Reviews written by registered user
zpct

10 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

RoboCop (2014)
4 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Good Movie On Its Own. Better Compared To The Original., 7 February 2014

The original RoboCop grounded itself in satire and comedy. The robocop in that film, though mostly machine, often displayed a lot of human emotion and human wit. He told jokes. He understood sarcasm. He very convincingly mocked the police system. The film itself was chockablock with blood and exploding limbs. Often it all looked very comical. This new RoboCop is sleeker, smarter, faster, deeper, more tragic, and ultimately much needed.

I thoroughly enjoyed this remake, and that's because it devotes a lot of its time and attention to Alex Murphy the man, not to robocop. There is a scene early on that demonstrates this difference. Murphy returns home after a hard day's work to be with his family. He tucks his son into bed and promises to watch hockey games with him. He retreats to his bedroom with his wife (Abbie Cornish) for a romantic night. His car alarm interrupts the undressing. What happens next you've already seen in the trailers.

This scene is strategic because it introduces us to Murphy's family. Yes, it's a little bit contrived, but it's something the original film lacked. In order to feel for this man, we need to know what he has to lose. In the original, Murphy's family was only shown to us via memories and dreams. They could've been dead for all we knew. Here, they are very much alive, and Murphy's wife plays a larger role. By the end of the movie we are not sure if we feel more sorry for Murphy or for his family.

The general idea of RoboCop, in case you missed the 1987 original directed by Paul Verhoeven, involves a police officer becoming a robot, or a cyborg. In order for this to happen, he has to die, or come dangerously close to death. All that has to survive are his neurological signs. The technology, developed by the Omni corporation, ensures that his physical body can be manufactured. The reason for this transformation, however, is different in both films.

In the original, the Omni corporation wanted a more efficient law enforcer. They released a prototype machine that malfunctioned, causing the board of directors to push for a more organic approach. In this remake, robots are already patrolling the streets of foreign countries. Now, OmniCorp — headed by Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) — wants to disperse its robots to the streets of America. A debate rises. Do the people of America want humans with intuition, judgement and logic keeping them safe? Or do they want efficient robots protecting them and the lives of their law enforcers? "Not a single police officer has to die in the line of duty ever again", Raymond ensures.

Raymond wants his machines protecting America, thus bloating his bank account. The United States congress believes nothing beats human intuition. Raymond and his PR team come up with the solution: Put a handicapped man in a mechanical body and give the people what they want. The best of both worlds. They find Murphy, badly charred and disfigured after a murder attempt sends his car up in flames. With the help of R&D chief, Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), they create robocop.

Murphy is played by Swedish-American actor, Joel Kinnaman, who does a fine job of underacting. This is ideal because he spends most of the movie sedated, stoned, or rigid-faced. I am not familiar with his work, but I suspect he was chosen because his mouth, chin, and voice bear uncanny similarities to Peter Weller's. His downgrade from human being to monotone machine is well charted. And at times it's very painful to witness. Director José Padilha does well to draw his transformation to the foreground. Here is a man whose only hope for survival is to become a machine. And in order for him to become a successful machine he has to surrender his humanity. Where is the line that separates us from them?

RoboCop takes its time with its characters. It gives us the space to lend sympathy. We are familiar with Murphy's plight, but we are not familiar with what this plight does to him. Now we are. Now we can see that he isn't a hero; he's the victim. His whole life is nothing but a test. A gimmick to help promote OmniCorp's arrogance. The original RoboCop was a gritty and gory action flick that exalted its titular character to superheroism. It lacked depth and patience, and it never penetrated robocop's metallic exterior. If I had to judge this remake on its own, I would've given it 3 stars out of 5. Compared to the original, it gets 4.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Every Secret Yearns To Be Told, 27 December 2013

Walter Mitty isn't a deep or complex character. He is defined by his actions — where he goes, who he speaks to, how he speaks to them, what decisions he makes. What he is, is the majority of the population. Most of us have plans to do many things. We want to scale Everest. We want to swim with grey whales. We want to bunjee jump or fly to the moon. Walter Mitty represents our laziness, and ultimately our failure.

