What a wonderful film! Inspiring! Truly a bravura of the souls of humanity, full of pain, anguish, torture, and suffering, yet in spite and despite of them, experiencing the beauty of life, full of hope, full of dreams. Poetry defines this film, and as the titles speaks, Dead Poets Society, it's only ironic because this movie is never dead. It's just about life, and learning how to breathe. Superbly acted and enjoyably realised, Dead Poets Society is one of those rare films that would let you face the bitter truths of life, lets you swallow the hard pill of pain, yet after that, makes you see rainbows that life is made of. This reminds me of Mona Lisa Smile, yet to daringly say, this is a far better film than the latter. Robin Williams was justifiable. No wonder why the Academy Awards did just fine by nominating this guy for his splendid performance. Not only him but the young actors that surround him were all excellent. Even the young Ethan Hawke was deliberately perfect. I love the way his character developed, from being a geeky loner to a person who cares about friendship and the bond itself that they had. It has an emotional edge that characters should have. Also Robert Sean Leonard, the guy with an artist's soul, who wanted to act and read poetry lines, yet being restrained by his father's strict discipline. I also dig the way the story evolves. It's about Mr Keatings, a new replacement to teach a strict all-boys academy, the prestigious Welton Academy Prep School, teaching about poetry, how to read 'em and how to feel them. His teaching was a bit absurd and other teachers were just plainly disturbed by a sense of ruining the tradition that the school had grown to observe. They read poetry, they climb up at the top of the tables, they rip off nonsensical pages in their books about how to read poetry because according to Mr Keatings, there is no proper way to read poetry, as long as you feel the underlying beauty of it, it's what matters. They do classes in the halls, looking at pictures of alumni of had passed the schools, listening to their haunting voices: "Seize the day..."But behind all those weird teachings and principles, there's only one thing that Mr Keatings wanted to teach their students: to become extraordinary, and that life is supposed to be lived not just a road to be passed by through. This is a deeply moving, a deeply and affectionately well-told film. The story is deep, and it makes us realise that films nowadays that's full of special effects, explosions and rollicking adventures is no match for films like this that tells every man's story - the adventure of life. Everyone in this movie is downrightly AMAZING. All the characters had been developed so well. You could really feel the anguish, the pain, and the frustrations of every single character. It's a kind of film that doesn't restrain you from the natural force of crying because no matter how hard your heart is, this film WILL make you cry, and I even think that this film could make those cold-hearted bastards out there cry like a baby. It's subtle yet at the same time brutal, that it strikes your heart out, beats you like never before, and hits the very essence of humanity deep within you.Sometimes, we do feel that life puts collars on our necks. Sometimes, at certain points in life, we feel like breaking free, and this film really inspires us to believe in our dreams, to become extraordinary, to make us spread our wings and fly, no matter what holds us, and all the matters is we believe in ourselves. And more importantly, we believe in flying.This has become one of my most favorite films of all time. Remarkable. A classic that should be treasured.Upon watching this film, all I could feel like doing was to stand up over a desk and say: "Oh, Captain, my Captain." Carpe Diem. Seize the day.

Rating: A+

One of the most important movies ever made in cinema history. The Godfather is no wonder the god of all those gangster movies, the lord of the mafias, and the darkest noir of them all. I admit I was one of those people who feel awkward when this film comes up in conversations, or maybe in the shows that I see, reviews that I read and magazine that I check out because this film is always mentioned here and there. I feel a bit out of place, which then rose up the frustration to really see this film and see what's the fuss all about. And now, after watching the film, I feel a bit ashamed because I just downrightly missed for so many years one of cinema's greatest. This is indeed Hollywood's The Don.
Francis Ford Coppola had crafted a chilling masterpiece, a haunting portrait of a family which lives in the dark underworld, doing business in the shade. A film that concerns about family royalty and loyalty. Judging by the opening sequence itself, one will know that it's not an ordinary film and that Coppola is the real master of craft. It strikes a resemblance to what monarch families that exist in the 70's or 80's or even now. And what makes us feel drowning in this film was that it gives us a solid view of how violence could ruin one's family foundation. It gives us a view that being a mobster isn't all about flashy stuff, like what other gangster movies, but gives us a darkest view, no light, no brightness, but only desolateness, regret and the fierce force of redemption. As what I told you, the opening scenes were brilliant; a man sitting with his face somewhat blending in the dark, talking about his abused daughter and demanding for vengeance. The Godfather meanwhile has voice in the background, saying that vengeance should not be imposed, but justice.
The Godfather as it was supposed to focus on the Godfather, actually focuses on the successor, Michael Corleone (a hailed performance by the young Al Pacino). Bloody hell, he's one of my favorite actors of all time, and his role here in Godfather just made him a legend. His transformation is the film's most pivotal part because it shows us Michael Corleone a once indiferrent youngest son of Don Corleone who don't give a damn to the family's business, but when something happened to his father, he learned all about redemption and vengeance. His following of his footsteps after his father remids us that we should all honor thy father. He is the center of the film and Al Pacino just done it perfectly well. All the performances in this film is all top-notch. Marlon Brando's characterization of The Godfather himself, Don Corleone, was phenomenal! He perfectly enveloped the role, which won him Best Actor in Oscars back in 1972.
The story was really dark and I think not all people would dig in this. Well, for me, I dig it because I'm a great fan of dark movies, and rightfully said, The Godfather would make all those other gangster movies look like dumb caricatures of the mobster world. The Godfather as I could picture out was a huge success because of its cinematic visual style. It's dark, complicated and a complex film not for all to swallow in. It's like watching a picture in a very old newspaper, which is quite interesting. Coppola's direction is an A-Superb. He would show what he wanted to show, and he's never afraid of doing it. The time frame of 3 hours was a justified classic. It's just really amazing and the film's score complement it highly. Given with this situation, if I were to live way back 1972, I would consider this film to be a work of art. Even in this year 2006, upon watching this film, it's still an art, and it would remain to be an art in the next 100 years or so.

