billy_loomis1 Reviews

Donnie Darko (2001)

A Masterpiece of modern cinema.

[10/10 · 28 September 2004]

The thing is with people like Richard Kelly or David Lynch, is that it takes time for their work to surface.

In Richard Kelly's case, even more, since he was a first time director, with a cast of mostly unknowns and a plot beyond comprehension, for some. The masses rejected it, but just like Lynch, Kelly found his audience. Which i now, know, is more than just a cult.

Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhal) is a trouble teen, living in small town America, among other troubled teens. What's special about Donnie is that, he has visions, which kind of translates to him waking up in strange places in the morning and visiting a psychiatrist. The rest of the story is more or less the usual, the new girl (Jena Malone) comes into town etc... Well, the thing is, the world kind of ends and an engine falls into Darko's bedroom. Not so usual. Weirdness ensues...

I won't get into the trouble of actually explaining what it all means. Donnie Darko is one of those awesome movies, like 2001, which can translate into anything you want them to. Obviously, there is some point, which the director intended--(SPOILER)it is all leading to sacrifice(SPOILER), but the rest of the "void", you have to fill in as you like. People have said, it is a meaningless, confusing garbage or something close to that. All i have to say to them is that they maybe can't fill their own void, let alone Donnie Darko's... To me this movie is a real journey(or a "trip" if you like) and as i grow up and obviously watching this over and over, i find myself discovering new things, but ultimately i just discover myself. And that's the beauty of it and ultimately all the movies in general.

I have to mention of course, the work that has been done by the cast and crew. Kelly, for whom i foresee a great future, has a magnificent eye for detail and a taste that even though it did estrange me just a tine bit at first, after repeated viewings, i became really familiar with it. And he certainly knows a lot about how to set the mood for a film, this puppy just grabs you from minute 1 and doesn't let you go... even when it's all over. It also has a very handsome photography, nicely dressed sets, effective special F/X and a cool soundtrack. And of course, kudos to Drew Barrymore for supporting this flick, she did the cinematic world a huge favor and she may have discovered a new Orson Welles. By now, we all know that MAggie and JAck ( Gyllenhal) are the new Joan and John(Cusack) of the decade--able to carry a movie on their shoulders and having the charisma to look adorable while doing it! Basically the entire cast of Donnie Darko deserves a praise, but they are just too many to mention here, great acting all around.

Finally, i just like to say that if you actually have yet to see this movie and you agree that Kubrick is THE MAN, Leone KICKS ASS, Gilliam ROCKS and Whedon is a GENIUS and obviously KElly is the next Welles, then i think you'll just have a life changing experience. If not. Go rent Road Trip or whatever and stop trashing masterpieces like this.

Rating 10/10--Top 20 in my list of favourite films of all times.

Freaky Friday (2003)

Funny, actually...

[20 May 2004]

Having just watched the film, all i can say is that it certainly offers more than what you would expect from a Disney movie. One could say this is the best Disney film since... Pulp Fiction. I say that because Disney, as we all know, delivers crap after crap after crap.

The script is witty, the execution is even wittier and even though it's all so predictable( who doesn't guess what happens in the end?) it manages to breathe life into everything. From the most typical brother-sister fight to the obligatory emotional mother-daughter sequence. It does indeed has lots of flaws, i mean who has seen a more clean cut rock band, in a movie, than this? But when you get into the core of the movie, it gets warm, it worked for me that's for sure because, being a teenager myself, i could (partially) relate to the "angst" and "rebellion"--which by the way (as Roger Ebert correctly noted) is typical behaviour, but in the world of Disney it becomes "disturbing"--whatever!

