural police officer who witnesses a series of strange events escalating fears among its people. The original title was 'Goksung', which means the name of the village where this story takes place. This film is specially for those who like Korean films. But I'm sure that everyone would enjoy it equally. Very typical Korean film yet an engaging theme and thrilling, particularly towards the final quarter.
The opening, and almost the first act were like a black comedy. That does remain same after sometime. Because they wanted to give an impression what kind of person is this story's lead man. He's a cop, but feared of supernatural stuffs. So one day, he gets an early morning call to head where a family was slaughtered by one of its members. In his small village, with a small population, events like this are very rare, but when another similar incident was reported, ruled out what it was considered, but something else beyond humans.
After the strange dreams, he comes to know his family too got affected by it, particularly his young daughter. Followed by when it gets serious issue, the family decides to bring in a shaman and so the ceremony begins to free her from whatever possessed. This is where the film turns more aggressive in revealing following event with twists and turns. The rest of the film should be watched to know how it all ends.
The first thing was the film length. It was too long, nearly 150 minutes, but the screenplay filled with many enthralling scenes and dialogues. So I don't think sitting for that long would be an issue for most of the people. Surely you will be on your seat edge most of the time on your watch. Good story, but very confusing. I mean not puzzling way, but the events and its characters, especially the conclusion which is not exactly a perfect one with proper detail. So you might look for some clarifications after watching the film.
> "If you go fishing, do you know what you'll catch? He's just fishing. Not even he knows what he'll catch."
The concept was a little confusing like what kind of horror is this. At one stage there comes a zombie, but it follows right after an exorcism on a girl possessed by a ghost. The writer used the time as long as he wants to develop them. So the narration was slow, but very steady on its direction going deep. If you are good at Korean films, the style they make, you might predict some of the scenes correctly. Like I said the final few minutes might confuse you, but really well done part if you understand that clearly.
The film characters wise, I liked how it all connected at the end. But as a story, the solution did not seem right. I think not the fitting one or more convincing. I know who would you root, I mean most of you back what character, so from that perspective, feels it compromised a bit after put up a stern fight with what they had believed. I liked how culturally this story was narrated. I mean as its set in a small village, the ceremonies to fight the evil spirit was conducted traditional way, not the western style, except it opened with a quote from the bible.
The actors were perfect, particularly I liked where it was shot. A fine location to mix horror and cop themes. The suspense keeps the film alive, but you won't always looking at that, because the theme expands quite bigger than you expect. There are some unexpected turns, you might find yourself scratching your head for how deep it could go.
Don't worry, in the end, it all comes together, or maybe watching it twice could help you with that. As I said the runtime might not favour you for the second viewing. Besides, pay a good attention while watching it for the first time, then you will get everything. Particularly if you are an animal lover, that's a biggest clue you could get in this film.
I think it will be one of the best horror you would find around the world this year. It might get remade elsewhere, but the chances are less and it could remain as one of the Korean classics in the line of many others like 'Memories of Murder'. You don't have to be a Korean film fan or this director's, but if you do, surely you will have an advantage in understanding it clearly and like it more than the others. Definitely it is one of the best Korean films, but I don't think so a must see, not according to me. Though I won't conclude my review without recommending it to you. So I say watch it.
_7.5/10_

The ending underwhelms slightly, though 'One Hour Photo' is still worth a watch.
As great as Robin Williams' comedy is, I like the idea of seeing the guy act more serious - and he certainly did so in this 2002 release! The film starts are very strongly, I really enjoyed the vibe that was building. Williams plays a creepy character very well, while the rest of the cast - namely Connie Nielsen - support ably.
The movie does a drag a tiny bit the longer it goes on, despite only having a run time of around 90 minutes, and the conclusion didn't have as much of an impact as it should've. Still, I definitely got enough out of this one thanks to some good atmosphere building and a competent Williams performance.

“The Conversation” is not what you’d expect - but, it must be said, is fantastic and nearly flawless in its own right.
It is more similar to Antonioni’s “Blow” than DePalma’s, and a sense of eeriness flows throughout the work,
bolstered by Gene Hackman’s solemn and brooding performance.
The best thing about this movie though, is the shocking third act, which I wouldn’t dare spoil here.
Overall, though the second act may be slightly underbaked, “The Conversation” is a fantastic film and one of Francis Ford Coppola’s best.

