crazychap Reviews

RoboCop 3 (1993)

not as bad as some want you to believe, but still far from satisfying

[4/10 · 17 July 2009]

This review is written assuming you've already seen Robocop (1987) and Robocop 2 (1990). If not, don't proceed until you see those first:

Robocop 3 (1992) picks an unknown number of years after the events of part 2, Cain's gang and his Nuke Drug has been obliterated and Robocain has been defeated by our hero. The Old Man from the previous two films is gone (either died or resigned after the events of Robocop 2; the movie doesn't say) and is replaced by the "CEO" (Rip Torn). The Delta City Project inaugurated in the previous film is falling behind schedule and OCP incurs in debt, leading to its takeover by the Japanese corp. of Kanemitsu. Meanwhile, they adopt increasingly forceful methods to get back on track by hiring mercenaries called "the Rehabs" led by Robert McDagget (John Castle) to evacuate areas for demolition and send the locals to "correctional facilities". A band of freedom fighters spring up, Robocop and Anne Lewis track them down after seeing a little girl joining them in an abandoned church. Unbeknowst to them, the Rehabs have tracked them down, and orders them to leave the building to them. Robocop and Anne Lewis refuse, but when Anne gets seriously injured (and dies a few minutes later), he quits the force and joins the rebellion, while undergoing structural repairs in his programme.

Robocop 2 may have shocked some viewers for its excessive violence, but it is better than this one. The storyline is more coherent than the last film in the sense that all main ideas make it to the end but it's too simplistic. While Part 2 was ultra-violent and gloomy, this one went into the opposite direction. Sure the absence of the first two films' graphic violence would make it more appealing for kids, but this movie just has little to make up for it; it starts off very promising but it gets sillier as the it progresses, culminating in a ridiculous fight between Robocop and the Samurai, which is a far cry from the excellent finale between Robocop and Robocain in the the second movie, giving the impression that the filmmakers have run out of money by that point.

However, Robocop 3 still has some worthwhile moments to spare it from becoming a candidate for MST3K. Most of the action sequences save the aforementioned fight are well-staged and creative, and the film has some creative use of CGI. Robocop's new gadgets-- the jet-pack and his cannon-- are worthy additions, and our hero still knows how to make an entrance (diving from the highest level of a parking lot and dropping down 10 storeys below).

Peter Weller, however, did not reprise the role, most likely because he has grown tired of having to walk into that baggy costume for hours and hours on end and sweating buckets in the process, and he's replaced by Robert John Burke. Burke is a worthy successor to Weller, mimicking his movements down to the smallest details, but it just doesn't feel the same without him.

Bottom line: Robocop 3 is the worst of the series, but it's not as terrible as some people tend to exaggerate.

Trivia: the beautiful Jill Hennessy appears here as Robocop's leading programmer just before becoming famous as Kincaid in "Law and Order" and later in "Crossing Jordan".

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Watchable, but there's no "Klaatu barada nikto"

[5/10 · 13 December 2008]

In recent years, remakes of all sorts have been the rage, and Hollywood's originality seems to be dwindling. If you can include Psycho, the Omen, Halloween, and the upcoming Death Wish, Friday the 13th and Elm Street remakes, I think you'll see what I mean. And this one is no exception.

To be fair, This remake of the 1951 masterpiece is not a terrible film. I've seen worse movies such as Robocop 3, Superman IV or even the Psycho and House of Wax remakes, but I've seen better things, too.

Any way: The intro looks promising, the special effects are good, and it's nice to see the robot from the original make an appearance in this one. Jennifer Conelly and Kathy Bates (Defence Secretary here) keep the human factor alive, but Jaden Smith is awkwardly cast and not credible; Keanu Reeves, while colourless and robotic in many of his other movies, is still put to good use here. However, The story line is confusing; it uses the concept of global warming as a backdrop rather then the atom bomb of the original, but it is treated upon so lightly the message becomes lost as the film progresses. The idea is good, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. John Cleese makes a nice cameo as the genius professor, but where is the "Klaatu barada nikto" cathprase?

I haven't seen the original in a long time, so I cannot make any effective, deep comparisons for the moment, but from what I remember, it was definitely better than this one in most aspects save the effects. Overall, it's a forgettable OK movie because it's neither dreadful like the films of the MST3K alumni nor is it a masterpiece like Star Wars or Close Encounters.

Batman (1943)

The Original that started it all!

[8/10 · 2 December 2008]

Every superhero has to begin from somewhere. In 1939, Batman makes his debut in the comic world as a violent and somewhat ruthless superhero (He actually uses a gun in the early strips). 4 years later, this superhero, along with his sidekick Robin, make their screen debut in Batman.

In here, the Caped Crusader (Lewis Wilson) and Robin (Douglas Croft) do their business as usual when they gradually discover a criminal plot by Dr. Daka (J. Carrol Naish), a Japanese spy who runs a covert operation in the Metropolis's (Gotham City's) now-deserted Little Tokyo. His purpose: to create a "new order" in which Japan and Germany are the two rulers of the world.

As far as production values go, it's not worth complaining how tight the production budget was, but it surely was put up to better use than most Republic serials with more money to spend. The set pieces are creative and well done and the costumes are acceptable, considering that this is the character's debut on the silver screen and, unlike subsequent Batworks, has nothing else to back itself with save the comics. The acting is quite good, and the two leads set the standard that would be used later on, and you sure love to hate the villain. Most of the cliffhangers are great and keep you anxious for the next chapter. And most importantly, it set up the format that would be re-used in the sequel serial of Batman and Robin 6 years later and the 1960s TV show, both with significantly bigger budgets but with a little less imagination.

I know many people will complain about the anti-German, anti-Japanese tone of this show, but, let's face it, the year date says it all: 1943. Made at the height of World War II, with Pearl Harbour still a raw wound and both the Germans and Japanese represented the rival camp that by then were so close to achieving world domination, so it was definitely appropriate for its time. Besides, you can look at almost any other serial or movie of the day and almost all of them have the same message. That being said, this is perfect escapist fun, despite the overt patriotism, and is a must for Bat-fans and serial collectors. Those who are put off a bit by the campy Adam West romp will be amused that this one is less so!

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)

Over-the-top but highly addictive sequel

[6/10 · 19 November 2008]

Picking up 3 years after the events of the previous movie, Rambo is set free by his best friend Col. Trautman on a top-secret mission: to find and take pictures of missing POWs in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Should he succeed, he would be granted a presidential pardon and have his sentence lifted.

