ANGEL-A (yes its supposed to understand Angela, patch also meaning something else) is the tenth picture show that Frenchman Luc Besson has directed. Following such classics as LEON, NIKITA, THE Fifth ELEMENT and THE Big BLUE, and such stinkers as JOAN OF Arc and Kiss OF THE DRAGON (okay, so he only wrote that ane), Besson returns with ANGEL-A, which is a form of a cross between Wim Wenders WINGS OF DESIRE, Richard Linklaters Before SUNRISE/SUNSET etc. ITS A WONDEFUL Life sentence, and that other French film AMELIE.

The tale goes as follows Businessman Andre (Jamel Debbouze) has got himself into a spot of bother with a unhurt load of naughty people over in Paris. In fact, he owes thousands of Euros to some of the cities baddest lenders, all of whom are vocation in aforementioned debts, and if he cant compensate within but a few hours - then its game over, and Andre will be waking up in the next life. When all else fails, Andre decides to end it all himself, and takes to the side of a bridge overlooking the river Seine. When he comes to end it all he turns to watch Angela, also in a similar quandary - only she does jump and its up to Andre to save her. What follows is a friendly relationship between those aforementioned characters and the bond they form afterward realizing what they both have in common with one some other.

Only, its not that simple.

This is unrivalled of those reviews where its impossible to review it without lending a few spoilers, which Im going to do, so if you want to enjoy ANGELA without knowing the big reveal, look away now.

Okay? Well, basically, Angela is an angel. Near of you may have worked that out via the title or the comparison with Wenders Wings OF Desire. So, she has been put on the earth to carry out a job, and help Andre out of his short predicament. The way in which I am writing this limited review is that Im not doing the movie justice. Its sounding like this is some other one of those high octane, most cartoonish Luc Besson scripted flicks ala THE Car transporter or Taxi. If youre making this assumption, then you couldnt be anyplace further from what this movie actually is. Its simply Besson back to the Leon days - without the action - and genius of that movie. However, thats not to say that this is a bad flicker. Far from it. Its just very, very different. Its a very character driven, dialog heavy, relationship based drama set within the worlds most amatory city - which is where the BEFORE Sunrise comparison comes in. Sure, there ar some truly great comedic parts to Bessons hand, and a little cartoonish play is present in places, merely throughout on that point is this underlying romanticism that we havent seen in a Besson related movie in yonks. Its very touching at certain points, and indeed identical deep.

Debbouze and Rie Rasmussens chemical science is the thing that ties the film together, and both are believable in their respected roles (Rasmussen regular as an angel), simply the best thing near the moving picture is Thierry Arbogasts stunning black-and-white cinematography. The movie looks beautiful, and is perhaps the best work that I have seen of his (Arbogast was also DOP on Leon, THE Fifth ELEMENT and most of Bessons other directorial outings).

For me the only real weakness of ANGEL-A is the ending, which, and patch I wont go into too much detail here, came across a little predictable and gushy. There were other ways to end the flick that would get been a great deal more fitting. There are also various parts of the tale that were left unrequited, and there were plotholes aplenty. How did they pay for that wine? Or that expensive meal? Or that plush hotel room? Youll see what I mean.

But in all this is a worthy addition to Bessons glowing CV. A blemished film from an already proven brain, but still an entertaining night at the movies. Lets precisely hope this isnt the last moving-picture show hell direct, which according to his own publicity it is (Besson only ever precious to lead ten movies in his life, and hes reached his quota with this - lets hope that the world is messing with us).

I get long been a fan of Henry M. Robert Rodriguez. His maverick approach to making movies and deftly side-stepping the Hollywood system is certainly to be admired. Even though he credibly has the clout to get major studio funding, the mind of that just doesnt seem to appeal to him..

Back in the early 90s, Rodriguez only had a handful of short films to<br />His credit. Fidgety to attain a lineament, he raised a mere $7,000 (most of<br />which he earned by subjecting himself to do drugs testing) and set out to make El<br />Mariachi, a magnificently creative action picture that he shot very quick with<br />the help of friends and family. The movie was shot for the Spanish film<br />Market and Rodriguez modest goal was to make sufficiency to fund<br />another film. Ultimately, the film became bigger than he persuasion it<br />would, and earlier long, El Mariachi was playing cinema festivals and<br />earning heights marks from critics and film fans.