Gene Hackman is superb here as "Harry" - a super-efficient surveillance expert who discovers in the line of duty that a couple he is monitoring might well be about to be murdered. It becomes clear that the couple - Cindy Williams & Frederic Forrest are having an affair but that is just the tip of the conspiratorial iceberg in this tautly scripted/directed effort from Francis Ford Coppola. It's a slow burn, at times it certainly does drag, but the subtleties with which the cat and mouse swap places, alongside some great supporting roles from John Cazale and Harrison Ford make it quite an enthralling watch - and certainly one of Hackman's best, most emotionally charged, performances.

"The Conversation" is a tense thriller that explores how paranoia can take over all aspects of everyday life once something disturbing is discovered.
Paid to eavesdrop on two people in a public place, Harry Caul ( Gene Hackman ) records the conversation and after some work produces a tape with clarity for his client. However Harry is riddled with guilt from a previous job that led to the people involved being hurt and both a woman and child murdered. This leads him to question his actions and clearly the job he is doing.
Despite colleagues, friends and suppliers of surveillance equipment looking up to Harry as one of the best in the business he clearly has lost his edge and his way. This is shown over a period of time through various actions. His flat is easily broken into by his landlord and his mail read. Harry is easily duped at a trade show by a competitor who bugs him with a pen and his girlfriend states "once I saw you up by the staircase , hiding and watching for a whole hour". Meanwhile despite his phone being supposedly unlisted both his landlord and his client have the number and to his surprise call him.
After listening many times to the tapes of the conversation, Harry believes that the two involved fear they could be hurt or even killed for their actions. However a trick is a trick or job is a job ( according to his girlfriend/ escort ) but riddled with guilt he fails to deliver. Once again he shows his unprofessionalism by allowing the tapes to be stolen ( by his girlfriend/ escort ) As the film concludes it becomes clear that conversations can be misinterpreted and may not be as obvious as first thought. Harry's paranoia is compounded even more once he discovers the truth behind "The Conversation," which results in a very satisfying ending.

Unfortunately, it appears with every passing day that the great American paranoid political thrillers of the 60's and 70's, with its strongest work bookended by 'The Manchurian Candidate' (eerily foreseeing the JFK assassination) and 'All the President's Men' (placing a coda of closure on the Watergate scandal), simply haven't aged a day, and are as timely as ever in conceptualizing the palpable fear that ordinary citizens have in those in control of their destinies, namely the police and government of their communities. It's the American ideal that any person born, regardless of circumstances, is in control of their destiny, and that with hard work, guile and determination, can make something of himself. Whether that was ever the case is questionable, but it seems more than ever that the people in power are in control of way more than we could ever suppose, or would ever want to know.
This was a nice smaller-scale film that, incredulously, Coppola was able to dish up in a run that is one of the finest a director would ever have, up there with Hitchcock's in the late 50's-early 60's, and Melville a decade later. It's definitely excellent work by Hackman (along with his Popeye Doyle in the pair of great 'French Connection' movies), and is up there with the greatest dissertations ever about the double-edged sword of surveillance, namely De Palma's 'Blow Out' and Antonioni's 'Blow-Up'.
As a human being, I only wish this film wasn't as important as it is.