The direction was quirky enough and had a kind of energetic feel to it. Like Paul thomas anderson, only dumbed down and with more cuts. It worked for the most part, i mean it was just right for the material... The use of the music was nice enough, although it could have used some less mainstream and less popular songs--we 've heard them a gazillion times already!--but they worked, did the job and that's that. But Lohan's band, even though clean cut, rocked harder than the one in "School of Rock", which was kinda lame, i know they were just kiddies but c'mon (although the movie had a better soundtrack...by the way). I was surprised by the quality of the band's music, never expected something like that in Disney movie.

All in all, it's fun and surprisingly watchable. What else can you ask from Disney pictures? Enjoy.

6/10

Garage Days (2002)

Cute, but not quite good...

[16 December 2003]

I don't need to say that i only rented the movie because i saw Alex Proyas name on it. Ofcourse i had read some reviews and seen some pretty slick pics on the net, so i knew what i was getting into. Although i was quite sure that it was a hot potato i expected some style from Proyas, some darkness despite the original premise. What i got wasn't from what i expected, style-wise. Quality-wise though...

The movie started off, more or less like "Snatch" or "Lock Stock..." choose your preference, anyways, quick cuts, some rather silly jokes, freeze frames et la. I though of just stopping the flick and go see a real movie on the nearby theatre. But naw, i just could not, i 've never done that, so why now? I MEAN it didn't suck THAT MUCH. This had all the trademarks of an Alex Proyas movie, i mean it ain't no "Planet of the Apes"(in this one you can tell who directed it), the rock music is here, as a matter of fact The CURE are here as well, the stylish dark kind of MTV shots are here, slow motion clear and present, a pinch darkness? Here as well. But despite having all these elements, i just couldn't stop wondering, what attracted Proyas to the project, it's fairly average if not total garbage of a script. Although not cliched, it has its fair share of wickedness, some funny moments, some chilling moments and some slapstick, but overall it is a mess. What it needed was wit but It lacked wit, it could have worked if there were some Woody Allen or Kevin Smith one-liners--their movies lack srtucture too anyway!--. The music now: as i said it's quite cool, not The Crow kind of cool but still it was a pretty nice little collection of songs, these were used nicely through out the movie, sometimes effectively, most of the times just to provoke feelings that the actors are unable to communicate.

What made the movie worthwhile though, was the fact that it had a few set-pieces which were cool, like a certain bloody bath tub or that slow-mo(bullet time you say?) rain, which looked obviously phony but still that is what makes them attractive. Acting is fairly average, Haley Joel Osment could act the feminine parts better than these gals...not to mention the guys parts the governor of California could kick some serious acting but here! The cinematography is moody at times, there are some new hotties coming out of this flick(no not that leading lady! But surely the other two ladies are certainly going to Hollywood...although they shouldn't really act..if you know what i mean)but other than that... A Final notice i hope I, ROBOT is a return to form, cause this gives Alex a bad name. I mean man! Get a hold of yourself! You've seen it before, it's tv-movie quality, it wanted to be ALMOST FAMOUS--but it's just shite.

4/10 Choose life, Choose another movie...

Hollywood Ending (2002)

Not Bad, which doesn't quite make it good either...

[26 June 2003]

Well, this is indeed a mixed bag. It opens with a great premise though. A Director, who has no other option but to direct a movie, while being blind. It indeed sounds good. It partially is. But to begin with, it has no freshness and this is very bad for Allen, from whom i always expect that. It feels boring after a while, because it keeps making the same jokes, you propable have seen in other Woody Allen features and it almost repeats its self as a movie after a while. And that is to begin with. Then you feel like this should have been a short movie. Because 1hour and 47 minutes, is too long for such a repetition like this.

There are a few nice jokes, but you propably know their coming long before they are even said. But some of them still manage to squeeze a few laughs. And that is when you understand Allen's genius, also you have the wonderful cinematography which is truly amazing--if you even care--. There are good performances here, from most of the cast. Treat Williams is quite nice, not good. And that's that, no Marlon Brando here. You got Woody, who is always a pleasure to watch, even when you know what he is about to say. And the direction is solid but lacks the quirkiness of any greater moments, from Annie Hall, to Husband and Wives to Zelig. That's the same lacking quality from the script.