In 1995, Rodriguez would go on to make a continuation (although many<br />consider it more of a bigger budget remaking) called Desperate criminal. And while the<br />follow-up had a considerably larger budget (around 7 one thousand thousand dollars), it<br />actually looked much more expensive than it was. As was the case with El Mariachi, Rodriguez wrote, directed, edited and even shooter much of Desperado. The film was very thrifty and showcased Rodriguezs great sense of timing, especially with action sequences.<br />He also deserves high first Baron Marks of Broughton for convincing the studio apartment to go with a then<br />near unknown Salma Hayek.

Flash forward to eight age later, in which Rodriguez has completed<br />His trilogy with an ode to Sergio Leones Once Upon a Time in U.S.A., the<br />competently titled Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

Actually, the principal sum photography on this film was realized a<br />Couple of years ago, only Rodriguez distinct to refinement off the Spy Kids trilogy<br />Earlier editing this picture together. This has paid off in a big way with<br />Johnny Reb Depps stock up as a resultant of his popular turn in Pirates of the Carribean.<br />Understandably, thats carried over to this word-painting.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is painted on a bigger canvass than its<br />previous installments, and features Antonio Banderas as the gun toting<br />Mariachi, one time again on a missionary work of vengeance. This military mission has him<br />crossing paths with a corrupt law officer played with brash hilarity by a hilariously<br />entertaining Johnny Depp.

Once Upon a Sentence In Mexico has been populated with several familiar<br />Latino stars including Banderas, Enrique Iglesias, Cheech Marin, and Ruben<br />Blades as well as up-and-comer Eva Mendes (Grooming Day, 2 Fast 2 Furious).<br />Thither are too many Rodriguez film regulars including the menacing Danny Trejo. Rodriguez also took this opportunity to work with some of his favorite performers such as<br />Willem Dafoe and Mickey Rourke. Sadly, he forgot to pulp out his screenplay,<br />and many of his big name cast arent granted the chance to truly shine. This<br />isnt to say Erstwhile Upon is worthless–but it certainly feels convoluted<br />and offers up too many characters and disjointed storylines.

Also absent, is the break neck pacing and the expert sense of timing that made the<br />last two installments work so good. There ar a few exciting sequences to<br />talk of–including an escape scene in which Banderas and Salma Hayek rapel down the slope of a building patch chained together at the wrists. Unluckily, most of the action razzle dazzle on show in Once Upon A Time in Mexico lacks the flow of its<br />predecessors.

Still, Once Upon a Time in United Mexican States does receive an allied Command Europe up its sleeve, and<br />that allied Command Europe is Johnny Reb Depp. As was clearly the showcase in Pirates of the<br />Carribean, Depp steals intimately every scene hes in here as well, as he bursts onto the screen with a swagger that is more than entertaining. So much so in fact, that I got<br />the sense that perhaps Rodriguez decided to make him the central character<br />in the editing room because Depp seems to have more screen time than top<br />billed Antonio Banderas.

As capital as Depp is, Id also like to convey up veteran Ruben Blades as<br />an ex-lawmen seeking a little vengeance of his own. Blades manages to hold<br />his own despite being seemingly upstaged by the blood and bullets around<br />him.

Robert Rodriguez is an absolute madman, and even though I felt up that<br />This installment was the worst of the three, I admire his unlimited zip.<br />He wrote, shot, emended, scored and directed One time Upon a Time in Mexico,<br />And proves that there is still plenitude of room for those who want to buck<br />The Hollywood system. That, in itself, is something.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is a film with moments, and it is worth<br />observance for Johnny Depp, an actor world Health Organization, after all these years, really<br />seems to be getting acknowledgement for organism the expert actor hes always been. Its around time!

A big, sprawling messy B-movie which was mildly engaging; I didnt hate it as much as Phyrephox and Joker. Personally, I thought the &quot;cheap&quot; staging of some of the action sequences was done deliberately, to evoke a films whose budget is practically less than $30 meg; Rodriguez plain hasnt missed the knack for staging action sequences (of course, he still hasnt picked up a knack for writing screenplays), i.e. the thrilling escape from the fifth part floor of the hotel for instance (plus he can pull off some stunning imagination with his DV camera). The whole thing falls apart into a laughable shoot em up by the ending of the film (so the peasants knew the army was going to stage a coup?). Johnny Reb Depp again steals some other inferior film, with his flamboyant portrait of Central Intelligence Agency Agent Littoral zone (liked his habit of wearing gonzo shirts, like his &quot;CIA - Cleavage Review Agency&quot; t-shirt, and you got to dig the pot leaf belt buckle). Oh yeah, is it just me, of did Enrique Iglesias looks &quot;constipated&quot; when he was supposed to look &quot;smoldering?&quot;