Rambo: First Blood was an ultra-violent movie with a strong social message over how ostracised and neglected the Vietnam veterans are viewed upon vis-a-vis their parents who fought in World War II and in Korea. However, I can't say the same thing about this one: Rambo gets sent back to the jungles that brutalised him to take pictures of MIAs (?) before he finds out that he has been set up and left for dead by Murdock, the corrupt bureaucrat who hired him. Rambo takes matters into his own hands and becomes a one-man-army against a slew of Southeast Asian troops and armed Soviet advisers.

The script is self sufficient, Stallone still impresses with his physique and performance, and action sequences are top-notch and creative. It's a little too different from part I where it was a cat-and-mouse game. This time, the mouse is out to get the cat. But the new supporting characters such as Co are not as colourful as those of the previous movie, and the villains are stock and cliché.

Totally unrealistic and redundant (what did you expect... "A Passage to India"?) but satisfying guilty pleasure. In short, this $45-million movie is silly, but the build-up and the action scenes make it stand out from your average testosterone-filled actioner. Not meant to be taken seriously, especially the fact that this movie exploits complaints from war veterans and MIA relatives.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

The best non-Connery Bond

[9/10 · 10 November 2008]

In 1967, after the release of You Only Live Twice, Sean Connery tells the media that he's had enough of James Bond and is stepping down from the role. After playing the same character five times in a row, who could blame him? The result is finding a successor worthy of his standard. Among the contenders are young Shakespearian actor Timothy Dalton, Roger "the Saint" Moore (who also rivalled Sean from the beginning) and a relative unknown named George Lazenby. In the end, Lazenby becomes the new James Bond.

After two over-the-top Bond films (1965's "Thunderball" and 1967's "You Only Live Twice") in which the plot and humour became second-fiddle to action sequences, this film has exceeded my expectations. George Lazenby is actually a worthy successor to Sean Connery; although Connery had more edge and humour, Lazenby's performance shows more range. The art direction, the special effects are all top-notch (not just for 1969) and do deserve some nominations, and the music score is among the best of the saga. Diana Rigg is, in my opinion, the best Bond Girl since Ursula Andress from the original ("Dr. No"). M, Q and Moneypenny are also given a lot more to do in this one, and their presence in the movie is welcomed as usual.

I know what you're thinking: How dare you praise such a "bad Bond"? But you have to see it to believe it. Most people have derided this movie without even seeing it and mostly of the fact that Lazenby, under poor advice from his agent, did not reprise his role for the next one. Whoever that agent is, he must be shot for giving him false advice.

My only complaints are that the movie is VERY long (142 min NTSC/136 PAL) and the pace is a little slow at times. Blofeld is well-written and is given a lot more to do than the last one, but I'd prefer to have Donald Pleasance reprising the role since Telly Savalas is less convincing and too "American" for me. Nevertheless, these flaws are of no importance.

In short, this movie is a masterpiece among Bond films and the only one worthy of Dr.No and Goldfinger. If you want a movie that combines both smart storytelling, well-made production values and also great action scenes as well as likable leads: This one is for you

I personally would have wanted Lazenby to reprise the role at least a second time.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

Not the Best Mummy film, but still enjoyable nevertheless

[6/10 · 2 August 2008]

It has been a decade since the events of part II, and seven years since the release of that film. Imhotep and friends are now permanently embalmed, but a new kind of mummy is in its stead, not in Africa or the Middle East, but in China, the other "EAST". The year is 1947, and the O'Conells have retired from mummy adventures and wartime espionage. Evelyn has released two-best selling books based on her real-life adventures (named after the previous two movies), while Ricky O'Conell tries unsuccessfully to make a living out of fly-fishing. Alex (played by Australian actor Luke Ford) is now an adult and has dropped out of school to follow the footsteps of his parents by discovering the long-lost army of Han, the Dragon Emperor. With backing from his old professor, Roger Wilson, he achieves this goal, but suddenly receives an uninvited guest in the form of a mysterious woman named Lin (Isabella Leong). Meanwhile, the older O'Connells come out of retirement to send a diamond known as the Eye of Shangri-La back to China as a gesture to maintain solid British-Chinese relations. In Shanghai, they reunite with Jonathan, who owns Imhotep, a posh nightclub named after the antagonist of the previous two films. After arriving to the museum in which Alex has moved the Dragon Emperor to, Roger Wilson double-crosses them and, with the aid of General Yang and his second-in command Choi, they bring back to life the Dragon Emperor and a new Mummy returns to claim his share of glory in the modern world.

First of all, this movie is NOT as bad as the cynics might say. I've seen films that are a lot worse than this one, and the movie's 114 mins are not wasted time in any way. Let's start with the movie's strengths: First of all, the film's assets are the special effects, which are breath-taking, and so are the highly-imaginative action sequences (especially the Shanghai chase scene). The jokes, although cornier than the previous films, still make you laugh and Maria Bello makes an acceptable replacement to Rachel Weisz, who played Evelyn in the first and second Mummy movies. Jet Li's character is an adequate substitute for Imhotep and it's nice to seem fight hand-to-hand combat in the finale.

Now comes the weaknesses: the movie suffers from a number of credibility issues. First of all, Alex O'Connor seems to have aged dramatically while his parents have not, especially his father. It is awkward to see Brendan Fraser's character, who has not even aged a wink from the previous films, be the father of this young man. To me, Rick O'Connell looks more like an older brother than a father to Alex. Maria Bello is satisfying here, but Rachel Weisz had more edge. Also, I don't think this movie is trying to rehash the story of the previous films, but rather it's trying too hard to stand out from its predecessors. Lin, Alex's love interest, is an interesting newcomer to the clan, but the screenplay hinders much of that character's potential.

The movie is not a bad one, but it is not that great either. It is definitely flawed, but not to the point that makes it a pain to watch. As a summer actioner, you'll never be bored as it has enough mummies, laughs, car chases, and special effects to make your money's worth and makes it stand out from your typical big-budget flick. If you're stressed out, bored, or just want to see another movie after seeing the Dark Knight many times (such as myself) then this movie is for you, and you won't regret spending 114 minutes of our time watching it. Those searchinig for "smart" films should look elsewhere.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The best Batman movie EVER made.