There are also many beautiful people in Allen's movie. As always he is among goergous women and handsome men. With him being the exception, as always!

In a nutshell, or rather two. This movie is not bad. It is interesting. But you gotta go past it, if you want to see a good Woody Allen movie.

**out of*****. And thanks for the reading.

X-Men (2000)

X-MEN has brains, but it is terribly RUSHED...

[7/10 · 14 March 2002]

Here we are... 1 year before the franchise, waiting to see the un-answered questions, the plot gaps and the under-developed characters to be fulfilled. Well... you see X-MEN's BASIC problem is that it so keen on to be a franchise, that forgets to be a decent, fulfilling and self-contained 100mins feature film! But let's take things from the begging...

Firstly Brian Singer isn't Joel Schumacher(THANK GOD!) and so X-Men isn't a garish, nightmarish BATMAN & ROBIN s***e. But it is not a slick and stylish Batman either, it has a magic but it has flaws that after a certain point(e.g. thinking about the movie!) became really obvious. So what is it? Singer said this ain't gonna be a brain-less action-packed superheroes in tights et la, he proves it when we actually see the opening Auschwitz sequence, with the very emotionally powerfull scene of the young Magneto. The message is obvious Mutants are like the Jews, chased and hated by normal people. They live in prejudice and in Terror, a Terror which is leading the humans against the mutants. In a nutshell: They are hated by the people they are trying to save and who themselves must deal with their own fears and emotions!

A very powerfull story-line(for whom director B. Singer receives a credit), a set of very strong characters(Rogue,a very good Anna Paquin, a teen misfit who is doomed to a life where skin touch must be avoided-a character that best embodies the sense of the mutant dislocation-/ Magneto, kick-ass Ian McKellen who does GREAT, although he is notoriously atracted by Brian Singer's direction!/ and WOLVERINE-with the almost famous(now) Hugh Jackman. He kinda pretty and TOO TALL for Wolvie but he kicks some serious but there!) and some subplots(the romance between Wolverine and Jean Gray, the mystery behind the "mask" of Wolverine et la) who are never really answered and are left hanging there like a "poop on a stick"! And what about the UNDER-DEVELOPED Cyclops(a cold-ass Madsen!), Storm(a coooooool Halle-white haired- Berry!) and the evil GUYS characters who are like something more of cameos and bit less than bit-parts and forgetting that the ALTHOUGH EXCELLENT Patrick Stewart is serving the duties of an on-screen narrator!

Except all these we also get the feeling that we are missing something, maybe some set-pieces or something like that! We got some very good inside jokes-Don't you people just DIE!- or "Would you prefer tights and yellow suits?" hillarius but the shows is not good. We have great fight sequences(the big-tongue/the claws/the thunders/the touch-my-head-bullet etc) but the climactic sequences is disappointing to say the least because instead of a jaw-dropping moments we get rutine stuff, lacking of nerve and no feeling of impact!

At the end, what we see is a VERY GOOD 35 say 40 mins of a different BLOCKBUSTER but the rest is low-life action and plot gaps, under-developed characters, a feeling of rush and less excitment than expected... we get nearly nothing new! But it is very entairtaining... and i can't wait to see the sequel(although i now, know what to expect!)....

I gave it a 6/10

Brazilero (2001)

A good film, that deserves peoples attention and definetely has it!

[7/10 · 22 December 2001]

Well, to be honest Goritsas film has just as many weak points as any other greek film. But it is much better, because it is unique! A trully unique comedy, with an "every day" subject -at least for Greek people, it is cosidered to be one-: Vasilis Arvanitakis has "lented" some E.U money which sopposed to be given for the raising of a Greek museum of art, to buy a brazilian football player, that is proven to has very poor skills! So, what he could possibly do when two european-union employees come to check the progress of the Museum!!? He treats them with the greek way of hospitality... so he can abstract their attention for a while...