Rating: A+

Before The Others, before The Hours, before Dogville, Moulin Rouge, Birth and all those movies in which Nicole Kidman earned great respect in the film industry, there was The Portrait of a Lady. Yet, after watching this film, being a big Nicole Kidman fan, I feel deprived for not having the resources to check out some of her older movies, like To Die For, Malice, Dead Calm and Days of Thunder, in which she also grabbed acclaimed performances in it. Especially in the film To Die For; as what I read, the character she portrayed in that film has become an iconic role.
Anyway, back to The Portrait of a Lady, this is a good adaption of the book. Well, I haven't read the book, but judging by the film itself, I could say that it's a good one. Now let me tell you viewers straight, this film is not for all. Some may find it boring, some may find it interesting and some may just lose their temper and bang their VCR shut. Well for me, it's a balance between good and bad. Good because, hell, Nicole Kidman sparks like a shining mystery in this film. She's bloody good and she had given a strong but at the same time vulnerable performance as the haunted Isabel, whose definition of happiness is about sacrifice. Bad because there's some scenes which really drags and just make you feel as if you just swallowed a sleeping pill. But in the essence, it has a good story; one that captivates you at the beginning, bores you at the middle, and then grabs your throat at the ending. Performances by John Malkovich and Barbara Hershey were equally astounding. As Barbara was nominated for Best Supporting Actress in Oscars that time. The story was what classics are made of. It really paints a portrait of a woman, full of dreams, ambitions and when she gives her all, there she starts to ask about happiness and contentment. Some people may find it ridiculous because Jane Campion, the director, was able to give out the essence of being a woman, the light and the dark side of it. Oh by the way, Christian Bale was also featured here as the young noble who fell in love to Isabel's step-daughter. It's about suffering and sacrifice, turning away from love, using your brain instead of heart, yet at the end the dawn of realisation would suddenly strike you like a bolt of lightning, hitting you severely like what happened to Isabel. Nicole Kidman is fabulous.

Rating: B+

No man is an island. No man is a loner. No man is alone. Yet somehow Will believed he was an island, and that he could live alone, by himself. But of course, this movie should have been entitled 'About A Man', not 'About A Boy', because in fact, it is about a boy. It's about a boy who came into this man's life and proved to him that no man is indeed an island.
This is really a wonderful film - and since I've been writing so many critiques now, I shall speak here sincerely - I mean wonderful, like really wonderful. Truly fascinating and heartwarming, a kind of film that would make you laugh, smile, cry and strike the bottom of your heart. So rare this kind of film comes with pefectly tossed in British humour, drama, romance, family dilemmas, and every little thing that would make your heart ache and eventually triumph at its best in the end. About A Boy is this film, and knowing that this movie had one element that most movies lack nowadays - the brilliant writing - makes the ride worth it. It is brilliantly written, comically funny, but at the same time endearing. All you have to do what each character has to say, and you'll find out why. Not only the very good script that the movie had but also, much of the film's credits goes to the actors and directors. Yes, there are two directors of this film, Paul Weitz and Cris Weitz. They're absolutely genius directors and they bring so much into this film like a personal diary that you could really feel its realistic edge on it, the heartache it causes and the magnificence it brings, especially about the sensitive matter called life. More so, the actors. Hugh Grant is fantastic and I think as I have seen his other movies except Four Weddings and a Funeral, this rises above his other performances. OK, he is a charming man and there's such a British silliness in him but upon watching this film, you could see a very fine actor coming out of him. And for God's sake, will somebody stand up and applause to this impressive newcomer Nicholas Hoult who had done a great job as Marcus! He's definitely a good actor too, for a newbie like himself. Toni Collette on the same note was pretty entertaining as Marcus's suicidal mother. She's at her best and did blend into the role effortlessly. I enjoyed her spiffing acting and her ridiculous over-the-top oh-so-emotional single-mom role.
Well, I'm not the kind of person who does critiques and give away so many spoilers, but anyway, just let me have a brief recap of the story and I would appreciate also if you would let me pour over to what I think of the story. Hugh Grant plays Will, who's a self-centered bastard, as what his former girlfriends say. He was a kind of man who liked to live alone, who shies away from responsibilities, and only knew about buying shoes, playing pools, listening to music and watching a TV like there's no tomorrow, and oh - he's a man who thinks marriage is for unfortunate lousy losers. Yet he dates girls just for fun. Meet the boy, Marcus (played by Nicholas Hoult) - geek, loner, loser, momma's boy, prey to school predators. He was always being bullied at school, being throwned by hard materials and being bumped here and everywhere like he's some part of the air. Yet he ignores of all of this, and there's one scene where I was so amazed by his character when Will asked him why can't he make such a thing to stop all this 'being bullied' stuff. He stiffened and said "I can't do anything. It's part of life, wasn't it?" I think this character brings so much brightness in this film because behind the geekiness, there's so much intelligence and so much maturity that a few young people ever had. And he has a Mum who's not so sure about life itself and wanted to commit suicide. And he has a father who turns up every year, only at Christmas, leaving him very alone to deal by himself.
But fate turned their lives very differently. These two very different people were meant to meet and change each other's lives. The child introvertly wanted a father. The man doesn't think that he ever wanted a child. Two different lives. Two different situations. One single thread bringing them together. With soooo much humor (yes, I laughed most at the times) and so much human drama, it's unquestionable why this film could touch human lives. That's the secret of how films could be poweful sometimes. For some, this film would appear as simple and ordinary, but for me, I think it comes out originally, fresh and poignantly attaching. It's a kind of film that makes your mind settle to one thing after the credits roll. The rating says it all.