[10/10 · 20 July 2008]

Some time has passed by since the events of the last movie; the Batman (Christian Bale) is taking care of business as usual, scoring a feat by capturing The Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy). Meanwhile, Gotham City has fallen to a recent, unprecedented crime wave by a group of men disguised in clown masks. Following a successful robbery at the bank in broad daylight--outside of Batman's working hours--, one of the disguised double-crosses his partners and reveals himself: no alias, no name, it's the JOKER (Heath Ledger), a psychotic criminal who takes delight not in killing his victims, but rather spreading fear through his "jokes". A game of cat-and-mouse ensues, in which the Joker is clearly leading, planning and improvising virtually every detail in ways that would impress even the most outstanding General, planning even his capture and his escape from prison. Batman, Commissioner Gordon, Rachel Dawes, Harvey Dent, the Police as well as the Mob become, in one way or another, pawn's to the Joker's vicious game.

I came into the movie theatre with already high expectations. After watching Batman Begins 3 years ago, which revitalised a franchise that was on life support since 1997, I had a firm conviction that we're in perfectly good hands with this director. My convictions turn out correct. This movie makes everything that made "Begins" a masterpiece such as shrewd storytelling (this movie is more like a crime saga than a "Batman" movie), and solid performances from the entire cast. Oh Yes, Heath Ledger's performances as the Joker is as good as everyone says, and actually even better; he did everything that made the Romero (1960's) and Nicholson (1989's) Jokers great and surpassed them. Aaron Eckhart breaks new ground as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, an unusual role for a "comedic" actor. Oh yes, the fight scenes are improved and the choppy editing of its predecessor is gone.

There is nothing I can complain about the movie that did not work,not even its length. Sure the movie is 152 minutes --the longest Batman film--, but it doesn't slow down for a moment.

PS= Ledger, you will be dearly missed!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Not a masterpiece, but absolutely entertaining

[7/10 · 30 May 2008]

In the summer of 1981, best friends Steven Spielberg and George Lucas (the directors of Jaws and Star Wars, respectively) made a tribute based on the classic cliffhanger serials of the 1930s with a Bond-like feel. That "tribute" was Raiders of the Lost Ark, and it was an action adventure film that surpassed all expectations, becoming the box office champion of 1981 and nominated for many awards, including BEST Picture (a rarity for action films), solidified the career of the already-famous Harrison Ford and put Karen Allen on the map. Set in 1936, with World War II waiting just below the surface, archaeology professor and adventurer Indiana Jones is hired by the US government to find and retrieve the Lost Ark of the Covenant while facing fierce competition from the Nazis, who are aided by a rival archaeologist.

Two sequels would follow, 1984's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (actually a prequel, as it takes place in 1935) and 1989's Last Crusade (set in 1938). Both sequels were great box-office draws, but both received a comparatively less favourable critical reception, especially Temple of Doom, which stirred up a lot of outrage for its portrayal of an Indian Cult. All three movies took place in the immediate pre-World War II era, before the war machine erupted in autumn 1939.

Now, It is 1957, and things have surely changed. It has been 19 years since the end of the Last Crusade (which also coincide with the gap between the films' release dates); World War II ended with the defeat of Dr. Jones's traditional enemy, the Nazis (from Raiders and Crusade); close friend Marcus Brody (Elliot McDermott) and father Henry Jones Sr. (Sean Connery) have recently passed away; the new international order is split between the Communist world v.s the Capitalist world (with everything in between) and Indy is trailed by the FBI (and also by the KGB) due to Mac's, his longtime partner, history as a double-agent and Jones's recent forced cooperation with the Soviets to find a warehouse that includes captured artifacts (which coincidentally includes the Ark). While trying to leave the country temporarily to escape the FBI, he encounters a young man named Mutt Williams, a rebellious drop-out in the likes of James Dean and Marlon Brando. He persuades Jones to come with him and help rescue his mother, who turns out to be Indy's lingering flame Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) and Professor Oxley (Hurt), both held captive by the same Soviets Indy has encountered early on. Indy reluctantly agrees, and decides to help him battle the Soviets in a race reminiscent of the Last Crusade, except that it is set in South America.

Surely, all these years have created a lot of hype over the Indiana Jones movies, and to tell you the truth, this movie lives up to most of it. On the positive side, Harrison Ford is impressively fit (both physically and mentally) as Indy and is every inch as likable now as he was back then, the action sequences are top-notch, and for the most part, done without the infamous CGI, the special effects are very good, and it's very good to see Karen Allen, my personal favourite of the Jones ladies (and for most, I might say), return in this movie. The moments of humour are effective, and the movie's fast pace never lets up for a minute. The plot twist between Indy, Marion, and Mutt (whose real name is Henry Jones III) is a grabber.

On the flip side, the screenplay has a number of gaps and unfinished ideas. First of all, there is almost no back-story shown about what has Indy done through all this time other than spoken dialogue, but most importantly, the Soviets are portrayed in an unfairly stereotypical manner, making them essentially the Nazis of the past films with a hammer and sickle. Cate Blanchett's character, Irina Spalko isn't well written despite the actress's convincing portrayal, and her Soviet grunts are just stock. Mac (Winstone) makes some great comic relief, but I find his double-triple agent subplot too far-fetched, even for spy-story standards.

All in all, this movie reminds me of what action movies are all about: a temporary escape hub from our drab everyday lives, plenty of slam-bang, explosions, stunts, exotic locations, the whole shebang. And this movie meets all the requirements. Crystal Skull may pale when compared to Raiders and the Last Crusade, I personally find it better than the mercilessly dark and gloomy Temple of Doom. The movie may be flawed, but you'll surely be entertained from the first scene down to the end credits.

Originally, Indiana Jones was meant to be a five-picture deal. With this movie, the deal is just one film short of completion. I can't wait for the sequel!

RoboCop 2 (1990)

Gloomy and violent, but also very entertaining

[6/10 · 30 March 2008]

The $15 million 1987 original was such a great movie; yes it was ultra-violent, but it had a great charm to it that is unmatched by movies with bigger budgets and less violence. The special effects were mind-boggling (Robo's first-person view and the ED-209 stop-motion, to name a few), the characters were believable, and the storyline was very consistent. Its success encouraged Orion to persuade Verhoeven to film a sequel. However, scheduling conflicts prevented Verhoeven from returning to the director's chair (he was busy with Total Recall) and is replaced by Irvin Kershner, the director of the Empire Strikes Back,the best Star wars film.