One of the many toasts of last years Sundance plastic film festival, Sliding Doors offers an interesting look at how the course of ones life can be totally changed by a seemingly insignificant event. Gwyneth Paltrow turns in a beautiful performance as the woman whose fate hinges on a small detain that causes her to miss her usual underpass ride home. Without beingness confusing, the film hypothetically shows you the different paths her life takes both if she makes the train on time and if she doesnt. This intersection of the two stories is fascinating and causes one to ponder the little coincidences that ofttimes have a lasting impact on our own lives.

In deuce weeks I leave for my quarter – and certainly non last – visit to Africa. I will duty tour Botswana, Republic of Zimbabwe (U.S. State Department Travel Warning, issued a year agone, is inactive in impression), Namibia (place of birth of Shilol Jolie-Pitt), and South Africa. I volition be able to assess the dreadful situation in Zimbabwe and South Africa for myself.

&quot;Catch A Fire,&quot; based on a real hero and true circumstances that happened in 1980, garbled me. Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke) is a chief at the Secunda oil colour refinery implant. He has a good job. In his community, he is lucky. He has steady work, a wife, 2 small girls, supports his mother, and coaches association football. But thither is unrest in Southward Africa.

Due to the unjust stranglehold of state-sponsored Apartheid, the only substance of change is with guerrilla warfare and acts of the Apostles of terrorist act. The white-owned refinery, that employs smuggled people, is being sabotaged. Bombs are going cancelled. After in that location is an explosion at the plant, Chamusso and many others are arrested.

Chamusso is innocent of any wrongful conduct but his alibi doesnt hold up. He has lied to Nic Vios (Tim Robbins) the anti-terrorism official working for the company. It is Vos job to stop the attacks on the companys property. His tactics ar brutal and there is torture. But if Chamusso had just admitted he was with his mistress and their young son, he would have been let go. Visited by Vios, Chamussos mistress doesnt say anything to write her isle of Man.

Vios and his goons promptly arrest Chamussos married woman Precious (Fair Henna). Entire families of suspects ar rounded up and tormented. Some drop dead.

Vios reluctantly lets Chamusso and his wife go, but Chamusso decides to leave his wife, girlfriend, and trinity children and join the African National Congress. Treasured is forced to displace to a hut and get a job. The ANC wants to disembarrass South Africa of Apartheid and change foreign ownership of land and white-developed industry to its native people.

Unlike Al-Qaeda, the ANC is adamant: No civilian casualties.

According to the research I did online, as things point of view today – October 2006 - in South Africa, &quot;the government may broaden ground seizures in order to boost mordant land ownership, but denied that it was considering any Zimbabwe-style land grabs (called the Zimbabwean model). Zimbabwes country reform has involved the seizure of property from thousands of white commercial farmers, starting in 2000.&quot;

According to some other recent Reuters article, &quot;Zimbabwes political troubles feature led to its isolation from the West and triggered a bruising economic crisis, highlighted by pompousness of over 1,000 percent and a disabling foreign trade shortage. Zimbabwes agricultural output has been hit by years of drought and the flight of gobs of the most productive white commercial-grade farmers, many of whom had their farms violently seized by the government to give to blacks.&quot;

Chamussos unfair treatment radicalizes him. He trains at an ANC irregular camp. He is organism watched by Vios men. His knowledge of the refinery places him in a sodding situation to organize and then carry out some other terrorist assault on the plant.

Chamussos actions dramatized the predicament of Due south Africans laden by white foreigners and the cultivation of Apartheid. His write up, and the fiercely sincere portrayal by Luke, appears romanticized and muddled. Wherefore didnt Chamusso just state the truth immediately? The damage done to the refinery surely required probe.

Chamusso is considered a hero in South Africa and his story influenced the end of Apartheid. The substantial Chamusso appears at the end of the film and, so, he comes across immediately as a charismatic, kind man. I liked him.