Goritsa's direction is simple, effective and not very stylish... which is not bad at all! When a movie has bases on the screenplay then who needs all the crapy effects-of lets say Aronofsky's direction-? The screenplay is very well written and really gives all it's best, funny dialogue, furious attack against the GREEK-way of life and...a dodgy ending? That's the problem, the ending is so obviously abstract... he can't really understand why it is there hanging like a half-eaten banana!That's the main weakness... along with some plot holes who really go un-noticed if you DON'T think about it later! The acting is good, the players are really fine although nothing special comes up, with the exeption of leading actor Mainas who is really good though, a really fine actor who wastes his time in stupid-T.V shows...

All in all the movie is good, definetely worths a try! The best parts are the footaball-match sequence and the who-understand-i sequence... If you really want to see the greeks in all their magnificent brilliance you should check out this flick!

The Matrix (1999)

Philosophy, special Effects and great actors, not it's not "STAR WARS" !

[6/10 · 31 July 2001]

---Spoilers Ahead---

Matrix is unique for one thing, its phisophy. The Matrix tells us that we live in an artifial world and nothing is what it seems... The real world is too terrifying to live in and the people who actually live in it have to fight against machines. And here we are waiting for the chosen one who is a hacker and believes there is something more to see, to explore. After being released from the artificial world by taking a... pill( also watch "Trainspotting") and choosing a real life (here are is a reference to a greek hero, Hercules, who did the exact same thing, he chose the hard way! The only difference is that he didn't take a pill!), our Character Neo fights back not knowing if he is the chosen one or not! And wins the first battle(out of 3, coming up "The Matrix Reloaded") against the EVIL machines.

So do we, who would expect such a script? Although there are plenty of plot holes, Matrix has such an impressivly good story that you just ignore them because the script makes you think they are there for a reason! Although the characters are not developed as much as someone would like(something smells like a franchise) but they give you a glimpse of their personality, that's why you get curious abou their future. Matrix is something more that just a fairy-tale, it is a movie with brain, it is the true story of our world. Because we live in an Artificial World ! We are ruled by machines and those who fight the system we call them terrorists!

the Sequels won't say new stuff, they'll just bring up the rest of the story, which is not that interesting! We all now it's going to have a happy ending, we all now that the main attraction is what the special effects going to look like? What music are they going to use? Is there any karate( because of Jet-Lee's appearence) Matrix-styled in it? Any special cameos? Any new philosophy> nah, i don't think so.

Another thing abou the Matrix is stylish direction, who would expect all these bullet-time shots, the John-Woo shots, the marvellous special effects! The Helicopter sequence(Slash, Bang!), the touch-the-mirror sequence, the fight in the end(Crash, Boom!). The flying sequence(you know it has used in aaah] Scary Movie and [woow!] Shrek!) ofcourse is the most memorable though!

One question: I heard that the upcoming Star Wars is going to be NC-17 rated! Is it true? My true question is Matrix going to be that cold again or the in-love characters will move a step forward ?

P.S, Why every new movie is borrowing Matrix sequences? Haven't they seen T2 or any of the DIE HARD'S??? JEEEZ!

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

Better Dead than Red ! Anti-Russian propaganda disguised in a stylish submarine-thriller...

[29 July 2001]

Sean Connery the Russian Commander who forgets his own language, because some people do not like subtitles... On the other hand, the story is good, twist, action and a couple of thrills! It worths wattching mainly for satisfying curiosity... MacTiernan's work is always stylish and that's another reason but why don't watch "Das Boot"? if you want a submarine-Thriller? IT'S SO SIMPLE!!!!!!!

Liam (2000)

Not pleasant, good plot but...