Set several years after the original, the crime epidemic seems to be worsening in Old Detroit, and, this time, OCP is actually stirring it up for its own ends as they encouraged the cops to go back on strike. The Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy) makes a drastic change from a seemingly innocent, ambiguous but well-intentioned CEO to a ruthless, cold-blooded corporation tsar getting involved into politics and putting coercive pressure on the mayor to pay back his debts. While Robocop is fighting crime, OCP is grooming for a replacement. After a number of unmitigated (and humorous) disasters worth a total of $90 million, a corrupt psychologist-businesswoman named Juliette Fax (Belinda Bauer) steps in and convinces him to keep investing in the Robocop 2 project. Meanwhile, Robocop faces a criminal force that proves to be even more ruthless than the late Clarence Boddicker's gang, the psychotic "hippie" called Cain, whose clique is renown for creating a highly addictive and popular drug called "Nuke". Ironically, it would be Cain who becomes Robocop 2 following his hospitalisation from a police raid led by Robocop. Robocop 2 proves to be much bulkier and better-equipped than ED-209, Robocop's past nemesis.

Robocop 2 proves to be a surprisingly good sequel. It does not intend to rehash the original story, and that is a strong point for sequels, who are often merely part I with different characters. The special effects are still spectacular and more detailed thanks to a bigger budget. Robocop 2's stop-motion animation is amazing, and the action sequences are well-staged and imaginative. The movie does have a lot of funny moments made from the faux commercials, the malfunctioning Robocop 2 prototypes and Robo's one-liners. The two leads are still likable now like they were in the original. Leonard Rosemnam's uplifting traditional music score makes a great replacement to Basil Polerdouris's gloomier, often-synthesised one, and the Robocop 2 theme is the high water mark of the saga.

The downsides are: The screenplay has several unfinished ideas, in particular Robocop's human story at the beginning which is touched upon so lightly and ends only within the first 20 minutes of the movie. One particular scene which involves Duffy's brutal death is particular shocking to some viewers, but it's not as gruesome as Murphy's in the original. But the most criticised part of this film is including a foul-mouthed 12 or 13-year-old named Hob, a relentless, ruthless member of the gang. I find it excessive, but the movie shows a real aspect of crime: it knows no age boundaries.

Although Verhoeven left the building, the project was still in good hands with Kershner as most of his trademarks are preservered here to good effect. Love it or hate it, Robocop 2 is a good, under-appreciated sequel that suffered a lot of unnecessary script changes.

Rambo (2008)

The Best Rambo movie since the original!

[8/10 · 1 February 2008]

I was always anxious to see this movie. The first movie was great; it was about a disturbed Vietnam veteran trying to avoid trouble, but trouble always has a way of finding him. Part II and Part III became comic-book yarns with every action and war film cliché' you could imagine, chronicling Rambo's adventures to rescue POWS still held captive in postwar Vietnam and then rescuing his friend by helping the Mujaheddin in war-torn Afghanistan.

Rambo IV does an excellent job in carefully avoiding the extravagances of II and III. In my opinion, it is the Best movie since Part I!!!

Rambo has been at peace for many years, living in northern Thailand, making a living out of collecting cobras and building boats. His only friend, Colonel Samuel Trautman, has passed away (the movie does not mention how or when), so Rambo has been isolated from the outside world. However, trouble has finally caught up with him when a group of Christian missionaries ask him to borrow his boat and try to save lives in Burma, into a 'war-zone'. Rambo is reluctant in sending a group of unarmed missionaries into the lion's den, but vows in. Cut ahead to ten days, Rambo, waking up after experiencing flashbacks (footage of all its predecessors and dialogue of the late Colonel), receives the news that the missionaries have been captured alive in a raid that packed almost the entire village they worked in. This time, Rambo takes the initiative to rescue the group and get out. But this time, he is being aided by an number of elite mercenaries, going back to Hell once again. If Hell had a place on Earth, it is found in this country.

Stallone has made an unexpected K.O last winter with Rocky Balboa, which, to me, is the true sequel to te Oscar-winning film. He delivers the same result to First Blood! The movie has a self-sufficient and complete back story to it, authentic performances from Sylvester Stallone and most of the cast, as well as a series of eye-popping (and VERY BLOODY) action scenes.

The film's graphic violence make Platoon, Braveheart and Gladiator look like kiddie shows. However, like the aforementioned movies, Rambo IV gives a very realistic view of what wars are all about, something not reflected in its predecessors. Wars are not a warm, romantic business; they're extremely cruel, turning rational human beings into wild savages, creating a world where even the phrase 'human rights' does not exist and where unspeakable, unimaginable things occur on a daily basis. The movie is NOT PRO-WAR, quite the opposite, it shows us the great brutality of all armed conflicts (past and present), an aspect that has played an active role in moulding world history. The movie shows scenes of massacres, of entire villages being packed to death, of brutal interrogations, rape and other horrible things. The extreme violence in this film is brutal as well as appealing in a manner similar to Paul Verhoeven's movies.

Definitely NOT for the faint-hearted; Rambo is no stranger to controversy, and here he definitely will keep people talking once again, this time with a realistic and honest approach about the dark side of humanity. This controversy will definitely bolster Rambo's popularity. Sly, you've made my day once again!!!!

Love Story (1970)

"Love means never having to say you're sorry"

[9/10 · 17 January 2008]

Originally it was supposed to be "Love means not ever having to say you're sorry" as mentioned in the best-selling novel of the same name.

I have seen a lot of romance films released before, during and after Love Story, but none deliver the same emotional impact this one did to me. The story may seem simple and predictable (from the very beginning you'll know what is going to happen), but makes its message come across effectively. With only a few minor differences, the premise and development of the film's story is the same as that of the best-selling novel it is based on: Jennifer Cavalleri (Ali MacGraw) and Oliver Barret IV (Ryan O' Neal) are two Harvard students (just like the screenwriter and novel author Erich Segal) from entirely different backgrounds who fall in love: she is a poor, brilliant but sometimes foul-mouthed "Social-zero Radcliffe Bitch" , he is a muscular, smart and polite "Harvard Preppie Millionaire ". But their love for each other crosses all sorts of barriers, whether be class, religious, political, economical, or social differences. Their love for each other even outweighs the cold war between Oliver and his authoritarian father (Ray Milland), economic hardships and then the unthinkable.