Since film director Phillip Noyce got Tim Robbins (doing a very nice accent) to co-star, and apparently Robbins did not want to sum another very nasty sadist to his resume, Vios is shown as a family human race who even takes Chamusso from his dank cellular phone to enjoy a family unit dinner in the commonwealth. He sings two songs! He loves his wife and children and is very concerned about their welfare in the fickle political climate in South Africa. Vios has morals and is clearly troubled over his investigative techniques. He even tries to redeem himself by releasing Chamusso and his wife.

However, isnt it unmatched that the real Chamusso calls Vios – on camera - &quot;a monster.&quot;

That teras was in &quot;Midnight Express.&quot;

Dead Muteness attempts to rekindle that old 80s horror trick by creating a new iconic mythology (think the Freddy Krueger legend). Its also a return to R rated terror, merely after observance it, Im still nerve-wracking to figure out wherefore it standard an R rating. There is absolutely nothing in this movie that pushes the envelope in footing of violent content, nor is at that place any nudeness to verbalise of. Come to think of it, I cant think of a single, solitary bad word save for one brief instant in which Donnie Wahlberg mouths the word &quot;fuck.&quot; The thing is, he doesnt actually say it. I barely dont get it. Theres nothing here thats whatever worse than anything in The Ring and that movie was PG-13. I expected something much edgier from the creators of Saw, merely for what its worth, they were cheated by the MPAA.

This is not an R rated movie. Its a PG-13 disguised as an R. Oh, and did I mention that Dead Silence is pee weak? I know many folks in the on line community are simply embracing this flick because of Vivien Leigh Whannell and James Wans involvement. And while I do finger sorry that they were unable to get Dead Silence released sooner (its reportedly been on the shelf for quite old), I cant recommend it. Im a huge fan of the genre, and sadly, this film lends nothing interesting to the world of horror.

In Dead Quiet, a young man journeys to his old rest home town later his wife is killed in a bizarre fashion. She is murdered, presumptively by a creepy looking for dummy (as in puppet) that was anonymously shipped to their home sooner in the day. When the overwrought husband arrives at his old stomping ground (he hopes to find the mysterious party responsible for sending him the dope), he discovers a deep rooted secret harbored by the locals in the sinister looking for town. Making matters worse, hes being followed by an eager police officer who believes he is responsible for his wifes death.

Dead Silence opens well enough. The beginning sequence is extremely familiar in terms of how it unfolds, but its atmospheric and it hits a duet nice notes, tonally speech production. Once the film makers take the audience to Ravens Fair (a town all excessively reminiscent of Silent Come – only far less creepy) however, the picture quickly unravels and becomes a true bore-fest chalk full of telegraphed scares, stock characters, and a truly icky twist ending that simply pisses me off.

Dead Silence is the inspiration of Power saw creators Epistle of James Wan and Leigh Whannell. That film too had a twist. Many of them in fact, just at least that flick earned its ending. The big let out made sense and matte like an organic part of the story. Here its a tag-on thrown in to punch things up.

The performances are completely sterile save for Judith Bartholomew Roberts who livens up the proceedings as creepy ventriloquist Mary George Bernard Shaw. Sadly, Kenneth Roberts is relegated to a couple of flashback sequences. As it turns out, the initial flashback is the virtually entertaining (and evil) part of the movie.

Lead Ryan Kwantan looks thoroughly bored, and Donnie Wahlberg (who appeared in the last two Saw films) shows up in one the most painfully underwritten (and bland out silent) cop roles Ive ever seen in a pic, horror or otherwise. Today it could be argued that many of these roles ar purposely written in a stock manor house as to give the movie a cheesy 80s horror plastic film vibe, but I think thats a cop prohibited. Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, it doesnt work at all, because the picture show is performing things square.

All that doesnt ferment in this picture would have been easily redeemed had there been a scare to speak of. Even the dolls attend bored. Theres a widget early on in which one of the dummies slowly moves its eyes to the side, spell the potential drop victim sitting to the side is oblivious to this fact. Its a frightening moment–THE FIRST Sentence! Sadly, the film makers go to this considerably about decade times delivery new signification to the term &quot;beating a dead wench.&quot; Im all for understated, just Whannell and Wan were clearly able to score a significant budget after reaping massive benefits from Saw, so why didnt they place more john Cash flow into the personal effects.

Theres a great moment in Gobbler Hollands Childs Play. Its that number one scene when we actually see Chucky come to life. You know the part Im talking around. Its the scene when Catherine Hicks threatens to throw the doll in the fire. Without warning, the seemingly soul-less Chucky comes to violent life and calls Hicks &quot;a stupid bitch.&quot; Its a chilling moment. What I wouldnt suffer given to see unitary of the dummies in this motion-picture show come to life in a similar fashion. Im all for less is more, particularly in the horror genre, but as played in Dead Quiet, less is…less.