[5/10 · 21 July 2001]

Stephen Phrears needed to say that he hated church, So he took a very "in the rules" movie(with cliches i mean) and a very nice boy to make a monstrous movie! Acting the script looses focus, the actors try to handle it but... I don't blame him but this movie has NOOOO prurpose, we seen it again and again!

Little Nicky (2000)

Another Garbage in Sandler's filmography...

[1/10 · 19 July 2001]

If there was one "good"(is a very big word for Little Nicky) joke in this stupid "comedy" is the transformation of the coke into pepsi. And i believe these movies are only for americans! Because in europe this movie wouldn't earn more that 2 dollars! is really the us I.Q so low or i made a mistake? the schocking answer revealed in the rest of the reviews! God save us from the garbage! PLEEASEEE!

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

Realistic and ugly

[17 July 2001]

After watching this film i was shocked, i almost cried in the end! I have never ever being shocked that much(not even with HELLRAISER or The Return of Chainsaw Massacre, which by the way sucked) in my life. A very stylish documentary style, which doesn't make the whole thing soft-core.

The viewing is very difficult, the movie seems to be real so it's shocking. I wouldn't say it's a bad movie but i didn't enjoy not one second of it! It didn't want to be like BRAINDEAD, it had something very real, not a comic-book style and no sense of humor. So it wouldn't reccomend it to anyone who isn't mature(i am 14 years old for example and you see how shocked i was).

The direction is good, the performances are very shocking and impressive(especially the girl's who survived in the end). I also heard that the blood in the last survivor(the girl) is real!! There is no comparison between this one the BLAIR WITCH PROJECT at all... I gave this a 6, it should be watched with an open mind...

Pi (1998)

In her majesty service, definetely NOT a masterpiece but it really worths seeing, mostly seeing...!

[9 July 2001]

This movie Pi, it has a boring script, interesting story though and theory but you can't make a 100minute movie with this story. The miracle happen with the excellent, moody photography, the insane direction and the quick and clear(?) edit which filled the time. Ofcourse the also moody music made the result so succefull, but surelly not even COPPOLA or WELLS couldn't made it. Maybe...

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

The worst James Bond after Octupussy!

[5/10 · 3 July 2001]

NoTiCe: MAny SPoileRs AheAd DON't gO AnY FurTHEr!!!!!

You know the plot, what you don't know is that James Bond is getting old, the fans are tired of watching Jimmy shagging Babes. The only new stuff is always the gadgets, which are not getting old. The sense of humor is good but when you 've got a James Bond who actually does Bruce Willis(in Die Hard), you can't have good results. A bunch of sexy actresses, a bigger part for M and Pierce Brosnan isn't Enough! The movie is just a very very very very BAD replica(immitation) of Die Hard.

The first part has a very Bad and very not convincing but very sexy Richards(Dr. Christmas! what in the earth name is that!), a cool Brosnan(not need to talk about him!) and Elektra King(Marseu, or whatever her name is spelled like) who doesn't seem very notorious and finally the greatest thign this movie has a BAD GUY WHO CAN'T FEEL A THING! Robert Carlyle is very good but can really one actor save the titanic called James Bond! How the hell did he do that thing with the boat! Q is dead so he will rest from Bond's character!

The second part has some good jokes, some good action scenes(who are totally unconvincing) and some sex in the end! R is the new Dude who will make us have a good time(maybe!), he is good but does John Cleese deserve that kind of treatment! If you haven't seen any James Bond watch Dr. No first. If you wan't to see Pierce Brosnan watch GOLDENEYE for a change! Don't even take a look here you'll be very sorry!

To add into my coments i would like to say that i am a huge fan of Bond but wathing him collapse isn't what i love to see! I'd rather remember him with the characteristicks of Sean Connery who really shows who James Bond is! FORGET 'EM ALL! ROGER MOORE, GOERGE LAZENBY, TIMOTHY DALTON.................. SEAN RULES!!!

hello MISS MANYPENNY....I HOPE THE NEXT WILL BE BETTER!!! i am looking foward for it! he will be back!