Ali Macgraw and Ryan O'Neal shine together, their chemistry is spot-on perfect and they are 100% believable as you laugh at the jokes they make to each other and cry at their trials and tribulations. The movie, just like the novel, starts like a comedy with their chatter and ends with on a very sad note. John Marley and Ray Milland-- the former plays Jennifer's father-- do not disappoint either with their brief appearances. Francis Lai's repetitive but catchy music score sets the mood perfectly.

It is one of the very few romantic stories-- but the novel and the movie alike-- I actually love, one that makes me laugh so hard and then makes me cry for the last 30 minutes-- I cried even my way to sleep!

Love it to tears--LITERALLY-- or hate it with your teeth, this movie, made on a shoestring budget of $2.2 million became the unlikely sensation of 1970 earning a spectacular $106 million in 1970/1971 and seven Oscar nominations (won one for best Score) and many other awards/nominations.

Monster-in-Law (2005)

Predictable, but enjoyable date movie

[5/10 · 5 August 2005]

Product of 2000's "Meet the Parents" in which J. Lo plays a female Ben Stiller, an ambitious young woman who has difficulty sustaining a living, then falls in love with a Doctor, son of a wealthy and popular News Reporter who was replaced by someone YOUNGER. As a result, this the female Robert De Niro (played by Jane Fonda) will attempt to do anything in her power to avoid losing her son the same way she lost her long career.

A Barely memorable movie that is rather repetitive and unoriginal by anyone's standards. It is also very predictable, filled with a hardly likable supporting cast, and it seems more of a re-hash of the Ben Stiller-Robert De Niro blockbuster.

But not everything is bad about this movie. First of all, Jennifer Lopez still shines with her typical role and it's obvious that she dug herself out of the big hole created by the disastrous Gigli. It is good to finally see former Hanoi Jane come out of retirement and into centre stage as the scheming matriarch. This movie gives the two leads the boost they needed after their previous failures and controversies. The jokes and the confrontations between the two characters make this movie likable and steady in pace.

Again, like many summer movies, this movie is not meant to be taken seriously, so don't expect anything really smart coming out of it. This movie, which became unexpectedly successful, was practically a warm-up since it was released the week before Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker stage a even more aggressive duel in Episode III.

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

The ultimate adaptation that ever existed

[10/10 · 31 July 2005]

I have read the book twice when I was at school when I was 10 years old back in 1995 and have recently re-read this spring. It was easily one of the most exciting books I've ever read in my entire life and became an instant favourite of mine, which contains characters that are both likable and distinguished from each other.

Having finished the book, I went to see the 1995 miniseries on BBC 1 that autumn, (And again recently on DVD), and I have to admit that this is the best adaptation I have ever seen in my entire life--- only the 2003 movie Return of the King ranks anywhere near the same league!. The actors were perfectly fit for their roles, and all them performed their part of the show very well.

Colin Firth is well cast in the very challenging role of g Mr. Darcy, an arrogant, self-absorbed (but gentle) aristocrat who is often viewed warily by other people. Among these include Elizabeth Bennet (played remarkably by Jennifer Ehle), the second child of an upper middle-class family and finds herself in the middle of the affections of two men-- the other being the charming, likable but brash Mr. Wickham. Events move around in this early XIX Century tale as Lizzy Bennet and Darcy begin to realise who wrong they are about one another-- acting on false information--and they begin to fall in love.

Apart from the great performances, the script captures the atmosphere of the novel down to the smallest detail much like the Soviet adaptation of War & Peace. The miniseries is divided in 3 parts (that is, the 3 volumes), with the right touch and feel, and nothing seems forced. The fact that things are much different now than they were back then-- (such as the fact that wealth in those days was measured in social class as well thousands of pounds, which today equals millions and celebrity status)-- leaves something to think about and to analyse. The dialogue is suitable of that period in history, as the characters always say something at the most implicit manner, without going overboard. Such aspects make the story and the characters VERY interesting.

The production design also catches up with the trends of the time perfectly, so you want to put on those breeches/corsets the next time you audition for this play!

In the end, this is a must-see for anyone exposed to it. And that includes Jane Austen fans, professional actors and directors, screenwriters, or even people looking for a good date movie. This is TRULY the greatest book-adaptation ever made. I hope the 2005 movie starring Keira Knightley catches up with this material when it hits movie theatres this Autumn.

Herbie Fully Loaded (2005)

Harmless, but formulaic

[5/10 · 25 July 2005]

It's been about 25 years since the Volkswagen Herbie-- a.k.a the Love Bug-- has stepped out of the race after a string of losses and practically ended up in one junkyard after another, piling up dust over the years. Lindsay Lohan plays Maggie Peyton, daughter of a widowed former sports-car great Ray Peyton Sr., who is given to choose a new car for her college graduation. She ends up choosing a dusty 1963 Volkswagen-- yes, you got guessed it!, but continuing to have heart and emotions. Against her father's wishes, she winds up on the road to NASCAR-- her childhood dream-- and ends up competing with professional driver Trip Murphy.

Family-oriented yarn is filled with music montages that resemble MTV videos of the 1980s (and today's Disney Channel ones as well)-- often to avoid using the film's all-ready corny dialogue-- and the most ridiculous, cliché-filled story one would ever think of. Many of the film's CGI look fake and cartoonish in comparison with those we're so accustomed to see in Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and so forth.

Hoever, the movie still has some good qualities. Lindsay Lohan makes a relatively good performance in what is expected to be her last Disney film, and former Caped Crusader Michael Keaton has surely changed over the years, making him fit for the role of Lohan's father. The rest of the cast-- including Matt Dillon as the villain-- make the most of what the script gives them, and it's good to see The Love Bug blinking and being naughty.

The movie is not very good but it is not bad, either; it's sort of another average, live-action Disney movie. It is not as good as The Champions (which is known as "The Mighty Ducks" in America), but still an effective feel-good movie in the end and the movie is adequate for kids. Nevertheless, it is too by-the-numbers for anyone older.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

Appealing, but dumb comic-book yarn

[5/10 · 23 July 2005]

Following the recent wave of comic book films that began with 1978's Superman, Fantastic Four is another product of this fad. It is about a group of scientists going on an experimental voyage, which is standing in the way of a cosmic radiation storm. A few days after the accident, all of them discover that they have powers. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic), the leader, has the ability to stretch his body. Sue Storm, has the ability to be invisible (Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm becomes the Flame, and Ben Grimm evolves into a muscular, rock-like creature knows ans the Thing. Together, they have to unite in order to combat Doctor DOOM, who, having witnessed the blast, becomes driven by greed as he discovers his ability to absorb electricity and metals.