Few Hollywood productions have been as utterly prescient as director Sidney Lumet’s cinematic masterpiece “Network” (1976), a chillingly serious satire about the television business in the 1970s and where it was ultimately headed in years to come. Written by TV pioneer Paddy Chayefsky, this winner of four Oscars on 10 total nominations provides a comical but cynically disturbing look inside the workings of a fictitious American television network. In telling this story, the film eerily forecast the direction this medium would take in the decades that followed with remarkable accuracy, stunningly predicting such developments as the tabloidization of TV, the consolidation of media ownership, the impact of foreign influence and investment, and the dumbing down, sensationalism and line-blurring of its content in both its entertainment and journalistic programming. It also nailed developments outside the television business with great clarity by focusing on the pivotal role that TV played (and would come to play) in those occurrences. And, even though it’s something of a nostalgic time capsule of the period in which it was filmed, the picture has held up remarkably well (it gets better with every viewing for me), even unwittingly providing viewers with an ironic and unsettling metaphor for the ubiquitous rise of social media (with TV serving as a stunningly fitting stand-in). Chayefsky’s Academy Award-winning script is positively brilliant, epitomizing what good screenwriting can (and should) be. And its casting is about as good as it gets, earning Oscars for the performances of Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch and Beatrice Straight, along with well-deserved nominations for William Holden and Ned Beatty and noteworthy accolades for Robert Duvall and Marlene Warfield. In fact, I’m stunned that this offering lost out to “Rocky” for best picture and that nominee Lumet was passed over for the best director award. Those oversights aside, however, I was nevertheless privileged to view this offering at a retrospective screening in honor of the filmmaker’s 100th birthday to a nearly sold-out audience. I’m pleased to see that this celluloid gem still garners so much viewer attention nearly 50 years after its release and that it’s attracting the interest of moviegoers of all ages. This is an absolute must-see for avid cinephiles, as well as highly recommended viewing for anyone who truly wants a poignant, insightful look at what’s truly going on in the world around them, particularly when it comes to the workings of said world and the selective filtering of information about it. “Network” just might deservedly open a few eyes – and raise quite a few eyebrows at the same time.

Peter Finch is superb here as the increasingly puritanical television news anchor ("Beale") who, having been told he was about to be fired decided on air to tell the audience he was going to shoot himself on live telly. Next night - yep, he was allowed back - he declared that it was time the viewing public got off their sofas and declared they had "had enough" with lazy government and corporate greed. His long suffering boss "Max" (William Holden) wants to have him looked after (medically) but the ambitious PR executive "Diana" (Faye Dunaway) sees an opportunity amidst all this evangelicalism and convinces the station's new boss "Hackett" (Robert Duvall) to remove "Max" and to reinstate "Beale" with his own hour long news hour programme complete with it's own soothsayer! Initially, this all sounds too barmy to be real, but in true television tradition - it catches on. The audiences soar, the advertisers and sponsors love it. For once, the news division isn't haemorrhaging cash! Can this be sustained though? "Beale" is entirely out of control and nobody - even his own network - is safe from his ranting and raving. Sooner or later he is bound to overstep the mark - and then the dominoes are going to topple spectacularly. To be honest I found the story to become more and more preposterous as the potent points about avarice, venality and success at all costs became subsumed into a denouement scenario that was pretty ridiculous. That said, this isn't really about the story so much as the performances from Finch, Holden, and the frequently scene-stealing Dunaway who delivers some pithy monologues with the sharpness of hound's tooth! Even now, almost fifty years later, it still resonates as conversations about true journalism versus commercial pandering showing no sign of ever abating, let alone finding a solution that adequately satisfies both. It also swipes quite nicely at the audience - the anything for a peaceable life brigade who get their news from television so long as they like what they hear! I would have like to have seen more of Finch, but as it is, this is a cracking and characterful look at what makes some of us tick (or not!).

The UPS network is a television network that suffers from a lack of viewership. This led to the layoff of a group of their employees, including the great media night news presenter, Howard Beale, and this led to the events of a psychological impact on Beale, so he promised that he would commit suicide in front of the camera the next day.
The conditions and conditions of the network changed after Beale's decision to commit suicide in front of the camera the next day. The film takes us through the changes that occur to the network after this incident. How did Howard get the situation to the brink, how does the network deal with the crisis, and how do they benefit from the incident, or in a more correct, how do they exploit it to increase the number of views and return the network to the most powerful television network in America.
The film focuses on 4 characters, the first character is Diana Christensen, a character who doesn't care about high principles in the media and tries in various ways to do anything, even if it is bad, in order to make the network gain more views, a character that surprises you a lot because of her orientations. The second character is Howard Beale and the internal factors that led him to stand in front of the camera, fragile and mind-bending. Is it personal or is the network related?
The third character, who are the members of the network and the fate of the company, what are the things they will do in order to save the network from collapse and raise viewing rates and ratings, even if at the expense of harming others, literally anything?
The last character is the viewers. How do they want to attract viewers to the network as long as possible to ensure higher profits and the viewer to stay for as long as possible? This requires many things that you will see in the movie.
What I liked about the film is that the film was able to mock companies, criticize societies, and focus on the weakness of people through its story and not through direct messages. The highest number of views.
What we see now in the media in the 21st century, we see that this is true, although the film says that it is based on fictional events. How do the minds of the media founders play with the minds of the viewers through the television screens that reach every home? It was formulated well. Are people only looking for entertainment, even if it is at the expense of harming others? All these ideas and questions are employed in a coherent story and seen through its complex characters.