Furthermore, theres a bit of nonsensical supernatural business that plagues the movie. Ahead a demoniac doll strikes, a &quot;dead silence&quot; overcomes the potential victim, and the supernatural military force can only pounce if the victim screams. A similar hook was used in Jeepers Creepers, and while I always thought that moving picture was somewhat overrated, it made a hell of a sight more sentience. There was a reason for it.

Dead Quiet is a weak exempt of a movie. Somewhere buried deep within, is a playfulness flick wait to get out. The film is shot well and much of the tone reminded me of a capital 70s piece of horror called Apparition. I as well thought the dummies looked cool, merely I cherished to be scared, and this flick simply didnt get the job done at all. If you want to see a good flick with puppets or dummies in military action, may I suggest Childs Play, Squad America, Meet the Feebles, or even the original Puppet Master. Or, if you prefer subtle tales about evilness play things, may I suggest deuce great Gloaming Zone episodes - Surviving Doll and The Dummy, and Richard Attenboroughs Conjuring trick starring a young Susan Brownell Anthony Hopkins and Ann-Margret.

Action movies

The new thriller Untraceable isnt horrendous, shocking, or tense sufficiency to be ranked with the likes of Hostel – a film I find myself defending far more often than non - and it isnt classy, smart, or scarey enough to be mentioned in the same breath as the film it most unashamedly borrows from, Silence of the Lambs. Still, at a snappy ninety minutes, you could do a lot worsened.

Conceptually, Untraceable is quite unique. A crazed lunatic tortures his victims in front of a web cam, allowing those surfboarding the net, to scene the slaughter in a live feed. The big twist? The more sickos who hit the site, the faster the dupe dies. Diane Lane is FBI agentive role Clarice Star…I bastardly, Jennifer Fen. At beginning, shes reluctant to train the caseful, but since shes the one world Health Organization discovered the site in the number one place, she agrees to try and help cast an end to this twisters severe ways.

Conceptually Untraceable is intriguing, only structurally it offers null but nuked leftovers. It plays like a standard serial killer movie scenario stew.

Untraceable is only a tolerable serial killer thriller. A cyber space morality story in which we the curious, slaughter craving public are all accessories to murder. In this regard, this up-to-the-minute bid for torture erotica excellence wants to give birth its cake and rust it overly. Untraceable is telling us that this psycho is wrong in his actions, but at the same time, the movie seems to be begging us to enjoy his devilish actions. This is what sets Untraceable apart from Hostel and Saw - they have an altogether different agenda. Each starts off well-educated exactly what they are, whereas, Untraceable is a bit confused. It isnt quite tense or unpredictable enough to be considered a first rate thriller and the tepid social commentary, level though occaisionally compelling, sort of gets lost in the combine.

Theres a severe lack of surprises in Untraceable because manager Gregory Hoblit (Primal Fear, Fallen) and his screenwriters appear hellbent on telegraphing everything. Its pretty easy to figure out world Health Organization might be at danger in this picture, because hints are made early on. To elaborate on this would be to ruin what few &quot;so called&quot; surprises this film has up its sleeve, so I wont. Furthermore, some of the characters in Untraceable arent terribly brilliant. Youd think members of the FBI would cause been trained to continue their guard up.

On the twitch side of the coin, Untraceable does have its share of strong attributes. The killer here has motivation, and this sets the film apart from your garden variety slasher film. The film besides benefits from a bleak, unsettling pure tone. While a lot of this stuff isnt necessarily entertaining, it is effective. Theres one sequence in particular, in which we are viewer to stock footage of a felo-de-se. Now clearly, this footage was shot for the movie, but the film makers could have fooled me. Its extremely realistic. On a final musical note, props to Hoblit and crew for revealing the killer early on. Untraceable doesnt suit one of those tinny whodunnit exercises in which we larn the cause of death is actually some one at the FBI. How stupid would that deliver been?

The performances are hit and miss. Diane Lane is pretty good here. She injects a bit of humanity to the transactions and shes strong without coming crossways as superhuman. Furthermore, theres nothing overly glamorous about Jennifer Marsh. Shes a loving mother and working class woman, and she could care less about superficial things (like wearing make-up), and I really liked that about her.