The movie is entertaining, with very good special effects, adequate doses of humour, and likable lead characters. The action sequences are well-placed and creative. But it is rather unoriginal by anyone's standard, a screenplay that borrows heavily from other previous Marvel films, and is rather dumb in content. This summer blockbuster leaves hardly anything to think about afterwards.

The movie will never bore audiences and manages to stand out a bit from other contemporary releases. Summer 2005 has become a season where dark, violent action movies movies have become predominant-- i.e, Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds--, .But nevertheless it lacks the authenticity of either such co-horts as well as previous comic book movies like the X-Men and Spiderman. Let's hope its sequel improves most of this movie's mistakes.

** out of ****

War of the Worlds (2005)

Great summer blockbuster like ID4

[7/10 · 2 July 2005]

War of the Worlds has been a very popular franchise since its release as a book in 1898, since it became one of the pioneers of what is now known as Science Fiction. It also served as an inspiration for countless films, such as Star Wars and Independence Day. All "War of the Worlds" movies, radio shows, ans so forth have been widely popular and successful, and this movie is no exception.

Set in modern-day New York, Tom Cruise plays Ray, a divorced, working-class father who is rarely there with his children, Rachel and Robbie. but when a series of surrealistic disasters and earthquakes have begun to take shape, the trio is forced to move away from the suburb as quiclky as possible as massive tripods begin to surface from underneath the pavement cracks.

Sharp and fast-paced adaptation of the H.G Well's novel gives a franchise a more modern face-lift. Director Steven Spielberg gives some terrific scenes which will keep people on the edge of their seat (I don't remember anyone walking out on the movie, not even for the bathroom), which give the movie a psychologically scary feel, without being explicit. The film's special effects are amazing, and they not obstruct the film's story line, in contrast with the many effects-laden summer blockbusters of today. All of the actors make rather great performances-- for a sci-fi film--, and that includes Tom Cruise, who is always been viewed more on his good looks and financial shrewdness than for his acting skills. Dakota Fanning shines in her role as his daughter, and plays an essential part in the film's storyline. Tim Robbins make a good, although brief, appearance in the film as a former doctor gone mad. John William's music is as good as ever, and gives the movie the atmosphere it tries to characterise, and Spielberg's direction make this movie a more realistic "what if" disaster scenario than ID4.

But there are still a number of flaws: like ID4, it is burdened by having relatively dumb human stories, flat and one-dimensional supporting characters, as well as for being over-focused on Ray and his family. The movie ends rather abruptly for a big-budget picture (117 mins. long), and purists will complain about its differences with the book (it doesn't tell where these aliens come from), and it slows down around halfway, where the trio must face a cat-and-mouse game with the aliens, and a ship's searchlight a la 1953 version.

Nevertheless, War of the Worlds is a fun movie, and you'll never be bored for not even a single minute of it. It's run-time is rather short than what most people expected, but it is worth 1 hour and 57 minutes of your time.

*** out of ****

Batman Begins (2005)

Holy spectacular recovery, Batman!

[9/10 · 21 June 2005]

Just like it happened in Episode III, I entered the film theatre with caution, since I vividly remember the diastrous Batman & Robin 8 years ago which put the franchise on life support for such a long time. I have heard about the great reviews it got, but I never believed it until I saw the movie. (I saw it the day it came out in the UK, on 16 June).

And, like Episode III, this movie truly blew me away. The critics are there for a good reason and I believe they're correct. Batman Begins is a TRULY great film. It has a very good story that is comprehensible and clear to everyone, not just fans of the comic book (90% of the public, most of whom have not read the comic strips, applauded as the credits rolled). The movie has a dark theme, but is coherent and logical, in contrast with the nearly black-and-white Batman Returns and the showy, neon-filled Schumacher pics. The cast is perfect, with the highly versatile Christian Bale was born for this role, and is the best Bruce Wayne/Batman since Michael Keaton, showing the two sides of the person in equal amounts. Liam Neeson shines in a familiar role as his mentor and trainer and the rest of the supporting cast make characters that are realistic and multidimensional. The special effects are great, and they serve justice to a juicy storyline. The Batmobile (some assume to be the prototype of the black car in 1989) is a wow and its scenes are worth a watch. Christopher Nolan is surely made to direct this film, and does a better than even Burton in making the movie dark, realistic, and also appealing. And YES, the hero has a bigger spotlight than the villains, and Bruce Wayne is portrayed interestingly in the same style of the Spiderman films.

The only two things that make this movie short of being flawless is the extreme close-ups of some fight scenes (you can't tell who's hitting whom or what) and fans of the original series complain that there are more villains in this movie than the previous films and none of them, save Ducard and the Scarecrow, have much screen time, which might cause some confusion.

Despite the fact that you won't see the Batsuit until about an hour after the film starts, it is well worth the wait. The 140 minutes of the film will never let you out of your seat, not even for a single moment. To make things short, it is the best Batman film of all time, even better than the 1989 original.

Independence Day (1996)

Crude, but highly entertaining summer film

[7/10 · 11 June 2005]

A series of large alien spaceships move to planet Earth and destroy the largest cities of the world. After the invasion, Earth, led by the United States, has no choice but to fight back. their first attempts failed, but the presence a computer virus renews their hope for survival as the countdown for 4 July-- US Independence Day-- begins.

Super-lick, witty sci-fi movie pulls out all stops. The all-too-familiar Alien Invasion plot is revived with a series of twists thanks to the eye-popping, Award-winning special effects (the spaceships are flawless!). The 3 leading characters steal the show and make the movie fluid and likable. David Arnold's unforgettable and sweeping score also contributes positively to the film's atmosphere (leading to nominations in a number of institutions). Randy Quaid is hilarious as the alcoholic Vietnam vet volunteering in the fight against the invaders. It also manages to sidestep Sci-fi clichès since there is NO single leading character that show the way to battle the Aliens.