Network broadcasts its televisional corruption through satirical poetry that beckons democratic madness. “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore”, screams Howard Beale from the confinement of his studio desk. Exerting his ornate insanity upon the entranced viewers who innocently stare at their cubic televisions, watching the news broadcast fuelled by media misrepresentation and propaganda. “Go to your nearest window and scream”, acting as the voice of the working class, benign to the American corporate fundamentals that masquerade the politics of democracy. In an age where leading actors can represent constituencies or states, and businessmen can be presidential candidates for a nation (and successfully winning...), Lumet’s timeless satire on conceptualised democracy is one that grows more appropriate with each passing decade.
A statement on the American financial system, where colossal stock markets rule the supposed freedom of the people. Broadcasting networks more focussed on combating against each other for monetary viewership, leading to exaggerated fabrications, rather than reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Exploiting the frail mentality of humanity to feed the greed and lust of “humanoid” managers, capitalising on the naivety of man.
Network depicts the modern evolution of communicating false truths. As technology evolves, we grow more and more susceptible to the “truth” that is conveyed to us. We, much like sponges, absorb the information demonstrated through the porous pixels that we subject our eyes to. Televisions. And through hyperbolised satire, including planning an assassination attempt and coercing suicidal tendencies, Lumet offers a cutthroat insight into broadcasting institutions and the meticulous methods in which networks function. Motivated by stock shares and rating dominance. Pioneering the consumption of propagandist material. Lumet exploits the audacious power of televisions and its communicative abilities, turning an often comedic satire into a transcendental horror feature.
Powered by sterling performances all-round, including the elusively commanding Dunaway, the maddening lunacy of Finch and the smoothly suave Holden, the poetic dialogue immediately captures the attention of its audience. Concisely elaborate with a hint of existential analysis, an ornate lexicon that refrains viewers from tuning out. Lumet’s long sumptuous takes, allowing the performances to ironically hypnotise, further extend the reach of its material. Superlative direction that, whilst suddenly throws you into the immediate chaos of Beale’s mentality, eases the hectic pace with its scathing power.
The offscreen affair between Dunaway and Holden was the only underdeveloped sub-plot, reinforcing her workaholic agenda that likened her to a corporate machine than to a human with emotive capabilities.
Aside from that, Network absolutely deserves its near-perfect acclaim. A considerably profound illustration of the American system that tantalisingly exposes the fraudulence of promised conceptualised democracy, whilst also enforcing the relinquishment of humanity through television sets. Harrowing times we live in...