Rating: A+

A taut, tense and well-acted thriller. Fueled by three of the most high-powered actors in Hollywood arena today, namely Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, I shall say this film's truly a kick-butt speaking about high-powered acting. It's a very good definition of its own genre - a bank robbery - a very good whoozah! of an entertainment, but still it left me with a lot of loopholes. Everything is really good in this film, the performances, Spike Lee's superb grace of direction and good sense of editing and so much more about the knowledge of filmmaking, except for one flaw. They left the plot a bit inconspicuous, at least in my own opinion. When the film ended, I totally didn't get it. Let me just say that maybe it was "too intelligent" for me or maybe just a little "too stupid" for my own kind of brain. One thing - I didn't get the ending.
But at least, that's my only complain about the film because I admit, not a single minute in this film was boring. It was really entertaining, as what I defined taut. And I dug Denzel's look-I'm-a-flashy-cop performance or maybe Jodie's don't-mess-with-me-I'm-a-professional-bitch acting and Clive's I'm-the-coolest-robber-in-screen-history role playing. I did like the film and I truly enjoyed it, it's just that maybe the writers made a considerable amount of explanation at the end because they truly left me with my mouth hanging, and not hanging as if I truly get it, the kind of hanging where the words come out as "What the f-?"
Sorry, but I could not rate this film any higher or any lower. It deserves this grade and I could say perhaps that 2-time Oscar bagger Jodie Foster couldn't complain to this one and Mr Washington too.

Rating: B+

This is a very good film. Not perfect but a worthwile film, often funny and mostly a heart-squeezer. The Squid and the Whale is a bittersweet film about family problems, about broken relationships and shattered families. It's also about the angst of surviving adolescence and perfecting a very ruined life, like building the ruins of what seemed like a damaged foundation. A really funny portrait of families nowadays. The movie could be brutally honest sometimes, yet painfully realised at the most. OK, maybe you should bring home a copy of this film one day and let your parents see it and make them realise what hell they would cause if they would decide to split up. But anyway, watching this film would truly encrypt in your mind what chaos do broken relationships cause and what instability would it persevere over the household, especially to the children. It's a kind of film that would make us see the bitter truth, like being spoon-fed by a horrible pill that you wouldn't want to swallow. Far from a perfect movie, I could say it is well done. Although I didn't really grasp the whole idea of why was it entitled The Squid and the Whale, I liked this film. And I think the reason why it was entitled that way was that there was a huge sculpture of a whale eating a squid in a museum at the end where the main character Frank stares at it in a grim realisation kind of staring: was it metaphorical? I dunno. Written with amazing performaces by Jeff Bridges and the Laura Linney, this movie was indeed an acting-blowout film. Also added up with bright newly-discovered talents by Phoebe Kates's son, I-dunno-what's-his-name was a brilliant boy in this film with a classy I'm-punk-bad-ass attitude with such a foul mouth for a ten-year old kid. Even a small role from Anna Paquin is splendid.Watch this film. A person that belongs to a family would like this. Well, at the bottom of it all, everyone belongs to a family, right?