Ghostbusters (1984)

Very good script, an awesome Billy Muray...

[7/10 · 3 July 2001]

When i was 6 i think was the first encounter with the Ghostbusters, the cartoon first and then the films. I was ghostbuster maniac for quite long, every time i watched it i understood it's jokes more and more, because it has many of them. A british dude said that he didn't remember any of them, when you are not paying any attention you don't understand them. Because there are so many quotes you can't remember them like "Where are we? We are in the teens. When we go twenty tell me to throw up!", and this is only a simple one! "If someone asks you if you are a god say yes!" or "Do you believe in God? Never met him!". So you see... A very great script, with loads of quote, a awesome Billy Murray who gives a great perfomance, ofcourse no-one must forget Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis.

The direction is just fine and the effects(although they don't play such a big part) are fine, although you can understand their age... I though the cartoon made the film, i was always saying that the cartoon was nothing in-compare to the films, until yesterday i hadn't realize that i had made a big mistake! The main theme is passable and the other songs are good enough. As i said the script is the best thing in this movie!

Anyone who wants to argue, can always send me a message at: [e-mail] but i don't think someone will find enough reason to fight with me...

Almost Famous (2000)

We don't need no revolution...

[8/10 · 8 June 2001]

First of all, i loved this movie for a simple reason: it's touchy, sexy, sensitive and it shows the 70's with the appropriate i-miss-them-but-i-am-happy-they-are-gone and we-live-for-moments, which means these(things, eg. sex,drugs and rock 'n' roll) were just a part of the 70's. 70's had also Vietnam(here it has a small role) and wasn't the best decade because of it's result in the 80's(admit it or not 80's sucked big time!). About why i liked it now, ehm, basically i 70's lover but i like 90's-00's much more but they don't have that let's-make-a-revolution thing which isn't here anymore. It is very well witten, good directed(it could be better, what i am saying! every movie isn't perfect) and has a great cast, you know for whom i am talking about guys! Kate Hudson(she isn't that pretty after all, more of a baby face really) plays amazing, Frances Macdormand(she was and is very very pretty, Kate Hudson my ***) is also great. I said what had to be told so my greetings to you all!

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Nice, although i prefer #3...

[7/10 · 1 June 2001]

I watched Indy from episode 3, it was very funny, it had two great leading actors, some great supporting actors, episode 2 was funny in the begging. This one was mostly to build up the Indiana Jones character, to show that he supposed to be a James-Bond-model-character. Ofcourse Harisson ford ain't no James Bond that's why his character changed through the movies. The direction is superb, the script is just right and ofcourse the spectators are happy to see Karen Allen as the femme-fatale(not with the current meaning of the word) of the series. This is mostly an adventure-horror-x-files-looking movie(see last scenes). if you haven't seen this one don't worry, the fun is later on.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Asta lavista baby, I 'm Back!

[6/10 · 23 May 2001]

O.K it has some bad moments, some plot holes, but even Star Wars had plot whole, basically the whole trilogy was a swiss cheese! Who cares, i love the Star Wars trilogy, ofcourse Star Wars had the force, mmm..., but it doesn't cover it's wholes does it? T2 has a story just like the first part, what does it make it unique? It has great effects, it is very well directed and appart from the story it brings out the problem of people understanding their selves, people killing their selves and the funny thing is that if a robot can understand human beings, why can't we understand ourselves? That's a good one but Cameron's intention was to make a big-bucks film. The whole "philosophy" really is there but it is covered by tons of bullets and loads of Shwargeneger! Cool result, *** out of *****. 6.9/10(the 0.1 is not there because this sequel, sequels suck!)

The Beach (I) (2000)

Two thumbs up or just one finger?!!!!