**The Primal Forces of Network**
According to the Writers Guild of America the greatest screenplay of all time belongs to _Casablanca_. A sentimental favourite, no doubt, worthy for a handful of catchy one-liners capped off with a convincing dump-the-dame speech. While Bogie plays himself, Bergman, who may have been the most beautiful woman of all time, didn't have much to say. The best moments in Casablanca were, in fact, the silent ones, and without Bogie and Bergie's chemistry, it probably wouldn't have made the top 10.
Best screenplay suggests best story, best plot, best characters and dialogue; best combination of drama, comedy, intrigue, emotional engagement, suspense, social and political relevance; one peppered with casual everydayisms, baited with humour and simmering with intelligence, threatening to release an experiential payload of euphoric proportions; a work that can transcend genre and demographics, build up simultaneously on various levels, plumbed by the weight of it's essential voice, sending out intuitive signals, rippling with perplexing channels and insightful glimpses that are symbolically blended into plain words on paper; all with a properly superb balance of sex, wit, desire, comfort, fear, anger and wisdom in an accelerated narrative leading us to a magnificent crescendo and--fade out--leaving us to wonder. Furthermore, great screenplays serve the motion-picture medium's incomparable ability to effortlessly jump time and space. _Casablanca_ is static and contained, framed and nailed to the wall: a pretty photograph.
Despite the WGA's endorsement, there can only be one candidate good enough to qualify for the all-time best screenplay, and fittingly it goes to the all-time best screenplay writer. Paddy Chayefsy's _Network_ has dazzled us for four decades and counting. The scene where a mob of murderous bank-robbing terrorists who have their own reality TV show bicker over the wording of their contract alone demonstrates we are dealing with a higher grade of pertinent genius. The corporate cosmology of Arthur Jensen, a pivotal lesson in global economics, tops it off, leaving all Network's competitors in the dust, burying any climactic speech written before or since, Bogie's famous brush-off farewell included, thus slamming the lid down on anything _Casablanca_ can play. As for ill-fated romances, the doomed alliance between old-school journalism (Holden) seduced and corrupted into severing his ties with his compassionate spouse to hastily shack up with the opportunistic post-modern media wench (Dunaway) is fraught with more complications than anything _Casablanca_ can muster, and it's only one of the sub-plots.
Of course _Network_ is most famous for the "I'm mad as hell" rant, which swells from a nuanced and complex story arc demonstrating the rise and fall of an iconic media star. Hell-raising public mischief aside, Howard Beale's profound narrative leads off with a suicidally desperate, washed-up newsman who impulsively hits a nerve, rockets to stardom as a modern-day prophet, then is shaped and sensationalized as an overcooked parody by the media, stigmatized by maniacal Fox-news-like delusions that overtake him until he gets too big for his britches and needs a walloping corporate scolding, causing his starry streak to fizzle out, before getting gunned down by the greedy TV execs who made him, leaving hapless undiscriminating audiences to grasp for the next new thing.
_Network_ is inspired writing that doesn't require heart-throbbing movie stars to pull it off. It could have been directed by my illiterate grandmother, shot on VHS in a dingy church basement, performed by eager boy scouts and girl guides, and it would still be the greatest screenplay of all time, one not just for the spectacle of projecting on a giant screen, but for doubling as a giant mirror with just enough sugar-coated satire to swallow the shitty truth about ourselves. Though calling _Network _a satire is like calling Hamlet a murder mystery. Satire is either spineless and passive-aggressive, or specific and short-lived. Chayefsky's bombastic pronouncements become more exceptional and relevant each passing year.

There are flashes of the legendary Muhammad Ali wit and quick-thinking delivery peppered throughout this otherwise rather long and ponderous story of the life of Cassius Clay from relative poverty through to his mastery of not just the boxing ring but of the television media that, at that point, fed successfully from this truly global sport. It's Will Smith who takes centre stage after his gold medal victory at the Tokyo Olympiad in 1964 and like many other pugilists in history, his character offers the down-trodden, working class, an inspiration. With sweat, tears and hard work he can escape the ghetto and have his fame and fortune, so why not them? What Michael Mann now proceeds to do is offer us a biopic of this man - of his peccadilloes, his religious beliefs, his persecution by the government when he refuses to be drafted to Vietnam and of some of his friendships with the great and the good of the equal rights movement that were gaining in prominence and effectiveness under the likes of Malcolm X (Mario Van Peebles). We are presented with a plausibly flawed individual, but one who is a proud and savvy man who knows just how to push the buttons to keeps his life-blood's publicity machine going. To that end, here, Smith is well supported by Jamie Foxx's "Bundini", the long-suffering Angelo Dundee (Ron Silver) and by Jon Voight as his follicularly challenged media foil from ABC television - Howard Cosell. It's Smith that rather underwhelms. He delivers the set-pieces well enough, presumably he could rehearse them - but the rest of his persona is all rather weak, undercooked and I felt really over-written. There's way too much melodrama and speculation and not enough of what made the man an household name (and favourite) in the first place - his fighting. For such a rich source this is all rather meandering and lacking in substance. Maybe we could have directors cut - only 45 minutes shorter?

This was a solid debut for Hazanavicius and a very fun film. There's uneven pacing, but I was very pleased with this, which seemed an interesting hybrid between the James Bond and Pink Panther film series. I loved the scoring and cinematography as well. Dujardin's character was a bit strange and the pacing was a tad uneven, but those are small flaws. This is the first of Hazanavicius' films I have seen, though I have 'The Artist' on blu. I've heard that in the sequel, he jumps a decade to the 60's--it would be interesting, if they decide to eventually continue the series, if each film could be of following decades, straight through to the present day. It was clever of the writers, through parallelism, to subconsciously suggest a linkage of the Nazis to radical Arab terrorists, so soon after 9/11, and, six years before 'Skyfall', what anyone knowing anything about espionage and counterintelligence would undoubtedly know--that all agents would probably be bisexual. I look forward to checking out Hazanavicius' other films, and hope there are eventually more in this series, for I have loved all kinds of spy films and spoofs of them, in the history of cinema.