Most of the load-bearing characters ar underwritten. Billy Burke is a finish blank as Detective Eric Box. Merely an absolute bore. Truth be told though, its all in the writing. At least the writers are smart enough to keep Box and Marsh from piquant in some half assed romance. My hat is off to them for that. Colin Hanks brings likability to his role as Marshs right hand man Griffon Dowd, and Im dead reckoning thats incisively why he was cast. His magical spell and affability – understandably handed down to him by his superstar daddy Tom - is key, given the direction this film goes in the final act.

Untraceable is tight. It moves at a brisk pace and it benefits from a quick ending. No dragged out climax. Furthermore, the ending is somewhat surprising in that were lead to believe that a damsel in distress will be reclaimed by a prince in shining armour. Instead, this particular demoiselle proves that she seat fight her own battles.

In the end, Untraceable isnt incisively unwatchable, only it does miss some golden opportunities. Its too bad the film makers couldnt shake up the formulaic social structure a bit. If the story structure were half as interesting as the films premise, we power have had a winner.

Grade:

dvd movies downloads collection

The Catholic church of necessity another shiner right now about as much as Michael Jackson needs a job driving an Ice Cream hand truck. But here it is - in its barbarous and unusual technicolor, a film based upon the true tale of the Irish laundry houses. In the 60s while many of the women of the world were revelling in a sexual revolution and gaining equality at least in some touchstone, the Irish Gaelic Catholic Church had its own way of dealing with lester Willis Young girls of such wanton desires. You could be locked up in one of these ungodly nunneries for pretty much anything from flirting with a boy, to giving birth out of wedlock, to mental unstableness to being a victim of incest.

All that was needful to be locked away indefinitely in one of these chain store laundry hell-holes was the consent of a parent or legal guardian. The movie starts off as three whitney Young girls (Dorothy Duffy, Nora-Jane Noone, and Anne-Marie Duff) enter unitary of these Magdalene facilities, one for each of the offenses mentioned supra (except) genial illness, and thus we are introduced to the unfathomable inhuman treatment that these women and girls ar subjected to in the name of religion, piousness and of course the almighty dollar.

Each daylight was the same. Wake at 6, have a prayer, feed breakfast and then work in an old fashion laundry all day. Talk amongst one another was forbidden and after dinner, you were off to bed in a communal dormitory with thirty other unfortunates. If these girls wanted to experience any Christian charity or mercy that had to show it to one some other as the Nuns ar all painted as sadistic nutjobs, just looking for an explain to administer a beating or the other kinds of penalization and humiliation we would soon teach of and witness.

My first reaction to this business, was that it was in all likelihood a bit of a harsh and unfair bill of indictment of these nuns, only these Magdalene asylums were widespread and the stories true and perhaps the most shocking statistic is the final of these fascist facilities was shut down in 1996. And the figures they quote speak of 30,000 women wHO were made to pass large portions of their lives in fear and captivity. The rationale behind these institutions is the worst kind of misinterpretation and exploitation of organized religion - as these women were repeatedly inculcated with the mantra that their punishment would eventually wash away their iniquity and eventually make them worthy in the eyes of God. In the base time many of these women spent their entire lives in such fell servitude.

The film itself is well shot and cast. Baby Bridget (a wicked Geraldine McEwen, would makes Nurse Ratched look like Mother Theresa and there is a fantastic performance by aasdlfj ;lsdkfj as a simpleton of a daughter who has a young boy whom her sister would bring to the fence so that they could share a glance from time to time. Her eccentric is the most moving and finally her destiny is the most heart-wrenching part of the photographic film.

It was a tough movie to watch and I got through it by stressful to focus on the relationships bad between the girls of these sweatshops. Any polemonium caeruleum and benignity they would find in these institutions had to come from each other. I guess it is a fact that some of these girls were made to suffer humiliation much like fraternity hazing and there is a scene where they are forced to stand naked before two nuns world Health Organization poke fun at each girl for their physical imperfections - I could have lived without this scene, and I was glad they didnt explore it in any further detail.

Again, my disposition would be to call this vituperative indictment excessive, but the more I find out about these Magdalene houses the more I realise that this film was factually honest and likely only scratched the aerofoil of the inhumane suffering that these innocent women were made to undergo. Yet the part of the plastic film I admired was the pluck of those women, who despite their ungodly circumstances stood strong, looked after ane another and triumphed o’er their captives by demonstrating Christs true nature to these misrepresented nuns world Health Organization had retentive since disregarded the lessons of Christs ministry.