Rating: A-

Right when the first scene showed up, I knew at an instant that I was watching an uncommon film of extraordinary strength. The ordinary hutsle and bustle of an airport seemed so mediocre but because I know the subject matter of the film, my mind grew in stark curiosity that somewhere behind these ordinary faces, there's somebody who would threaten the hell out of many people boarding the same flight 93.
United 93 is the most powerful film I've seen since 2006 had went in and if this year would pass by and I have to make my year's best list, this movie perhaps would be present on my list. As I was one of the concerned citizen of the world when the World Trade Center went down to its ultimate destruction, I am also a concerned person who really wanted to watch this film. It's gripping and emotionally heartbreaking. 40 passengers, 40 lives which were endangered by terrorism, 40 families who were all destroyed by the shattering news. 4 planes, 3 targets, 4 terrorist - 1 great movie. This is filmmaking in its vivid vision: to show the whole world what really happened during the 9/11 attacks. More importantly, it shows us how this f***ing thing like terrorism could destroy human lives. We live in a world where there is always risk and this film is just like a slap to our face and would let us wake to reality that anywhere, anytime, something could happen to us. And the 9/11 attack was just like a worldwide phenomenon that took us by surprise.
Paul Greengrass is a stupendous director. He uses hand-held camera movements to show the sheer force of filmmaking. Even though the camera was like it was captured with maneuvres here and there, it's artistry and it's what we call style. It's a docudrama alright, and why I like it was that it isn't like those hijack-a-plane movies where Bruce Willis suddenly turns up and saves the day. It's a fact that heroes do not appear on our day-to-day basis, and tragically speaking, these people who boarded Flight 93 are all in doom. And are their families. It's heartwrenching to see the families struggle to hold on to their faith, to find hope beyond despair, to see light behind the darkness of the time.
A staggering film, indeed, and I crave it. So far, the year's best. It's a courageous job to bring this kind of film to cinematic history and it's almost a great pain to bear that it had happened. It's a noble film to watch, not just for Americans, but for every single human being living in this planet. Watch this President Bush, or maybe you Osama Bin Laden, might as well Saddam Hussein. Alright, also to all terrorists out there, have at least a heart to watch this film and realise what terror you're causing to Planet Earth. Peace, yo.

Rating: A+

Wait, I'm still recovering from the shock I received from watching this film. A History of Violence is indeed a solid film, a powerful movie that stirs us both physically and emotionally. It's an interesting thriller and it would surely grip you at several moments, sitting at the edge of your seat, almost gaping and literally in awe. David Cronenberg crafted a wicked film, and since I haven't dug some of his films, I would surely check out his movies.
A History of Violence will stun and horrify you. And so are the peformances by Viggo Mortenses and Maria Bello, both are stunning. The direction from Cronenberg is absolutely brilliant and masterful.
It speaks about how violence could utterly disrupt the lives of the innocent. The main character, Tom Stall, isn't who he thinks he is, and right now, I'm a kind of critic who doesn't want to give out spoilers so I'm gonna talk here about the film, not the story (as if I'm a critic, pardon my frustration). There's not a single minute that's wasted, and it's truly a significant film about family, loyalty, bravery and responsibility. And if you're looking for a filmmaker who could make your stomach churn a lot, David Cronenberg is one of the best. It's actually a disturbing film, especially that Cronenberg's a bit fanatic for harassing images, gore and all that lot. And if you wanted Mortensen and Bello doing the 69, you're in the right kind of place, haha! But anyway, it is a savage film, that talks about savagery, and how people sometimes wanted to forget their past that they wanted to totally erase it, even when violence is needed for it to follow. It's not the Best Film of 2005, as what other critics say, but it's surely one of the best of 2005. It's one kind of film that would make me change my mind. If only I could correct my Top 10 Best Films of 2005, I would apparently include this one. But what's done is done, and I'm just happy I checked out this film before it's too late, before it gets cobwebs in the video stores. Check out this film, it would really shake your senses up.

Rating: A-

Let's start with myself. I'm a kind of person who thinks romantic comedies suck. A kind of person who thinks romance and comedy should never go together. But of course, there had been exceptions and there had been only been quite a few who had passed the movie test - and I mean, really few. So here it is, Little Manhattan, in my own very narrow perception over romantic comedies, is a passer. What I like in this film was that it wasn't corny. Rememeber when you were in your fifth grade and learned that you're falling in love with your girl classmate. Remember when you have done the silliest things for such silly young love. Remember when you become almost dizzy by the heights of a new found feeling. Of course, when you were in that age, it would never be corny. And it could be corny if you're 10 years older. It isn't silly of course, when you're in love, because you're the only one realising it.Set up in the point of view of a 5th grader, a 10 years old boy, Little Manhattan charmingly encapsules stupidity, foolishness, growing up, adolescence and puppy love. It's a movie that is witty. And I was a bit thankful that the movie's point of view was focused on the male character, at least, a new twist on an all-girl romantic comedy flicks. That's why I like this, it's a bit on the male side of love. Hey, I'm no sexist but let's face the fact, all-girl romantic comedies are quite rampant nowadays. It's sweet, a definite treat. Almost a delight. And plus, it has a really cool soundtrack. The young characters are cute, played by Josh Hutcherson and Charlie Ray. Why this film is good was that it wasn't a film for kids, it's actually a film for adults, and the way it was presented was like a dash of reality especially for those who really needed their relationship straightened up. To think that we view the film in the eyes of a ten-year old kid, we often pay attention to how humorous it could get. It's affectionate, and the angst of first love is present all over. Well made, not only for girls, but also for boys like me. And watching this film would make you remember those moments when you had your first love way back 8 years ago, and thinking that 8 years after, God, how embarassing even to think of it. But it just isn't young love, it's about life and learning how to face realities, and the pain of leaving ang letting go.