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
This is a great example of a movie. That may seem like a nothing statement, but more movies, especially ones that insist on multi-threaded story lines should pay attention to how this movie works structurally and mechanically. There are about 10 different story lines happening, and it is almost perfectly balanced. There are pivotal moments when the story lines come together (very similar things in "Crash", "Love, Actually", "Snatch", and "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels"), but without having to cut all over the place or having to re-tell parts of the story from other character perspectives. The movie moves on almost seamlessly from event to event, at a rather tilted rate at one point, and is never distracted from the movie.
There are a ton of interesting characters, each with their own motivations, and the increasingly ridiculous scenarios that occur are all well established earlier on so it doesn't seem sudden or jarring.
And if nothing else, Alan Tudyk losing his mind as he deals with being drugged is amazing, and well worth the watch all on it's own.
Unless you're just crippled with anxiety about funerals, I expect that you'll enjoy this one very much.

Great movie around and simple yet neat story with great characters, script and performances.
You can totally believe the story is just happening at your building stairs.

This is a cracking film that follows "Raimunda" (Penelope Cruz) as she returns to her hometown to visit the grave of her mother. It turns out that she left many years ago amidst an environment of turbulence and tragedy. Together with her daughter "Paula" (Yohana Como) and "Sole" (Lola Dueñas) they visit the aunt who raised her - and who is now living in a world of her own, before returning to Madrid and facing an whole new slew of mishaps involving "Paula" and her drunken brute of a father "Paco"! Without their problems to seek, events pile up back at home again too - and 'Raimunda" has some ghastly home truths to face! This is darkly funny, and Cruz is on great form bouncing from one calamity to another struggling desperately to keep things from imploding. The supporting characters are rich and lively, too - especially as the semi-slapstick elements are introduced in to the plot. One of my favourite Almodóvar stories that is well worth two hours for some laughter and some poignancy.

Great film!
First of all, the acting is terrific. Penélope Cruz is obviously the pick of the bunch, she shows her quality and then some in the role; especially for the more emotive scenes. Lola Dueñas, Yohana Cobo and Carmen Maura also give noteworthy performances. Blanca Portillo makes her presence felt, too.
The story is paced expertly, with the two hour run time flying by. It is quite the plot, with things of substance happening from practically the first first minutes. I really enjoyed seeing it all unfold. Everything also feels tangible, which is something I always appreciate.
Cruz's dodgy moment of lip-syncing aside, 'Volver' is excellent!

**_Mythic Western about a quick-draw contest in a town with an all-star cast_**
Sharon Stone stars as a grim, nonchalant woman who, curiously, enters a dueling contest in a remote Southwest desert town "ruled" by outlaw Herod (Gene Hackman). A pacifist preacher is forced by Herod to participate in the contest, but he ain't no conventional minister (Russell Crowe). Other notables include: Leonardo DiCaprio, Lance Henriksen, Tobin Bell, Keith David, Gary Sinise and Pat Hingle.
"The Quick and the Dead" (1995) was co-produced by Stone and she was responsible for getting the youthful & skinny DiCaprio in the cast, she even paid his salary (?!). Stone also apprehended New Zealander Crowe with this being his first American feature. When dressed in her tight leather pants Sharon was unable to sit down (lol). Interestingly, she fired her hottie stand-in because she was getting more attention from the crew on set (!). She later confessed that Crowe was her favorite on screen kisser, but kissing DiCaprio was like kissing her arm (lol).
The tone is mythic in the manner of those spaghetti Westerns of the 60s, but with superior production values and obviously seminal to Tarantino Westerns ("Django Unchained" and "The Hateful Eight"). While the vibe isn't exactly realistic, the cast members take the material seriously and ham it up with gusto. You can tell they all had a great time. The movie's town bound and comic booky with larger-than-life characters, but it's not campy or comedic, although it's somewhat silly.
The film's title is presumably taken from 1 Peter 4:5 of the KJV translation of the Bible, which details how Christ "is ready to judge the quick and the dead." The phrase also appears in the Apostle's Creed with the same meaning. In both cases 'quick' is an Old English term for "living." The movie's title clearly plays off both the modern and archaic meanings in that there are two kinds of gunfighters in the Old West: those who are quick (that is, fast and alive) and those who are dead.
It runs 1 hour, 47 minutes, and was shot completely in Arizona (including Old Tucson).
GRADE: B+