I guess for the near part I agree with most of your remarks regarding this picture. Where I make to discord is in the expanse of the films calibre. While it was definitley compelling and not the kind of movie youre going to pause very long - still I cant say as I cared for it as a film. If you go back up and depend at it from top to bed, the moving picture doesnt really make whatever kind of coherent point. If Iim missing the point perhaps you coud set me straight.

Ive always had an inexplicable fear of clowns and nuns. No matter what kind of Clown (nuns are all pretty practically the same). If the Magdalene Sisters would get had a clown - like perhaps in the scene where the girls were forced to standstill there naked - this film would have been like The Texas Chain saw Massacre to me.

Doom doesnt suck, and if that isnt a compliment, then I dont know what the blaze is. Wherefore doesnt it suck? Well I could chalk that up to a number of reasons. Perhaps its because I went in with low expectations or maybe its because Kyle and I downed a couple of beers in front the viewing. Now Im not departure to lie. Doom is stupid. Its full of wooden performances and uber lame dialogue but we had a fun time regardless.

Based on the video game of the same list, Doom is a futuristic/sci fi fib about a team of grunts wHO travel through a unusual portal to Mars hoping to find out why contact has been lost with a scientific research lab. When they arrive, this rag tag team of military men cursorily discover the meaning of survival when they get a line the true nature of what is happening.

I must confess that Im not a gamer. Granted my fanatic film wont, an addiction to picture games would almost write certain death for me, so Ive avoided the whole phenomenon. Having aforesaid that, as a film, Doom is far more entertaining than the former video games turned movies Ive seen (i.e. Resident Evil and House of the Dead).

As I previously stated, the dialogue is nothing to write habitation about (just whos hearing for Shakesperean word bring in a flick like this anyway?) and the performances ar completely stock. The John Rock is rather lackluster hither, but I applaud the film makers for pickings his character somewhere I wasnt really expecting. Karl Urban shows a small bit of screen presence as tough guy Saint John the Apostle Grimm (no relation to Ben) only thats only because everyone around him is such a blank. Rosamund Pike is all ineffective as the films heroine, a self righteous scientist wHO quickly learns that her work power be killing innocent people. Simply put, Doom is one of those movies that features actors playing roles you dont remotely buy them in with the possible exception of the Rock candy. Sadly though, the fully grown guy is surprisingly tepid.

What I really enjoyed about this silly, over the top actioneer is its unembarrassed love for the action epics of the 80s. Most of the references are subtle enough that Doom doesnt really come across as a rip-off, but rather a loving homage. Fans wont induce a hard time espial little winks at the likes of Aliens, Predatory animal, Robocop, Terminator, and Commando. Add to that a drop of Stargate and a hyphen of every Van Damme flick ever so made, and you make a flick that, patch hardly a masterpiece, manages to flirt with.

Whats more, Doom is surprisingly slipperiness. One problem Ive had with recent action pictures (Batman Begins included) is their wooly-minded style. Straight off I love Batman Begins, but there are activity sequences in that film that are fairly addled. When I watch hand on deal combat or a chase, I want to experience what the hell is going on. Director Andrzei Bartkowiak stages Dooms action scenes in a very clean mode. Sure, the camera form is brassy and the cutting a tad exuberant, but the bottom line is, we can actually see the carnage. This is particularly evident in the much anticipated first person sequence in which a fearless squad commander cautiously merely quickly blazes through the narrow corridors of a space station, all while taking out murderous creatures at every corner.

And the gore. God bless the bloodshed. With the recent tendency of PG-13 rated flicks, I nearly forgot what cinematic blood looked like. Doom doesnt skimp on the blood and gumption. There ar decapitations, exploding heads, and slimy creatures aplenty. Doom also features some interesting effects work, my dearie being a dude whose had his upper trunk surgically attached to an electric wheelchair. Its a simplistic ocular gag, only it works.

Doom isnt exactly a work of originality nor is it on its way to making anyones top decade list at the final stage of the year, merely it does offer up a fare share of violent, over the top entertainment. At the very least, its leaps and bounds bettor than that crappy Daze remake.

Leave it to independent film guru Steven Soderbergh (Sex Lies and Videotape, Kafka, and Out of Sight) to showcase what may be the topper performance of Julia Roberts career. In this true story, Bartholomew Roberts plays the title function, a single mother struggling to find work to support her three children. She gets her chance when she takes a job as a legal clerk at a small law firm. While there, she finds herself drawn to a case involving a townspeople where residents become ill due to contaminated water.

This is a simple story remindful of weaker films such as The Rainmaker and A Civil Action. Erin Brockovich soars thanks to Julia Roberts, who plays an abrasive, yet driven woman world Health Organization seems to gain everyones affection as the film moves along. Also striking are Albert Francis Charles Augustus Emmanuel Finney as Brockovichs foreman, Aaron Johannes Eckhart (In the Company of Men) entirely likable as the love interest, and Marg Helgenberger (Species) heartbreakingly sympathetic as one of the unfortunate residents of the affected town.

Holding it all together is Soderbergh, wHO manages to transcend the pretentious and make Erin Brockovich non only a wonderful &quot;underdog&quot; narrative, but a terrific character study as well.

Erin Brockovich is a total piece of crap.

This is a great picture of a true under dog history. The begining is the best part of it.

I rate it

Is zip sacred in Hollywood? Ive had it up to here with remakes! Especially of films that dont need to be remade. That would be about 99% of them. Now, the John Carpenter classical Halloween has been subjected to a make-over and with Soak Zombie (Devils Rejects) at the helm no less. At the very least, his involvement gave me a inkling of hope. Not because hes a masterful film maker (not yet anyhow), but because I notice greatness in him. More importantly, he clearly loves the genre.

As his take on Halloween opened, my biggest fears materialized. Not just are the opening portions of this re-imagining brimming with an over abundance of white person trash culture, but Zombie commits the cardinal sine of gift Michael Myers a conscience. Zombie seems to get more of an understanding of actual serial killers (think Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer) than Michael Myers. If the opposite were true, he wouldnt have delved into Myers past at all. What makes Michael so shuddery is not knowing what makes him tick. Having said that, the first-class honours degree three quarters of this Halloween ar somewhat original. When Myers eventually escapes from the mental innovation and makes his way back to Haddonfield, Zombi spirit resorts to a virtual aping of Carpenters film.

Some of the locations have changed and theres more skin and more blood (a lot more blood) only essentially, this is the same stuff. Ultimately, things get pretty boring. Zombies casting choices are solid. Tyler Mane (Sabertooth in X-Men) is physically grand and even when his face is deep behind that illustrious William Shatner mask, scourge and fury seep through. Mane really does capture the essence of this character. Malcolm McDowell takes over a role made famous by the grand Donald Pleasence. McDowell brings a freakish sense of humor to the portion, and piece hes fine, Id be lying if I said I didnt expect more than. Sheri Lunation (aka Mrs. Rob Zombie) is amazingly effective as Michaels loving but sorely misguided mother. The pic really gets its kick from a dynamite roster of cult icons in various supporting roles including Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead), Brad Dourif (Childs Play), Clint Leslie Howard Stainer (The Water ice Cream Man), Udo Kier (Flesh For Frankenstein), Dee Wallace (The Howling), Danny Trejo (Desperado), Micky Dolenz (The Monkees), Sybil Danning (Reform School Girls), William Forsythe (Out For Justice), and Sid Haig, Bill Moseley and Leslie Easterbrook from Devils Rejects.

Zombie also winks at fans of the numerous Allhallows Eve sequels by including Danielle Harris wHO appeared in parts four-spot and five when she was just a little girl. Now at age 30, Harris is . . . how should I put this? All filled out in just the right places. During several moments in this ikon, I wished Zombie would have just gotten free of the Shatner cloak and changed the diagnose of the flick so this would have played as an original movement. But he didnt do that, and ultimately, the shadow of Carpenters motion-picture show looms big. This Allhallows Eve has sporadically placed moments of potency and Snake god does a great occupation shooting the picture, only the tempo is off and the ending is positively dread (Zombie would have been wise to end the film xV minutes in the beginning – perchance in the striking, spookily conceived naiant pool sequence). Ultimately, theres no reasonableness for this film to exist. On a last note, Zombie tosses in a few scenes of Howard Hawkes The Thing in the background (as Carpenter did in his version). Heres to hoping that the White Zombie front man doesnt ingest a stab at remake that one (Carpenters take remains just as in effect as the original). I like Plume as a film manufacturer, but he should stick to originals.