But there are flaws as well: the human stories are very dumb and sometimes nonsensical; the movie is overlong and takes a while to get started, and the over-the-top patriotism in this movie sometimes gives the movie a slightly cartoonish feel. There is a high number of needlessly stupid and flat supporting characters.

Despite of that, the movie became the most successful movie of 1996, earning more than $300 million in the US and over $500 million worldwide. A must for sci-fi fans. *** stars/****

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Good Chemistry in an exaggerated all-star vehicle

[6/10 · 10 June 2005]

Upgraded as of 4 August 2008:

Brad Pitt plays Mr. Smith, a professional engineer who is apparently happily married with his wife Jane for 5 (or 6) years and live in a lavish house in a New York suburb. But things are not always what they seem. Both are first-class killers who pull of their jobs and keep them in secret... even from each other. Until the moment comes when the two, who come from rival organisations, end up facing... each other and... they fall into a trap.

Surprusingly good all-star vehicle in which Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt show off their chemistry to the full, which is so close to real life (even though they denied it at first). The two make very good performances and really light up the scene with their witty quarrels and word-trading. Vince Vaughn is a nice addition to the film as he adds more to its saving grace of humour. Doug Liman creates some very good action sequences, without the cliché Matrix-like shots and keeps the movie with the right pace.

However, the film becomes more over-the-top and exaggerated towards the end (where the two Smiths take out an entire elite squad in a supermarket a lá Matrix) and moves on to a corny and abrupt conclusion. Also, the lack of a central villain (or villains, since there has been an alliance between the two companies to pick off the Smiths) cripples the somewhat crude screenplay, all this undermining an otherwise first-rate action-comedy film.

But the movie doesn't hesitate to get started, and the two leads will make this an adequate date film.

**1/2 out of **** stars

Lethal Weapon (1987)

The best action movie since Raiders

[9/10 · 8 June 2005]

Perfect cop movie that uses clichés and gives them a new face with a story of two cops who have only two things in common: both are Vietnam Veterans and they hate working with partners. Mel Gibson plays Martin Riggs, a suicidal cop in his mid 30's who enjoys the danger and doesn't care if he lives or dies; Danny Glover play a 50-year-old detective and family man who is setting up plans for retirement in the near future. But fate or circumstance cause these two to come together as they investigate a hooker's murder, which leads these two to a deadly drug ring. Before long, they have no choice but trust each other.

One of the best action movies of modern times, it has the right combination of action, drama and humour. The jumper scene (in which Riggs cuffs himself with the potential jumper) is a hilarious and unheard of in most other movies. The action sequences are fast-paced and furious, and they never let up for a minute. Gibson and Glover deliver powerful performances as they fit their character's shoes perfectly (Martin Riggs's suicide attempt with a gun is both chilling and moving, as it shows us the roots of his wild behaviour). The rest of the cast is also perfect; Gary Busey and Mitchell Ryan are the right antithesis of Gibson and Glover. The final fight between is Gibson and Busey is a wow, JUST AS LONG AS YOU DON'T hesitate to think (the movie hardly gives you time to do so).

***1/2 out of ****

RoboCop (1987)

Slick, ground-breaking action film

[8/10 · 7 June 2005]

It is set in Detroit, in an unknown but quite near future. Capitalism has went beyond the limits of anyone's imagination. It has touched even the police and space agencies, all of these under control of Omni Consumer Products. OCP for short, it is a firm with HUGE ambitions: it attempts to create new city-- Delta City is the name-- from the ashes of the chaotic and crime-ridden Detroit. After failed attempts of creating a strong police force (loosing about 5 guys every week) or a good enforcement droid (ED-209, a bulky, 10-metres-tall droid kills an executive during testing), Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), a young scientist and OCP corporate proposes a solution: the creation of a Robocop.

He finally gets his candidate when Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), an honest and highly competent police officer gets brutally slaughtered by a sadistic group led by Clarence Boddicker. 40 days later, he is brought back to life as a crime-fighting cyborg. After a series of successful tests, OCP finds its popularity soaring and its position secured. But, after a months, things go somewhat awry as Robocop recalls his human past, and tells him to get revenge on the criminals that killed him...

Loud, ultra violent sci-fi cop movie never lets up for a minute. One of the earliest of the cyborg craze that followed the Terminator, this movie stands out from its role model and its countless rip-offs. The story is slick and+ has the right combination of action and humour. the Special effects are eye-popping (with many nominations from various institutions), even by today's standards (ED-209 animation and Robo's first-person view, to name a few) and they make the movie entertaining. Peter Weller endured physical torture of sweating buckets in the costume, and He sure pulls it off: He makes this clunky , bulky machine look and act human, even more than at the first quarter of the movie in which he is ACTUALLY a human being.

Despite these advantages, the movie is just a bit too short (99 mins PAL, 103 at NTSC format). There are not enough humane scenes to camouflage the movie's sometimes disturbingly dark and bleak view of the future, and Nancy Allen's performance is not exactly one of her best. But still, it's a lot of fun and it's one of the best sci-fi films of the '80s.

*** out of ****

Jumanji (1995)

Has more depth than the book, but lacks much of its lustre

[7/10 · 6 June 2005]

When I was in fifth Grade, I read a book called Jumanji. It was a 1982 book about a supernatural board game which puts the life of two children in jeopardy because of the unexpected (and also destructive) obstacles that come in the way. But these two pre-teens Judy and Peter are forced to continue until one of them reaches the circle at the centre of the board game, which will erase all the damages done-- all this done before their parents' return from the opera.

A year later (February or March 1996), I went to see the movie of the same name twice. Needless to say, I saw that the film had some additional elements not found in the book. Judy and Peter play supporting roles in comparison with the book, but nevertheless important to the story. In 1869, two young chaps bury in a chest "Jumanji", a board game who turns the players live in jeopardy. 100 years later Alan Parrish-- the main character played by Adam Hann-Byrd--, discovers the wooden board game outside of his father's factory in 1969, but knows nothing about its supernatural powers. Hours later he LITERALLY gets sucked inside the board game in front of his friend Sarah Wittle's eyes and events form that create an ugly future. Twenty six years later, Alan (now played by Robin Williams) resurfaces out of the jungles thanks to the help of Judy (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter (Bradley pierce)-- In the Jungle you must wait until the dice read five or eight"; Peter rolled a five--, only to discover a chaotic 1995, where crime and corruption are rife and the environment resembles that of a war zone. In order to undo the damages caused by the board game, they must find the adult Sarah Wittle (Bonnie Hunt) and finish the game at any cost...