Rating: B+

ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC! Wondrously spiffing! The most entertaining animated flick of 2005. Solidly crafted, both charming and witty. So I confide that I haven't watched this movie around last year or when the Oscar season was around, and I felt devastated for not actually checking out this movie earlier when it was still in the theaters. It's no wonder why it won the Best Animation statuette in the Academy Awards. It went head-to-head against Corpse Bride, which was an another amazing animated flick of 2005 by Tim Burton, but it still bagged the prize, ignoring the prospect that Tim Burton was much more of a veteran than Nick Park and Steve Box, the creators of Wallace & Gromit.
Corpse Bride was a great film, and it has Tim Burton written all over it, but I think the film was too dark to appeal to all ages, and Wallace & Gromit, on the lighter side, does appeal to all ages. In fact, it's a wonderful film for the whole family to enjoy! Sometimes, it could be a no-brainer (were-rabbit, for instance?), but on the whole category, it's intelligent for me and I really enjoyed the plot, its storyline and its absurd mix of cinematic filmmaking. It's all combined with all genres - it has got a scary dose of horror, cool humour, great action, emotional stuffs and brilliant thrills!
It follows both Wallace and Gromit (Wallace=human, Gromit=dog, p.s. dog's much cleverer than the human character), the Anti-Pesto angents who battle pests such as rabbits, solving a mystery that revolves around the village of theirs. There's horrible carnage and the villagers were too confused to find who has done it and why. But I'll only end here to avoid much spoilers in the film because the more you know, the less you'll enjoy it. There's twists anyway.
Alright, I enjoyed Gromit so much I wanted him to be my pet. And I mean, honestly. Such a COOL dog, very clever, although he's a mute canine. Wallace was apparently the main lead but Gromit does the great tricks. You go spiffing lad!
It's a kind of film where characters are unforgettable. It's all a magnificent creation. Downrightly, Wallace & Gromit's first movie feature is an ultimate classic! The characters shine with reminiscence. And the voices behind them, wow - bloody wicked! Helena Bonham Carter is fabulous as Lady Tottington! Such a darling, talented gal. Ralph Fiennes (pronounced as Rafe, for those who haven't got any clue) is penetrating. His voice captured so much of Victor Quartermaine's character that he becomes so loathesome! And his dog, looks like a severe version of Aunt Marge's bulldog Ripper of the Harry Potter movies. The movie was indeed surrounded by astounding and funny characters such as the Vicar - that crazy loony codger, and watch out for the old lady who was trying to save her baby squash from the rabbit monster. Finally, the rabbits are all awesome! Cute, cuddly and perfect for the movie. Marvellous, as Lady Totti would say.
To add, this is a very difficult film to capture because it's a clay stop-motion animation so I purely salute the makers of this.
I say this is a film worth to watch in a boring night. And then you'll realise that what you're watching is a classic in the making. A splendid film perfect for the whole family. Unforgettable. It's not a laugh-your-heart out kind of film, but it's worth to bring a great smile to your face. If you had a bad day, relax, watch this film. If you just broke up with your boyfriend or girlfriend, relax, watch this film. If you just feel bored, this will surely entertain your whole night. Relax, it's a film that does no harm, only bright smiles. It's not the new Finding Nemo and not the Incredibles, but it does make you forget both films for quite a while.