[18 May 2001]

Well it is one of the two, both i would say. It has it's bad moments and it's good moments. Mostly good but the bad moments are unforgivable, like the video game sequence, which is pretty stupid, it has good intentions but it is made so funny that you don't take it seriously. Then let's go to the good points like the excellent photography, the nice direction, the pretty good acting... and the script which doesn't concludes very well written and what about the romance between Di Caprio and Letoyen? In the end we understand that heaven isn't for tourists!Transporting was much much better! maybe just one thumb up! ** out of*****, or 6/10.

Army of Darkness (1992)

Silly Jokes, Nice plot, funny result!

[7/10 · 13 April 2001]

Watching this third sequel makes you wonder how stupid can a movie be? This movie is trying to avoid being disguisting and just a horror flick and makes fun of its self! This one is much better than number one and number two, actually number two was a copy of number one! Anyway, all the stupid spirits and stuff are presented being very idiotic and brainless in the film, instead of scary and sadistic. The acting is not impressive, i would say effective, like the direction. The two endings are nice, although i prefer the original, the best one is the second(spoiler) in which ash gets in the nightmarish(!!) near(!) future. What else? Oh yes it's not a film which can be taken seriously. I recommend it to all movie fans and especially the horror-freaks!

Hannibal (2001)

nothing to do with silence of the lambs!

[6/10 · 11 April 2001]

It's a whole new movie, not worth-seeing or waiting for! But it really made me fell very chilled afterwards! That's way i would gave it a big 6.5(so i gave it 7) for that feeling only. Very good music, very cool acting by Anthony Hopkins and Giancarlo Giannini, Clarice was better looking, sexy but she wasn't original, Jodie Foster was a much better Clarice. is this movie considered to be as a sequel? Then those who do consider it are Brainless(!) or have nothing to do with the world of the Lambs!(ha ha!). First of all is shocking, disgusting and (*spoiler*) you really do not want to see the ending, which although seems fake and a bit real but makes you sick(don't pay for a pop corn, it would end up in a bathtub... etc.!). (end of spoiler). It has a great first part in Florence where it really gives it all! And a very bad second part in U.S.A where Hannibal (spoiler) eats brains, fries them and gives them to innocent kids! And of course the pig scene! Oh god if that isn't bad! Clarice is shot, Hannibal is set Free(while being tighted up) and Mason Verger is eaten alive by pigs!(spoiler ends) Gross! It is a film that is not to be taken seriously, because in the end we get to see that the whole thing was just a sick joke, written by a much sicker person! O.K other films maybe be sicker but at least this should not have been a sequel to a great film like "the silence of the lambs". I really liked Hannibal Lecter as a character, i enjoyed the scene where Giannini dies although it sucked big time! And i loved the stupid dialogue between Liota and Hopkins,that was silly and funny(and gross!).(spoiler) The scene where Clarice tries to kill Hannibal is trying is very well filmed, has a sense of humor but lacks in having much interest... all in all don't watch it unless you are really prepared for a travesty(well not excactly but kind of)like that! Have a good apetit! PS_1 Clarise you naghty girl!(a quote from this disgustingly beautiful film!) PS_2 Silence is badly broken and abused!(see tagline!) PS_3 Few words, much meaning: A cannibal(thomas harris) eats his own heroes! or Cannibalising on the "silence of the lambs"!

Batman (1989)

"Honey you'll never guess what happend to me today!"

[7/10 · 5 April 2001]

Dark Humor, Dark Knight, Dark direction... The darkest Batman of all! Batman is a revenger, that is what Burton wants us to think, he revenges crime, but he can't live without it, he couldn't exist without it. "You made me, i made you! Ha ha ha!" Joker is right! This film is the best comic adaption ever, Superman was for kids! The Crow was good too, X-men is just good, Spawn sucks!

Ofcourse without a proper script, Batman would be like it's sequel dumm but good! The direction is outstanding? Maybe, but what sends Batman on top is its art direction: A dark city, many dark spots where crime is hide... Big buildings, Dark people! But can Batman bring the light? No! Why not, because he doesn't have it! He can fight crime but he doesn't care if people will survive or not, or he does... He soul is deeply hurt and he is always in a bad mood! That's what makes this batman the best and the darkest.

The perfomances are outstanding, the whole cast acts brilliant. Take Jack for example(Bad example though...) he acts madly, like a proffesional madman! Mike(Batman) acts good, he is the best batman of all(Goerge Clooney is nice too). Basinger sometimes flat sometimes very good, but Pfeifer was better(in the sequel). About Joker's Helpers now, they are really good and i think they have set the rules for the rest of the sequels, they will die for their boss, they are as mad as he is.

To finish with, i would like to comment the great sense of humor Joker has! Black and really, i just say that: "(he)was feeling hot today!".

Batman Returns (1992)

Bad script, Super Direction, Another sequel...

[7/10 · 4 April 2001]

This batman has a more dark climate and this adds to all characters, most of all on batman. As i said the script is badly written and Penguin is more of a clown, than a villain... O.K Danny devito performs excellent! The best piece of the movie is the very nice Gotham city, the set mainly, the art direction is quite impressive. About the direction, Burton sets the actors well, moves the camera effectivelly well and he is excellent. This film is not in any case, compared with the original. Michele Pfeifer is charming and acts well, she is as well as the comic character. The movie deserves a 7.

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Tourists aren't we all!

[6/10 · 1 April 2001]

To be honest i wanted to see Hannibal instead of "Enemy at the gates", but there weren't any tickets available! Anyway, the first scene was chiling: russian soldiers are leaded to the battlefield, no way back from there. They had to choose between the german bullets or their own officers bullets. Very nice, but instead of the soldiers, Annaud was filming the sets! I liked the script, although the *****_SPOILER_******* dramatic death of Feines was just an easy way of handling the relationship of three people.***end of spoiler*** The direction of the people was nice, but the filming sucked, i don't care (although the sets were pretty nice) about what happens to a building, i care what happens to the character. And all the characters where not shown to be attractive, except the german general... mmm why is that? I gave this film 6, it diserves it.

American Psycho (2000)

What the hell was that?

[8/10 · 28 March 2001]

Well that supposed to be a masterpiece? i don't really know. Call me stupid but i do understand why it is made, to show us the life of the sick stock's men in wall-street, back in the 80's. O.K i agree that the were sick, i don't say i didn't enjoy the movie, but what did the director meant? I mean i gave this film 6, i will gave it 8 but i don't think it deserves that. I will see it again, maybe i will find out... Any one who has a clue mail-me!

New Nightmare (1994)

Better than the first one...

[7/10 · 28 March 2001]

Firstly number one had a not very good direction, that's a fact. The script was mmm..., ok.Freddy himself was scary in the first 20 minutes, the whole thing started to collapse when freddy cut himself and said flashed his tongue! The sequel though has a very smart idea, freddy is not in your dreams, it is an obsession. An obsession that comes to the reality.So he attacks, most of the times in darkness, using his ''finger-knives'' only, so he becomes really scary!(I don't remember the whole picture so forgive me if i am wrong.) The sequel also involves the personality of Craven, which is nutty and dark, the personality of Robert ''freddy'' Englund, also... strange! And Nancy's because Heather Langengamp is acting like Nancy, she is not herself, at all! About Dylan, cute, that's all. Just cute. This film needed the sequels, they were like food to Craven, an insipiration(that's a fact, see that many times the sequels are refered...). I wrote that because someone said this should be number 2... The direction, this time isn't poor, the scipt is better written, not best though. This movie diserves a better score than 6.2/10, i believe that 7 is just right, not big or low. If anyone disagrees with this review i 'd be pleased if he could e-mail me. Also i 'd like to say that this is the first movie to be: movie-within-a-movie style. Well done wes! And it doesn't takes itself too serious like Numero Uno!(Number One)