Robin Williams delivers a very good performance of a compassionate man who also has wits of survival and his improvs work like a charm. The other three characters, but the movie is so focused on the four players that everyone else looks like a decoration set. The Special Effects are very good and imaginative, and keep the movie upbeat and entertaining . But the screenplay touches on the drama scenes so lightly that they do not create much justice to the film. The anarchic present looks like a throwback of Back to the Future II's Alternate 1985. But all ends well at the conclusion, and people will find it likable, including those who read the book.

By the way, this was the first time I heard about Kirsten Dunst...

**1/2 out of ****

The Longest Yard (2005)

Better than Waterboy, but still unremarkable

[6/10 · 5 June 2005]

Paul Crewe (Chris Sandler) is a former American Football Player who fell from grace because of cheating. After violating a parole order, he is sent to jail, to one of the most brutal and most corrupt prisons which would not be found in any government or UN chart. After taking a few beatings from the guards, Crewe announced his plan that would bail him out of prison: He'll form a team made of Convicts that will rival the Guards. With the help of a Con known only as Caretaker (Chris Rock), He sets up a team that is totally unskilled, unfit, and inexperienced. But with the help of former Am. Football player Nate Scarabourgh, and a Con Basketball squad led by Nelly, this ragtag team becomes a force to be reckoned with.

Unsurprisingly, Adam Sandler is recognised for creating films that audiences love and critics tend to dislike. This formula is still intact. It was a nice thing to include Burt Reynolds--who played the main part in the 1974 original-- in the cast, which gives the film some style and substance. Sandler and Rock also give impressions with their adequate sense of humour that fit the movie perfectly well. Rapper and "Bad Boys" star Nelly also contributes to the franchise as a the captain of an unofficial Basketball team who joins Sandler's cause, and his scenes are some of the best and the funniest of the movie.

But there are several drawbacks: the movie is so full of clichés that people tend to feel a bit frustrated. The slow motion Rap walk of Nelly's squad and the transsexual cheer-leaders are just a few examples. The supporting characters are basically flat and one dimensional and are there just to serve the leads' purposes of making a Dream team. The play scenes are usually fun, but they are so commonplace--and also so aggressive-- that you feel like you're watching a BMW or Toyota commercial.

All in all, this movie is better (and currently more successful) than the critically-unacclaimed Waterboy (which was a surprise hit) and improves on some that movie's flaws. The relentlessly fast pace and rush, as well as the Sandler-Rock-Reynolds trio make this movie stand out from your average sports comedy. I'm satisfied with one viewing of this film (I saw it in the US, since it won't hit the UK until October 2005).

**1/2 out of ****

Boogie Nights (1997)

underrated emotional film with highly-praised performances

[9/10 · 4 June 2005]

This movie-- who's title is based on a 1977 hit disco song by the Heatwaves-- talks about someone's rise to fame and the consequences that go with it.

Eddie Adams is a charming high-school dropout who wants to make it big, but has little to show for it until the porn industry comes along. As a result, he uses the stage name Dirk Diggler. Armed with his charisma (as well as his private parts), he skyrockets to fame circa 1977. He manages to achieve wealth and prestige beyond his wildest dreams. But then comes the twist: His egotism, his arrogance and his drug-use (many of his friends and co-stars are also victims of such vices) led to his downfall by 1982 and 1983, temporarily living a life of crime before finally pulling his act together.

Unlike many films of recent times, which tend to script the past in a very biased and cartoonish manner, this movie shows the true mentality of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The use of the trends of the time as well as contemporary songs in the soundtrack show the feeling that you are actually there . The story is dead-on realistic as it shows the two sides of the porn industry, without any really obtrusive sex scenes. The cast is also dead-on perfect as well, with Mark Wahlberg giving an unusually impressive performance (He needed to take a number of Drama Lessons in order to audition for this role), a performance which he never lived up to in later films. Julianne Moore was definitely Oscar and Bafta material as the leading porn figure who pays the price for her involvement with drugs and the industry. Burt Reynolds also impresses as Jack Horner, the egotistical and ambitious director who is surrounded by an equally egotistical and greedy crowd. To put it down in a few things, there is good and evil in every one of us, and this movie shows such figures as being both influential as well as vulnerable.

The movie is flawed only by over-length-- some scenes feel like they're forcefully extended to make way for the soundtrack-- and and is at times a little too exaggerated and far-fetched, but the acting and direction as well as the storyline are unusually brilliant. Although it fared decently in the US and flopped in the UK, it fulfils all the requirements of being a masterpiece

Psycho II (1983)

Flawed, but unexpectedly good sequel

[6/10 · 4 June 2005]

Picking up 22 or 23 years after the the first movie left off, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, who returns to his old motel as a changed man. As he begins to jump-start his business, He meets Lila Loomis-- Meg Tilly--, the niece of his arch-nemesis Lila {once again played nicely by Vera Miles}. But when mysterious disappearances and murders began to take place just a few weeks later, a wave of confusion follows and the mystery deepens...

This movie is nowhere near the league of the Hitchcock original, but it is better than most of today's slasher movies. The "Master of Suspense" would not allow a second part to one of his greatest masterpieces. But after his death in 1980, thoughts of continuing his story were very much underway. And it did pay off: Norman Bates seems to be more reserved and modest here, in comparison with that eerie and enigmatic mood which he was in Psycho. He also has more sympathy and is more emotional than ever, and the rest of the cast deliver good, although not always great, performances. Director Richard Franklin carefully tries to re-capture the Hitchcock feel with some brilliant suspense scenes, without the trendy use of gore, which gives the movie at first look psychologically scary. The story is fluid and is filled with many good twists.

But the movie goes downhill in the second half, as it becomes increasingly gory and graphic-- often seen as a compromise to please today's audiences. The plot is a bit too heavy at times, and it sometimes slows down a bit. The conclusion of the film should've been modified or changed altogether, since it was extremely corny (Mother speaking to Norman with some of the cheesiest and most ridiculous dialogue in film history). These drawbacks make the movie short of being an otherwise first-class thriller.

But you shan't regret watching it, as its strengths manage to overcome its weaknesses successfully, and Perkins will make this movie watchable. I will give it **1/2 out of ****