But he isn't a loser. Ben Stiller is known for taking on roles and degrading them to the lowest possible social status. His characters usually have no place in the real world because they're unable to live in it and function on the same level as normal people. Consider White Goodman, with his puffed up blonde hair and thick moustache. He is a caricature. His speech, motives and actions require him to make a fool of himself, and then he ends the movie in a position worse off than when he began it.

Walter Mitty, by comparison, begins the movie in a position that's already pretty stable. He's the chief negative assets manager of Life magazine, which means he's in charge of processing, maintaining and preserving film negatives. You can bet that by the time the movie ends, he will be better off. Of course, he has a crush on a fellow worker, Cheryl (Kristen Wiig), and the movie begins with him trying unsuccessfully to leave her a wink on her eHarmony page. This whole eHarmony thing is important, because Walter's profile page is blank; he's done nothing worth mentioning in his life. He compensates by projecting his desires onto a mental canvas where he sees himself leaping through the air and into flaming buildings, rescuing Cheryl's three-legged dog and inventing a mechanical prosthetic leg in the process. "Zoning out", as his sister calls it. I'm pretty sure everyone calls it that.

So Life magazine is moving to new management. It's going 100% online, like Progressive Car Insurance, which means most of the staff will be let go. To commemorate the final print edition, famed photographer Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn) has sent Walter a gift: A reel of film containing frame 25 — the most perfect photograph he's taken, one which will send Life magazine off in style — along with a note and a wallet. But there's a problem. Frame 25 is missing. And the new boss, the bearded prig Ted Hendricks (Adam Scott), wants it immediately or Walter's job is no more.

Frame 25 essentially becomes the MacGuffin that allows Walter to embark on a journey through Scandinavia and the mountainous regions of Afghanistan as he seeks not only to find Sean O'Connell and determine the whereabouts of frame 25, but to discover himself. Here is a man who has not travelled outside of America. Now, because of one frame, he is led to Greenland, where he will leap out of an unstable helicopter into icy-cold shark-infested waters. To Iceland, a land of great beauty — its winding roads resemble streams that weave themselves around grand mountains and lush greenery. And then to the Himalayas. Yes, at times The Secret Life plays like a travelogue of these places, but you know what? I don't care. Greenland, Iceland, and Afghanistan are spectacular.

The movie is directed by Stiller, and it's his most mature and fully realised project to date. It is grounded in Walter Mitty, who is aware of his surroundings and what's going on outside of his mental projections, but able to focus on the task at hand as if he's MacGyver crossed with Carmen Sandiego. He's also funny, which is good. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments in this movie, and they lend an interesting balance to a story that could easily have gone astray and fallen into cheesy clichés.

There are nice little touches. Shirley MacLaine and Patton Oswalt make quick but effective appearances as Walter's mother and an uber friendly eHarmony customer service agent respectively. And Penn's performance as Sean is handled with love; his appearance borders on a cameo. But ultimately, the star is Stiller who, at 48, is as alive and energetic as a 10-year old discovering a theme park for the first time. His lust for adventure is infectious, and the journey he embarks upon is altogether touching, gorgeous, and completely satisfying.

3 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Drop The Anchor In The Rumble Field And Let Hell Break Loose, 19 December 2013
8/10

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues is a celebration of fun. I find no need to dig deeper for a coherent storyline or consistent satirical play. Yes, there is a coherent storyline, and there is heaps of satire, but I'm not about to sue the scriptwriters for veering off course from time to time to focus on the maniacal ecstasy of Ron Burgundy and his crew, because most of the time the places the story veers off to are incredibly funny.

The movie, directed by Adam McKay, is a followup to 2004′s cult classic, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy, and despite the near 10-year gap between films, none of the comic energy or zany writing seems to have disappeared. Ron (Will Ferrell) is still a chauvinist pig but with a more racist tone. His co-anchors are still either sex-crazed, sports-crazed, or mentally challenged. His lover from the first film — and wife now — Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is still an ambitious fox. And the retro vibe that uplifts the story is still glaringly present in every shot and every vein. This movie is a bag of laughs, and the way it's built signifies no intention to be anything else.

Alright. So where do I begin?

Ron and Veronica are happily married. They have an eerily sweet and pleasant son named Walter (Judah Nelson), and they live in comfort in New York City. One day, their boss (the omnipresent Harrison Ford) decides to promote Veronica and fire Ron — "You are the worst newscaster I've ever known". This sparks a heated argument that ultimately leads to the couple's separation. Six months later, Ron is hired to be one of the pioneering anchors of a new news network, GNN, which will run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. To Ron, this is a ridiculous idea. Who runs boring news for 24 hours? Who's going to plop themselves in front of a TV and listen to reports of global warming at 2 in the morning? All fair questions.

Ron reassembles his old news team, made up of womaniser Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), possible homoerotic sports fanatic Champ Kind (David Koechner), and Brick Tamland (Steve Carell), whose name couldn't be any more appropriate, and takes the job. Along the way, they will participate in dirty jokes, cruel pranks, some love-making, and so on; they will form a bitter rivalry with the handsome and popular primetime anchor Jack Lime (James Marsden) — after losing a silly bet, he officially changes his name to Jack Lame — and they will revolutionise the art of news broadcasting without even knowing it. For instance, while brainstorming story ideas for their inaugural graveyard shift broadcast, Ron's team decides to give the people what they want, instead of what they need. They choose to focus the broadcast on Americana, and wouldn't you know it, drunks and partygoers all across the city begin cheering and applauding their local pub television sets (there's nothing else to watch at 2am).

Much of this movie is very, very funny. A lot of time is devoted to Brick Tamland, which might seem like a nonsensical idea but actually pays off with large amounts of satisfaction. When the first Anchorman premiered in 2004, Carell's most popular work was still Evan Baxter from Bruce Almighty (coincidentally, he was also a newsman). In 2013, he is one of the biggest names not just in comedy, but in drama too. A few days ago I watched and reviewed The Way Way Back. In it, Carell played an adulterous jerk whose cheeks and jaw were perpetually stubbled and whose outlook on life scorned at the face of humour. He was superb. In Anchorman 2, he is just as superb as the air-headed Brick, who spends much of his time laughing at things that are unknown even to himself. The script also has room for his love interest, played dutifully by Kristen Wiig. Some of their meet-cutes are so idiotically awkward that you can't help but laugh.

Among some of the supporting characters are Linda Jackson (Meagan Good), whose African- American descent puts Ron off completely; Freddie Shapp, played by the reliable Dylan Baker; and Kench Allenby (Josh Lawson), the Australian owner of the GNN who also owns an airline company. There is also the usual catalogue of cameo appearances by some big-name actors. Naturally, I will not mention names, but I was surprised to see two leading R&B artists rumble and tumble with the best of them.

Anchorman 2 is insane. I cannot think of any more intelligent way to describe it. It's one of those rare comedies that pushes its least funny moments to the trailers, and then surprises everyone by how funny it actually is. You've probably seen it, the scene with the RV on cruise control rolling across a busy highway. I thought the payoff was lame. But the trailer never shows us the build up. And that's the thing with this movie: It never considers the build up to be a requirement. Our characters leap right into the joke. Sometimes they leap up, as when Ron suggests getting perms for everybody, and it's that kind of euphoria and complete disregard for maturity that makes him and his team America's most endearing bunch of fools.

66 out of 126 people found the following review useful:
Hustle, Hustle, Hustle., 12 December 2013

American Hustle is built as the 2013 revival of classic Scorsese gangster pictures like Goodfellas and Casino, but without the gangsters. It has the plot twists, the plethora of pop tunes, the conniving characters, the backstabbings, the high life, the low life, the disgruntled females merciless attached to crooked husbands, the stranded children, and so on. But it's new. Fresh out of the oven. Baked with wonderful performances and tight scriptwriting. And it has characters who inhabit the story and make it their own.

The movie begins in medias res, with two con men -- and one con lady -- attempting to buy out a Jersey mayor. There's a lovely opening shot of Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale, almost unrecognisable) carefully and painstakingly combing over his thinning strands of hair. This scene reminded me very much of the opening of Richard Linklater's Bernie, where a plump but serene mortician played by Jack Black joyfully lectures a scarce hall of students on the process of embalming. It's a slow scene, maybe too slow to open up a movie, but we are never bored, because we are given insight to a skill that we've never seen before, or don't know much about. It's the same with this scene. I've never seen anyone cover up bald. It's always bald being uncovered; wigs and toupees accidentally being ripped off, or blown away by strong winds. The scene also informs us that Irving is a certain kind of character.

After jumping to a series of flashbacks, in which the history between Irving and his long-time girlfriend Sydney (Amy Adams, almost unrecognisable without her makeup) is revealed to have blossomed over a shared love of Duke Ellington, the plot begins proper. Irving and Sydney -- now posing as a wealthy British banker named Edith -- have been arrested by Richie (Bradley Cooper, fully recognisable despite his hairdo), an ambitious FBI agent who thinks he has the wit and skill to take down corrupt congressmen and casino gangsters with flimsy, ill-conceived plans. He ropes Irving and Sydney into his little schemes, and soon has them taking on an entire network of illegal tradesmen.

Caught in the middle are two people: Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), and Irving's wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence). Carmine is the mayor whom the trio wanted to con at the start of the movie. He becomes integral to the plot when Irving develops a friendship with him. Do I tell him that I've been conning him all along, and that my innocent little scheme might get him arrested in front of his wife and six children? Or do I stay quiet, maintain the friendship, and face my conscience alone? What he does, I will not say.

Rosalyn is an interesting character. Yes, she skirts dangerously close to the Sharon Stones and Lorraine Braccos of the old Scorsese pictures, but Jennifer Lawrence is able to lift her away from them by being more grounded. Stone always seemed to operate on her own terms in Casino. She was a third wheel, functioning outside of the overall story. Here, Rosalyn is fully aware of the situation at hand. She's right smack in the middle of the story. She doesn't love Irving. Irving doesn't love her. But they both love their son, and Rosalyn doesn't want a divorce tarnishing her solid family marital integrity. But she knows that the love festering in the household is only producing toxic fumes. Where her character goes is a place best kept hidden.

And then there's a mix of other secondary characters, including perhaps the best cameo I've seen (not because of the cameo itself, but because of the meaning of the cameo). All of them dip in and out of this intelligent story with impact. Why, even Richie's boss, Stoddard Thorsen (Louis C.K.), is a lovely guy. He provides much of the movie's humour, and there is much of it. Director David O. Russell has said that his goal with American Hustle was to focus on the characters instead of the plot. Indeed, what a good decision. It's a rare moment when not a single character seems out of place. They complement each other, whether they're kissing, punching, clawing, or scratching. And they share so much chemistry that you could select any two of them at random, chuck them into an empty room, and watch them chatter till their throats went dry.

I attended a screening of this movie in Mandurah, which is a lovely place. The cinema had maybe nine other patrons (weird, considering it was opening day). I'd been to Mandurah a few times before, and I watched The Counselor there. That was a poor movie, but the screening was smooth, which is more than I can say for the screening of this film. With about 15 minutes to go, the video jammed and stuttered slowly to a halt. It's the first time I've seen digital video jam. And it couldn't have happened at a worse time. The projectionist eventually rectified the problem, but I had already been sucked out of the moment. That's a pity, because American Hustle was shaping up to be one of the best movies of the year. You know what? Screw it. It still is.

Paris Is The New Vienna, 24 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

How can such a minimalistic story be overflowing with so much emotional connection? I almost find it impossible to comprehend. In 1995, Richard Linklater made Before Sunrise, and it was about how two random people met each other on a train and spent one fantastic night together, knowing that after they parted, they might never see each other again. It's such a harrowing thought. And the characters that the movie focused on—Jesse and Celine—were so natural with each other, so intrigued by every little thing the other said, and so genuinely happy to be in each other's company, that it pained me just as much as it pained them to not know what the future would bring. In many ways they are the perfect couple, and I suppose that's where the connection is. Nine years later, and that connection has only gotten stronger. Much stronger.

Before Sunset is just as much a reintroduction as it is a continuation of its predecessor. Yes, the characters are the same, but after nine years, how similar can they truly be? They've both changed for sure. The question is: how much have they changed? We are now in Paris; Jesse (Ethan Hawke) has published a bestselling book, and it's no surprise what it's about: that one night he spent with Celine (Julie Delpy). He's promoting it in a small, tucked away little bookshop when he spots Celine standing off to one side watching him with longing eyes. He almost stumbles in his speech. At the mere sight of her, he is immediately taken back nine years to that night in Vienna. They decide to meet up after the promotion, and yes, from there they walk and talk, not as young lovers, but as new acquaintances with a history of love.

But they talk about different things. Don't forget, they're nine years older than when they first met. Topics like childhoods and ambitions are no longer important; they are adults now, deep in the working world. And so their conversations match their maturity. We learn that Celine is an activist and that she's deeply passionate about it, and for most of the movie's first half, we are listening to her, just as Jesse is. He's the quiet one; his silence impatiently concealing the euphoria within. We know he's been longing for this moment (he actually made the rendezvous they had planned just before they parted ways in Sunrise; Celine did not). But it's not till the entire movie has run its course that we fully understand just what has happened with our lovebirds over the last nine years.

When I watch Jesse and Celine, it immediately occurs to me how lucky they both are. They're lucky not because they happened upon each other in a train, but because they are both uninhibited in expressing themselves. They have a lot to say. Even when there's silence, their silence is speaking. How often do we yearn for a partner who can talk as much as we'd like them to? Most people are not fond of awkward silences, and so it's almost a miracle that Jesse and Celine have so much to talk about.

Ethan Hawke looks older. He doesn't have the long flowing hair and the goatee of nine years ago. His face has wrinkled, but his outlook on life hasn't. His character is still outgoing, but being in Celine's presence again has filled him with a childlike quality. He jokes a lot more and seems to be glued to her side. Julie Delpy, in all honesty (and much to her credit), looks pretty much the same. She's still cute and cheerful, but she seems a bit more serious now. There's a scene in Jesse's chauffeured car where Celine confesses how she truly feels, and we are told that her one night with Jesse didn't have a positive effect on her. She says she's become more empty, and that the past nine years have hollowed out any idea of love and reality that she used to have. Little does she know how crumbled Jesse has been too.

Before Sunset has the same structure as its predecessor, but its characters venture on a different journey. Their motives are different. They are not driven by the blossom of new love, they're driven by the memory of what they once briefly had. It's both a happy and a sad situation. Happy because they are wonderfully happy together. Sad because they can never seem to be with each other for more than a day. And I so want them to be. I want them to be married, and to have children, and to see them converse with their kids as effortlessly as they do with each other. Who knows what would've happened if they had both made their rendezvous. Fate comes into play now. Should, could, would. No one will ever know. All I know is that Before Sunset is a glorious movie, filled with real emotion, real characters, real conversations, real nostalgia, and a really frustrating ending (which ironically almost brought me to tears). Before Midnight, I am waiting for you.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
It is ended., 20 July 2012

I don't quite know where to start, but I feel like saying something about this film. Yes, there are things that don't quite work, but given the need to conclude this trilogy appropriately, flaws can (and should) be forgiven. The length of the film is definitely not a problem, in fact it flies by quickly and doesn't even seem like a close-to-3hr marathon.

Now, I think it is quite simply the best movie of the year so far. I thought The Avengers was amazing when it came out but it disappears under the immense shadow that is The Dark Knight Rises. I won't talk about the plot because I don't want to risk giving anything away.

I want to be Bane. Yes, everyone raved about Heath's Joker and how amazing he was, and yes, he was indeed amazing. Best Joker ever and one of the best on screen villains of all time. But Bane... he is sheer force and unstoppable drive. I don't care at all about his speech "problems" because I loved the way he spoke, and his mask just made him all the more terrifying. Brute force meets intelligence. Every single encounter Batman had with him left me wondering if Batman was gonna make it out alive at all. Truly menacing. Selina Kyle was how she was meant to be. Fence-sitter, agile, cunning, and a tease for the dark knight. I was impressed.

One person I want to point out, whose performance touched my racing and throbbing heart, is Michael Caine. Substantially less screen time than the previous two installments, but his acting in this one overshadows them all. I felt for him, and connected with every line he delivered. Brought me close to tears if I am to be honest.

This movie would not be the same if it weren't for Zimmer's score. Thumping and electrifying, yet soothing. The "Rise" chant sends shivers down my spine.

All in all, it's an immensely satisfying end to the trilogy, and when I look back at all three films as a whole, the story of Batman that it tells just shows how much Gotham means to him, and what he goes through to save it. There won't (and shouldn't) be another Batman like this.

Drive (2011/I)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Drive, 2 February 2012

While some might find the deadpan demeanor and emotionless behaviour of an unknown, no-named, multi-jobbed skilled driver incredibly gimmicky and over-done, the portrayal of such a character in Drive points in the other direction. Though pretty face Gosling has been known for more romanticized leads in the past (The Notebook, Blue Valentine), he pulls up his socks perfectly in this 2011 gangster flick as the no-nonsense, "I will hurt you" all-round good guy. He is a stuntman and a car mechanic by day, and a getaway driver for one-off clients by night. In an attempt to help the ex-con husband of his neighbour Irene (Mulligan), things go terribly wrong and the people whom he cares about (including himself) end up in big piles of trouble.

The pacing of the movie is relatively slow and deliberate, thanks to careful editing and direction by Refn. Refn takes his time in introducing the characters and setting the tone before attacking the audience abruptly with car chases, gunfights, throat-stabbings, and the famous bashing-a-head-till-its-flat-in-the-elevator scene (which was a scene of immense suspense and unexpected passion). Though the depth of supporting characters such as Nino and Bernie leave more to be desired, there is much to be enjoyed from the smoothness and raw intimidation that Gosling brings to the table, along with his very accessible softer side when in the presence of Irene and her son Benicio (Leos). He is a man of silence, a man longing for love, and a man who will not stop at anything (including ill-treating the opposite sex) to protect those he cares about.

The plot is old and stale, and one can determine the ending 30 minutes into the film, but at its heart lies the magic of relationships, the loss of innocence, and the struggle to regain that innocence in the eyes of someone you hold dear. Drive is a gem of a neo-gangster movie (despite its flaws) and is the perfect stage for Gosling to shine above his subdued co-stars, proving that the once pretty boy heartthrob is ready to grow up.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
It's A Great Movie, People! Please Be Open-minded!, 14 May 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm not really here to give critique on the movie itself. Rather, I'm here to address almost everyone's view on the portrayal of the characters.

Look, the movie was very, very different from the stage version, I'll say that much, but it does have a shine of beauty on its own. Seriously! The reason why a lot of you didn't like it is because you probably kept comparing it with the original version and the original cast (Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman). You really shouldn't, guys.

Isn't it obvious that Gerard Butler would definitely not have Michael Crawford's clarity and power? Why? Because firstly, Michael Crawford is a trained singer and Gerard is not (which gives me great admiration for him because he dared to take on such an iconic role without professional singing abilities), and secondly, Michael starred in the stage version, and everyone should know the power and clarity needed for stage, which far surpasses what's needed for screen. In my opinion (which might not matter to most of you), Gerard did a fantastic job. Fantastic. His voice had a lovely rocky quality that suits the character of the Phantom, and he played it with far more emotion and passion than Michael ever could. Just compare his Music Of The Night with Michaels's. Sure, Michael's is smooth, easy to listen to, and in a word flawless, but Gerard's has so much passion (and he IS able to reach a lot of the notes well) and passion is what should tell a good actor apart from a bad one.

Don't criticise Gerard for putting his guts out there to play the Phantom, a character that we all love. It's not like... Brad Pitt did it. That would be gross, by the way.

There's nothing much to say about Emmy Rossum (Christine). Most of you guys liked her performance, as well you should.

Please... watch this movie (and watch it again if you have already seen it) with an open mind. Go in and forget about the stage version. Focus on it as a movie on its own, and you'll realise what a gem it really is... because it is a gem, and it's a movie that's worth watching time and time again.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Perfection, 1 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I haven't been a Lord of the Rings fan all my life... i only started liking it after reading the books (when i was 14). Not long after that, i heard that the movies were being made. I was excited, no doubt.

When i first saw the trailer for all 3 movies, i was disappointed that they were going to release 1 movie per year. However, the waiting definitely paid off.

The first 2 chapters of The Lord of the Rings trilogy were absolutely amazing, sublime almost... great acting, unbelievable special effects, and atmospheres of movies that you know will last forever. When Return of the King was about to be released, i couldn't be controlled. Already, the first 2 created this hype and passion for the trilogy in me... and i wasn't going to allow myself to be disappointed by the third.

I went to watch it on its premiere date, in a cinema that was full, and i mean FULL. The audience applauded when the show started, and i felt that excitement rushing through my body without stopping. I sat through all 3hr 15min of the movie, and i was COMPLETELY satisfied when it ended. I actually wanted to give a standing ovation, but thought that'd it be a bit inappropriate... so i just clapped.

The battle scenes really stood out for me. I have never in my life seen a war like the one on the Pelennor Fields. Perfect. Peter Jackson created this tension in the air before, and even during the battle. My hair literally stood up straight when the Rohirrim arrived to aid the Gondorians at Minas Tirith. Their gusto and their mass was too much for me to be calm about. Even when the 20 Mumakil (Oliphaunts) came walking towards the Rohirrim, King Theoden made no hesitation to charge. Such bravery. The final battle at The Black Gate also showed tremendous amounts of courage, and how much Frodo meant to both Merry and Pippin. Incredible.

The special effects! Oh man... truly outstanding. Every single thing looked so real. It's like you were really watching a movie being filmed an actual place called Middle Earth.

Finally, every part of the storyline was tied up so nicely and perfectly in this one. Every question was answered, and Pete knew how to tie up the loose ends.

I watched the movie 5 times in the cinema, and each time gave me the exact same feeling i had when i first watched it. No movie in the history of the world has given me that feeling.

I now have all 3 movies on DVD (the extended versions), and i watch all of them at least once a month. I have become a true fan of this 21st century phenomenon, and it will definitely be remembered throughout the ages, just like Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

Perfection.

Cars (2006)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Pixar Gets Better With Each Movie, 16 June 2006
9/10

I'm from an Arts College, so i tend to examine and criticize animation. After watching Cars, i must say that it has one of the best animations ever. All the cars in the movie looked so real and alive, it's unbelievable. Pixar's animation is truly top-notch.

The storyline was very warm and sweet... showing how humility affects everyone.

I've seen all 7 Pixar movies, from Toy Story to Finding Nemo to Cars, and Cars is definitely one of the best. I would place Cars alongside The Incredibles, just above Finding Nemo. It's amazing how Pixar can handle any challenge thrown at them. I mean, in Toy Story, they made toys look so real, then they did insects in A Bug's Life, followed by monsters (Monster's Inc), fish in Finding Nemo, humans in The Incredibles... and now cars. Amazing. Pixar is really versatile.

I give Cars a 9/10 because it shows the amount of effort put into it, and how awesome everything is.