Reviews written by registered user

4 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Unforgiven (1992)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Unforgotten!, 7 June 2005

The first scene of this masterpiece is a shocking, violent scene in which two cowboys cut up the face of a young, beautiful prostitute. That isn't the most pleasant opening to a film which has been referred to as beautiful. However, once the plot develops, the real beauty shows up.

The premise behind the film is that the ruthless Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman), sheriff of the town, merely punishes the two cowboys by requesting horses of them (this implies that Little Bill Daggett didn't in fact care about their punishment, but merely saw an opportunity to get some new horses). However, the colleagues of the harmed prostitute are not satisfied. They decide to put out a bounty for the cowboys' lives.

A young boy, calling himself The Schoefield Kid, is drawn into hunting for the bounty, and decides to find himself the best partner he can - William Munny, a retired ruthless gunslinger. Munny (Clint Eastwood), reluctantly accepts to hunt down the bounty, but, much to The Schoefield Kid's surprise, brings along his old partner, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), a black man. Naturally, like many were in the Old West, The Schoefield Kid is a racist and doesn't approve.

The story progresses similar to the ways in which most westerns do from there, including a subplot with Richard Harris as English Bob, an old killer who lands on Little Bill Daggett's grounds and gets treated brutally. However, unlike most westerns, there is a hidden element of beauty beyond the surface, the element that makes Unforgiven into one of the most critically acclaimed, mature westerns ever to be filmed.

Many main characters turn out to be beautiful people on the inside, though they may not appear to be at first. The script has been beautifully written, each scene has been perfected. As well, Clint Eastwood did a spectacular job not just directing the film, but directing himself in it.

Overall, this masterpiece is one of the greatest films of the nineties, and one of the greatest westerns of the twentieth century. This masterpiece is destined to be remembered as a classic for years to come.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The horror...the horror...the brilliance., 17 April 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Apocalypse Now is among the most brilliant and powerful films of all time, if not THE. It undoubtedly has the best cinematography, and it is home to many of the most famous, brilliant lines in film history. It is a true shame that not only did this film not take home the Academy Award for Best Picture, but it has come to be a come when one can open up the TV Guide to see the title listed in the movies section with only three stars beside it. Martin Sheen jump-started his career with this epic masterpiece, and he was astounding. This film does not fit into any one genre. Many people consider it to be a war movie, but I strongly disagree. This film is a deep, moving drama, which could have been set at any time in any place, without changing the plot. Like many other great movies (The English Patient, Cold Mountain), war is an effective back-story, and it is used surprisingly well (I am not a fan of war movies at all). The most masterful thing about this film was the brilliantly effective choice of playing 'The End', by The Doors to open and close the film. I think that the opening and closing scenes are among the most memorable scenes in cinematic history. The entire cast is excellent, the direction is indescribable, and the cinematography is destined to blow all of its audiences away. This movie put the epic in masterpiece. The thrilling conclusion, where Willard (Martin Sheen) assassinates Kurtz (Marlon Brando) can be interpreted in many, many different ways, to the extent that one could stay up all night debating with his friends over the topic and not reach a conclusion come morning. This is, undoubtedly, a classic.

88 out of 124 people found the following review useful:
Schumacher mocks the shoes off vampires!, 25 November 2004

Without a doubt, among the most brilliant of vampire movies ever made, in the modern film era. Jason Patric and Kiefer Sutherland are destined to blow away all audiences of this visual masterpiece. However, the twist at the end, which I plan not to give away, was made slightly obvious, though well hidden at the same time. Joel Schumacher does a splendid job directing this true work of art. The frog brothers did a great job of adding humor to this otherwise, mainly serious film, without spoiling the suspense. That made the film far more enjoyable to people with interests in multiple genres. Jami Gertz looks absolutely attractive in her role as Star. However, the show is undoubtedly stolen by Kiefer Sutherland, in the role of David, the rebellious, dangerous, rude and rambunctious, teenaged vampire, who seduces Michael (Jason Patric) into joining his gang of vampires. The story is of a woman (Dianne Wiest), and her two sons, Sam (Corey Haim) and Michael (Patric), who move to a small Californian town, called Santa Carla, often referred to as the murder capital of the world, to live with her father after getting divorced. Little to their knowledge, the town happens to be inhabited by a motorcycle gang of Jim Morrison obsessed, teenage vampires. While the mother begins to fall in love with her boss from the video store, where she has been employed, Sam spends his time reading vampire comics, which were given to him by two brothers (Corey Feldman, Jamison Newlander), who claim the town is infested by vampires. He does not believe them, but grows to almost immediately, upon realizing that his brother, Michael, has been seduced by the beautiful half-vampiress, Star (Gertz), and joins the gang, led by David (Sutherland). He realizes that neither Star nor Michael are true vampire until they make their first kill, and they will not become normal again until the head vampire is killed. So, he calls up the brothers Frog, and gets them to come in and help him solve the job, though he is scared that he might have to kill his brother. Overall, a cinematic masterpiece. The directing, acting, writing, camera work, special effects, stunts and, of course, the epic cinematography work with the astounding score to bring together one of the most loved films of all time. The story is in fact an allegory to that of the lost boys of Neverland, from Peter Pan. A contemporary, without the temporary, classic.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Great film, a bit giving (Warning: Spoilers), 5 November 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Extremely entertaining. I loved it. A bit tough to follow, however, very fun. The surprise ending was a bit obvious from earlier on, though, seeing as when they showed Soze walking through fire, I said to my friend, "Isn't that Verbal?" There were a few other hints, but when they told us it was Keaton, my friend made me admit that my belief was wrong, however, I felt that the story wasn't over yet. They didn't conclude strongly enough, it felt as if it needed something extra, and then the twist came in, and I just said, "wow," as the credits began to roll. I thought that the whole cast was great. Benicio Del Toro looks great in one of his early roles. We see very similar acting by him in "Snatch". A modern classic, without a doubt.

From the exciting opening, to the thrilling turn at the conclusion, a real treat from Bryan Singer.