Rating: A+

There's one definite reason why one should see this movie: Christian Bale. For people who liked him, this is one film that would make you like him more. And for people who don't, it's one film that would unquestionably turn your distaste to admiration for this one solid hell of an actor. Frankly, I did not expect Mr Bale to be THIS GOOD. Damn, should the Academy Awards rightfully realise that they had deprived somebody without the Best Actor trophy back in the year 2000. I entirely liked the film. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed its brutality. I enjoyed its sheer star power, its murderous instincts, gore, plot, stupendous performances, its gruesome moments, its dark humour, its absurdities and its perfect awesomeness. And to think, it rarely happens for a person like me to adore, even at the least, movies like this which has the facade of a slasher flick. It's somewhat a slasher flick, but so to speak, it's more than just your average slasher run-for-your-life movie. No wonder why JoBlo rated this film perfectly. 10/10, my bloody f-ing hell. Based on Bret Easton Ellis' controversial novel with the same title, women seemed to consider this film as a mysogynist, sexist filth and others were utterly horrified by its violence and its depiction of brutality. That's why this film isn't for all kinds of audiences. I accept the fact that this is a kind of film in which not all people would like to have and play it on the comfort of their own televisions. But what I really like in the film was the portrayal of an almost unrealistic character that tries to prod on the realistic part of the world. It's a satire alright. Set on the American era of 1980's, this film ventures into the deeper instinct present in all men, I presume, the instinct of killing. It delves into the dark and dreary world of human desperateness, where intelligence seemed to bolt out of consciousness and what's left on a person in nothing but only animal savagery.It follows a story of a successful Harvard graduate, a 27-year old Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), who's a professional Wall Street broker, aiming for Vice-President position in the firm, who lives in a perfect life, with a perfect secretary, perfect fiancee, a perfect expensive apartment suite, has a perfect limo and a perfect fancy business card. Yet there's only one problem. He has a perfect killer instinct. He has a lust for blood, and it's insatiable, and he's lacking of emphaty for fellow human beings. He kills and he forgets about mercy.What I really love in the film was it's incredible touch on the dark side of humour. The scene where Bateman dances with the rhythm of "Hip To Be Square" by the Huey Lewis and the News, holding a shiny silver axe ready to strike, and having his own usual pre-murder pep-talk, was a definite unforgettable movie moment. It's funny, darkly funny, and I can't help but feel the guilty pleasure in seeing it. Patrick Bateman in a troubled guy, but he knows how to conceal it within himself. He knew how to hide his frustrations, especially when the time he presented his fancy business card only to find several of his partners having more posh business cards, more posh than his. He's a kind of person who hides everything deep inside, and the only way he could push the anger out of himself is to hold a knife, or an axe, and murder somebody. Never, never in my movie-watching history I have seen a character killing a beggar for his own therapy and stomping a dog over and over again with solid black heels. I wonder what has the MPAA said about this thing. For me, it's not R-18. Even 18 year old people seemed to be in shock watching this.I also like the way vanity is portrayed in this film. Patrick Bateman is a kind of man who cares about himself. And I mean, entirely. He has I think 10 kinds of body wash in his bathroom, and he uses so many face scrubs and face mask for his own vanity. He has a closet-full of VERY EXPENSIVE suits and ties. He always does sit-ups and push-ups every single morning to keep fit, while a porn movie plays on the background television. He always visit the spa for manicure and facial treatment. It's all vanity, and it's called being a metrosexual. It's depicted in the 80's and very few men who care about themselves the way he does, men who's on the top of the line, men who achieve so much in the world of business. Yet, even though he holds a god-like face, there's an uglier soul deep inside, a soul who doesn't knew about humanity.Bateman was a character who is bewildered by his environment, and yet struggling to fit in.
The character of Bateman indeed had become an American iconic character nowadays. He's ambitious, power-driven, yet darkly secretive, mixed with introspection, self-hatred and outer- loathing. I also think it's a politically correct film. It highly reflects society with its rude and brutal and raw element. As what Sigmund Freud told us in his philosophy, "without the id, humans would become the most savage kind of animal". And that makes this movie. The way Bateman tried to stumble out of his intelligence, the more he entertains the certain instincts in his, the more savage he becomes, the more untamed he becomes. And to sum it all, it all comes down to Christian Bale for portraying such a cool character. It's supposedly played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the first place, but I think, with all respect to the talents that Mr DiCaprio has, after watching this film, I couldn't think of any other actor playing this part other than Bale. It's a lifetime revolving performance, a powerhouse. Even though there's Willem Dafoe and Reese Witherspoon, it's all Christian Bale that brings the movie home. I tell you now. This film is disturbing, both graphically and visually. Also emotionally. It stirs and questions your intelligence. A kind of film that's supposedly mistaken to be somewhat like a porn movie, with all it's sex-crazed subject matter, threesome scenes and ehem - more sex- crazed freak-o-maniac like Bateman. It ascends to the level of Stanley Kubrick's haunting masterpiece, Eyes Wide Shut, but I do now realise that this is far better than the latter film. It's almost a taboo kind of film, but it's also a kind of film worth to watch, worth the treat. It's blatantly amazing. It's not for narrow-minded airhead. It's not for gore-haters. And specially not for conservative not-my-kind-of-sex saints. It's for open minded people. It's for people who knew about cinematography, about plotlines, about visual crafting and about filmmaking itself. And it's also for people who like 80's music like Genesis, Huey Lewis and the News and so on... that's what I like about it, a slasher flick with a cool soundtrack. Damn, why does Christian Bale have to play such a cool messed-up dude?! I mean, after watching this film, he won't get out of you head! He's brilliant! And to speak, he's a British guy and he played a perfect American caricature all by himself. So what's the fuss. Watch this film - alone. Just make sure you concentrate and enjoy and wild ride. Oh, by the way, there's also a one terrific ending in the film. It's one of the most unique film I've seen in ages.

Rating: A+

Haven't they got tired of making enough spoof movies? Haven't the fourth Scary Movie franchise had raised a large banner that says: "STOP MAKING SPOOF MOVIES!".Date Movie is INCREDIBLY dumb, as what I expected, and incredibly insensitive. It's full of stupid shit, excuse my English. Although it tries to be a parody but after watching the movie, it made me think that it's more of a daft knockoff than a parody. Alright, it might make you laugh, it might make you giggle at some stupid jokes, but don't bloody think because if you will, you'll maybe shout while watching this movie. It is horrible indeed.There are so many romantic comedies it spoofed, and it tries to stitch altogether the film we've watched before like My Bestfriend's Wedding, Pretty Woman, Jerry Maguire and even Kill Bill, Dodgeball, Meet the Parents and Wedding Crashers. I admit there are some scenes which made me laugh, but it's a kind of laugh that out of the laugh-o-meter, not the kind of laugh I had when I was watching the first Scary Movie. It did not hurt my stomach. It will only hurt your intelligence. All the scenes are absolutely nonsense, jokes keep on popping out of nowhere, and celebrity parodies also keep on popping like popcorns in almost every scene. I laugh at it because it's stupid. I just try to forget my intelligence for one minute and tried to enjoy the film. Because if I try to resonate each and every scene, I could always tell this film is for airheads. And anyway, it's far better than the very corny Scary Movie 4. Well, at least.

Rating: C

OK, let me say this for once and for all, I haven't watched a single film crafted by Woody Allen himself. I was familiar with his movies, yes, like Annie Hall for instance, but watching them - er - no. Except for this one. And now let me say this once and for all again, I want to watch more of Woody Allen's film. I quite like Match Point, and judging from this statement, I would surely watch out for the upcoming Allen films like Scoop (also starring Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman) and his former films as well. This is not your ordinary love story. It's a combination of a thriller, suspense, love story, and romance. So it's not really new to the silverscreen, but as I knew, Woody Allen was famous for his certain movie structure. Match Point starts out as an ordinary love story, a love quadrangle, but as the film rolls at the middle sequence, bloody hell, it has this unique "very British" element and it's a kind of a film that you would stay seated up until the end to find out what happens to the characters. And speaking of the characters, they are very well constructed. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers has finally came out as a fine actor. His bearing, his manner and his superciliousness is magnificent. Scarlett Johansson is deliciously whoozah! She's not your average girl. Boy, she could act. Not to mention, she's I think 19 or 20 years old and now she garnered 4 Golden Globe nods and an Oscar nom. Her portrayal of her character in this film would make you feel you wanted to choke the bloody hell out of her but later in the film, you wanted to symphatize as well as emphatize with her. This is a good film, and seldomly would a person like me would favor a film like this. And having Scarlett Johansson in the arena was indeed a plus. Yum. This film really shows how dangerous relationships could get, as well as how dangerous love could be at certain grounds.

Rating: A-

It's no wonder why Tom Hanks would always be present in my most favourite actor list. And so is Denzel Washington. And it's no wonder why Philadelphia is one of those movies that would both astonish and move you. This is one solid film, powerful, stirring and emotionally complex, as well as socially and politically conscious. A movie like this that contains complex issues like AIDS, homosexuality and gender discriminations is seldomly accepted by the audience, but a film like this beckons and prods each and every heart, knocking on your own soul to learn, understand and accept every single cranny in this film. Its message is timely and although it doesn't break any new ground, it tries to change a social context that each and everyone of us is believing. It is also a credible and mesmerising courtroom drama. It shouts and cries to the society that discriminating gays (or even lesbians) is never fair. And that gays with AIDS are entirely tabooed out of the community.Tom Hanks character plays a gay lawyer who was suffering from AIDS and as soon as the firm he was working for knew his illness, he was fired straight away. And what he did was to fight back, feeling the wrath of discrimination, against his employers. He hired Denzel Washington, another lawyer, to fight for his side, only to find out that Washington's character was an anti-homosexual himself. Now, two men trying to find justice and questioning their deeper selves, leading to a way of life that they never expected to arrive into.Tom Hanks is brilliant. OK, he was brilliant is Forrest Gump, but he's equally brilliant here. His character seems to jump out from the screen and the way he portrays it is - plainly stupendous. Denzel Washington is also a stunner, and from this film itself, he shows signs of becoming one of Hollwood's big marketer. Watching this film made me less ignorant of the world. Made me realise that there are people out there suffering from a more horrible disease, no not AIDS, but discrimination and injustice. The truths that we must face must not vanish into obscurity.

Rating: A-

Honestly now, I don't remember much about the film's plot because I've seen this film ages ago and I just didn't hurry and write a critique on it. It isn't that the film was uninspired. It's just that it contains the most common plot in the Hollywood arena, although based on a true story, and I couldn't remember well enough except for Dakota Fanning's saving performance. Damn this kid. Put her in the most horrible story every written for screen, she could still walk away with a gracious smile and a performance that saves a film from almost sinking. Thanks to this Fanning kid. Dreamer isn't one of those rotten tomato territory. But exactly, since when has been a story of a horse that had a broken leg then struggled to race again the tracks of ultimate glory? And since when has been a movie that a horse had starred in with a title based on the horse itself? Name a few, Spirit, Seabuiscuit, and now Dreamer? or maybe Black Beauty? Whatever. The story wasn't that all too Oscar-esque or maybe Golden Globe-esque. It's just an ordinary movie pulled to strings together by one major lead, to mention a kid. And she's one of Hollywood's most powerful A-Lister. Yes, she's 11 years old and she's rockin' the house. Dakota Fanning rules.

Rating: B-

I just wonder if Brett Rattner really suceeded in taking over the great Bryan Singer. I believe, and will always believe, that X-Men 2 was one of the best comic adaptation ever brought to screen. There was action, there was lots of moral lessons on it, and lots of emotional stuff. Now, X-Men 3 did make a blast, but it's the least developed of the trilogy. I enjoyed the film, yes, and I could say it boasts the recent century's wham-bam of special effects (as if Bruckheimer produced it). I was entertained by the mutants' powers, new characters and gripped by the film's one-hell-of-a-climax 20-minute ending. I was drowned by a big wave of action sequences (nope, not Poseidon, haven't seen that one yet) and was stunned by how Dark Phoenix played a big part of the film. Suddenly, it was pissing me off to realise that the movie was so short, only an hour and a half something, and that the film introduced so many characters yet leaving most of them undeveloped. Alright, it was sad after what happened to Professor Xavier because I didn't see it coming. I like the development of Sir Ian McKellen's Magneto in the last scene of the film. I appreciated Halle Berry standing up and say "will you people please let Storm do her thing?" But I think that's all. Others were remained in the dark. TOO BAD Warren Worthington III wasn't much of a focus. They should have made Angel looked much cooler, I mean, what's his power, only flying? His character was really underplayed and underused. Kitty Pride too. I adore Ellen Page but I think there's more to her than what we really see from our eyes. Cyclops, in my own opinion, had been the boringest mutant alive. Storm played a bigger part, okay. Wolverine was his usual self, a raging berserk. He did played the role well, though. Although his pre-battle talk was too much of a corny one, "We are the X-Men, blah blah blah..." Nonsense. Even Colossus was subtly played. I HATE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO MYSTIQUE. Actually, as what I have noticed in the past few films, Rebecca Romjin Stamos was one of the best actor around the X-Men convention. She's got blue stuff all around her yet she still acts perfectly, bringing a cutting edge to the blue temptress of a chameleon. And the rest, all fell to Brett Rattner's underlooked direction. By the way, where's Nightcrawler anyway? Why have they blasted him off from the plot? Was an X-Men movie bound to introduce a character and then wipe them off completely in the next sequel? Whatever. Jean Grey turning into the Dark Phoenix, for me, was one of the best highlights of the story. The filmmakers had done fairly well around it. Famke Jansen did a good job really, doing all the rage thingy. I was just a bit disappointed not seeing her in the film shouting "PHOENIX!" as what her character does in the comic animations. But still, the last sequence was brilliant over the devastated Golden Gate bridge. In the real sense now, X-Men: The Last Stand had the most captivating plot of all, judging from the past mutant movies. There was this "cure" as what they call that could mutate mutants back in their own selves, and politically speaking, the human government is promoting the said cure to mutants. Of course, some mutants object, some don't and rather become passive to the choice of being human. It's an engaging plot but sadly Leech's character wasn't all that elaborated. It highly reflects society nowadays, speaking of the cure to the mutated people (i.e. people with AIDS, homosexuals, black people, Jews, etc.) and the choice of being cured to become normal ones. Storm highly reacts on this saying that mutants aren't diseases. And now, it has become a choice, a final stand to what they believe is right.But then again, all goes down to Brett Rattner. Yes, I enjoyed the cinematic presentation. Yet, I couldn't escape the fact that X-Men movies meant so much more than just an action film. It needs a fluid emotional range that it deserves.

Rating: B+

My idea of a movie produced by Quentin Tarantino himself and directed by the gore king Eli Roth would be a kick-ass, blow-by-blow blood fest of savagery film. It was, indeed, but for me, lacks the real thing. I don't understand the whole plot. I mean, I do understand it of course as I am no daft bat. What I don't understand was the nonsensical plot. Okay, it was all about a male duo who travelled all over Europe and went into a hedonistic sex-capade (Amsterdam, etc.) and then adventures turned the other way around. Now, Hollywood supposedly-horror films were full of that, and what's the originality of adventures turned wrong? I don't even see the explanation why the place exist, the place where all the gore happened, the place where Jay Fernandez was tortured. Why was there people around. Don't they seem to notice what was happening inside? Were they really doctors? What were they doing? Are they some deranged mental lunatics who escaped from the institution and became surgeon wannabes? I tell you now on, there are gazillions of loopholes in the plot. It was as if watching a large net full of holes in it that you couldn't see a solid shiny piece of surface. One critic said it was teh scariest American film of the decade. Scariest my ass. It did clenched my tummy for a while, seeing all that blood and gore in front of my face. But it also clenched my tummy and brains for actually wanting to rebel against the film's daft bat of a plot.

Rating: C