Now I saw this in the cinema in 1995 and had somehow managed to completely forget all about it - until I saw it again just last week and realised why. It's not that it is awful, it's just that it is so very derivative and very, very dependant on Gene Hackman ("Herod") who walks a fine line between menace and ham in a none too convincing fashion. He is running a to-the-death gun slinging competition - almost like one of the chivalric jousts of old - with the winner having to face him in the final shoot-out for an huge poke. Sharon Stone ("Ellen") arrives in his dingy town just at the start of the process determined to avenge her father's killer; Russell Crowe is "Cort", a preacher who also has a pretty violent past and "the Kid" (Leonardo di Caprio) who has the clear belief that his youth and skill make him all but immortal are all coaxed, cajoled and threatened into participating in this game of death. Sam Raimi has all the ingredients of a great little western adventure, but the cast don't work well together at all. Stone is well past her potent best and the usual guy-with-a-grudge theme is now so hackneyed as to render this little better than a series of gunfights with characters about whom I could not care less. The cinematography and some of the photographic styles are interesting, though - the film has a classy look to it and Alan Silvestri creates some tension with his slightly untypical (for a western) score; but the whole is nowhere near the sum of the parts leaving us with something that now, more than ever, just looks like it's been made for telly.

Nice try from Raimi, but ultimately it creeps just above average.
The Western is a tough genre to tackle in the modern age, more so when it's post Dances With Wolves and Unforgiven's masterclasses 101. But tackling both these challenges is nothing to the one which director Sam Raimi asks of the audience in his stab at the genre.
A female gunslinger is here played by a Hollywood beauty, Sharon Stone, but she isn't right for the lead role. She obviously looks gorgeous and she broods and pouts better than most of her modern day peers, but she lacks a menacing streak, a bit of believable nastiness that just might have lifted the film to better heights. We understand and expect the vulnerability she shows, but to succeed here in the testosterone fuelled town of Redemption, she's going to have to convince as a tough gal. And Stone just isn't up to the task.
The film does have good points to enjoy though, very much so. The story, although gimmicky, works well as an entertaining popcorn munching tale, while the cast list reads like a whose who of solid and quality thespers, (Gene Hackman wandering in from Unforgiven to play Little Bill's ghost, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DeCaprio, Keith David, Pat Hingle & Lance Henriksen). Also into the plus column is the always impressive cinematography from Dante Spinotti, and there is no denying Sam Raimi's keen eye for detail, with his zooming shots a real treat during the shoot out sequences - his Spaghetti Western leanings further enhanced by Alan Silvestri's pasta influenced score.
Yet in spite of this bravado attempt, and acknowledging that the makers have tried something different, The Quick & The Dead isn't quite quick enough on the draw to outlive the leading lady misstep. 6/10

Bad watch, might watch again, and can recommend for survival / zombie fans.
I'm not a big fan of Martin Freeman, but he's a decent actor, and boy do you get a lot of him. Anthony Hayes makes a decent villain, but Caren Pistorius doesn't get much else to do other than "be pretty".
Susie Porter and Simone Landers give great performances, but they feel terribly underplayed, maybe because they almost share a role.
It feels like most of the time the actors weren't on board with the movie, they were there, they showed up and read their lines, but there aren't a lot of scenes that feel big. Honestly it really drags on, not only are you dealing with the isolationist effect of being in wide stretches of wilderness, but even when they get where they're going, there is nothing, and they do almost nothing, a lot.
With one of the main characters being a baby, there just isn't a lot of dialogue happening, and the key interactions we get are heavy philosophical moments, far too centered on human rights for the majority.
It's not that the movie is "bad", and ultimately I like it for the survivor's story, it's that it's mostly empty. There is a version of this story that you could do as a twilight episode and it would probably be better because you have to make every moment count, where this seems to be filling the run time.

Had kind of hoped for more, but this is okay. _Cargo_ isn't **exactly** like any other zombie deal out there though, so if your demands are low enough, there's some value.
Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole.