Movie Mac Reviews

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Third time unlucky.

[9/10 · 15 August 2002]

Maybe it was the hype, the mass mythological aura that surrounded the whole thing, the promotion that read "Be a part of history", but when I first saw "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" I thought it was a masterpiece. How wrong I was.

This film is a spectactular achievement, just to get you started. It does a most audacious and ambitious thing, in that it creates an epic sweep and an entire world, in fact, out of subject matter that is little more than droll, classical fantasy (For those who haven't read the book). Similar to the original "Star Wars", this film does a 360 degree turn on our original perceptions on how a fantasy story can be told. As Dorothy told us, we're not in Kansas anymore. This film has a visual texture unlike anything I have seen before, at least on film. And yet this is precisely the reason I am also depressed by it.

Has anyone read "The Lord of the Rings" lately? Did anyone notice how fondly Tolkien felt for his little men and women of Hobbiton and the rest of the shire? The Hobbits themselves are revolutionary without having to bother with the world they inhabit. The world in question, Middle Earth, seems - concieved from the book - in a gentler time when action was not the key word but words were. The words used in the book are elegiac, ponderous and naive, similar to the ones in "The Wizard of Oz". The descriptions are laborious on unnecessary details so we can giggle with delight at the funny habits of characters that NEVER CHANGE!!! The Hobbits are the heroes because they are unique. I've seen men fight before. I've seen swordplay and bows and arrows and axes. True, I've not seen them done as well as they were in the movie, but still, something's missing.

The movie is often loud with its action sequences and epic vistas. If there is comfort, it comes from the fact that there are great actors sprouting wistful dialogue in the middle of it all. The camera moves up and around and through and under and over and here and there and everywhere like a Disney animation gone haywire. For some reason there is charm in all these things because there are great actors sprouting wistful dialogue in the middle of it all.

Yes, I though it was a masterpiece at first. I had not read the book, and I still have not read it entirely. But there is no doubt in my mind that as I was reading the book a different movie emerged in my mind to the one I had seen. The novel, by JRR Tolkien, is an epic not because of scale or development but because of its mythological structure and the journey taken by its lead characters. The book is about all the little things that occur in the cracks of the central purpose. The movie is about the central purpose. There is no time for singing songs or meeting interesting people. There is something not quite right when the most dangerous artefact in the history of the middle world has been through generation after generation without reaching its full potential and then suddenly BAM! We have to destory this ring, fast!!!!! The book didn't think so and I don't think so.

That said, the movie brings definition to the ring that perhaps is above all the other characters in the movie. The One Ring to Rule Them All is a character in itself and the movies greatest achievement is exploring the themes relating between it and its carriers. Each character has a different response to the One Ring which elevates the reasoning for character dimension and development. It also builds a satisfactory momentum which carries to scene after scene of one "new" thing after another. On the visual level the movie captures an originality that I had not anticipated. The gorgeous design is a major plus for me, personally, and it allows for those moments that you feel were absolutely right. Each place the heroes visit or run through is immaculate in understanding Tolkien's vision. Perhaps that is because the filmmakers studied the water colour paintings by Tolkien very closely. Some sequences are absolutely awe-inspiring as images alone. They sort of paint over the rusty hinges.

Another plus for me was the casting. I don't think anyone could have asked for better actors and for a big-budget action movie these guys were given the best dialogue anyone could ask for. It crackles with wit and energy between each actor. Ian McKellan has some of the best moments in the movie. He carries a lot of this film on his shoulders.

Another plus was the musical score. This is one soundtrack I would love to own.

All of the above don't really add up to much of an opinion, I know. I both love this movie and am disappointed by it. I looked into "Fellowship" the book and noticed that it consisted of two books. The first book could have made a movie just as long as this one, and a more family-oriented one. In fact, my vision for these films would be to make seven movies and not three, each based on the books separating different stories - like acts in a play. It would have given "Harry Potter" a run for its money. It would have been a movie with the same design, more technicolour in its photography, similar special effects and it would have been something of a musical. But since that movie does not exist, I must settle for this one. And at the end of the day, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

9/10

P.S.: I can't wait for the next ones.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

The musical.

[9/10 · 8 February 2001]

Episode IV - A New Hope = a landscape epic. Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back = a film Noir. Episode VI - Return of the Jedi = a musical. Well, that's what I think anyway.

Return of the Jedi. What can I say? It's not as good as the other two. It's worse. Yet it is a great film. What is it about this film that makes it poorer? It's rip-roaring entertainment, it's a work of amazing imagination, it ties up the whole of the Star Wars saga...hold it. I think I've got it: It ties up all of the Star Wars saga. Not just Episodes IV and V, but I, II and III as well, and we haven't seen II or III yet, have we?

Return of the Jedi deals with far more complex issues than A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, which have such a simple-minded Frank Capra approach. Jedi seems to want to cover too much ground for it to handle. The other two films covered a tremendous amount of ground, but it didn't go overboard for the actors who were presenting us with this material. Jedi would have been that failure that did that if it wasn't so well done.

I think the updates on this one were imaginative but unnecessary. I liked them, but I could have picked some things I would have updated, not added. That aside, I do love this film. It has a wacky musical-like feel to it, with elaborate and amazing scenes that involve either partying bounty-hunters, cute little teddy bears or spacecraft that consist of lights and lasers. Don't tell me this isn't a musical. If there were a zany side of the force, this was seduced by it.

I guess I could have done with less of Han Solo in this one. He's unnecessary. I think Harrison Ford's performance needs to be digitally altered or there needs to be something that deepens his character a lot more. Maybe my opinion will have changed once I've seen Episodes II and III.

9/10

Darkwing Duck (1991– )

This aint Disney!!

[31 January 2001]

I wouldn't have been surprised if Paul Verhoeven or Tim Burton directed one or two of the episodes of this show! I can't believe Disney let it through, of all studios!! This is real biting stuff, and it's twisted, demented and weird. I loved it. It was my favourite Saturday morning cartoon and my pick as the best of Disney's animated series'. This was a show like "The Simpsons", where every scene was a rip-off of something. And yet it existed in its own imaginative world, not so over-the-top that it doesn't make some kind-of sense. Darkwing's enormous ego is the best rip-off of superheroes I have ever encountered. And those villains!!!! Batman would have stopped to say: Nice powers. As far as TV goes, especially animated TV, this is among the best of it, I think!

The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones: Hollywood Follies (1994 TV Movie)

A documentary.

[26 January 2001]

I have yet to see so many of these films and episodes of the TV Show. I thought I was going to be disappointed when I watched this film. I was wrong. It's not the same Indy as the Spielberg-directed films, but how could it be? Instead, this film was approached in a kind of documentary-style. Keeping in check with the other Indy films, there are, of course, recognisable elements. I particularly enjoyed the fictitious telling of the making of a John Ford film(I forget which one it was, if it was any of them). I don't think Indy is the main character in these films. He's like the missing link to tell us these stories that Mr. Lucas dreamed up. I don't think they explain certain questions that are constantly asked about older Indy, but I don't really care. That would be doing the series injustice. Each Indy adventure is approached with a James Bond-ish...approach. None of the adventures continue into the next one. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Now, if it was Star Wars, well...

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

The ultimate tragicomedy - and one of the most original films ever made.

[10/10 · 18 January 2001]

I laughed from the sheer fact that this film was bringing to the surface things I had known for years. A film like this should not be taken seriously quite simply because it evokes such strange insights that after you've seen it, you'd better bury them all again or a demented monster will emerge. But, god, is it funny!

Stanley Kubrick follows his own code of originality. His films are meant to be original ways of looking at the world. They are not designed to be pieces of entertainment. He is like the most art house of all Hollywood directors. He has this inane ability to allow people to take things seriously, whether it be about a doomsday device or a bunch of monkeys bashing skeletons with a bone. Let's face it. If Kubrick hadn't directed those films, without the symbolisim he applies, they would have been absolute messes of gargantuan proportions.

Dr. Strangelove is the most insane, stupid idea. It's a spoof movie. It's like the works of the Zucker/Abrams/Zucker company or the Austin Powers movies. The ideas evoked are just as silly. But Kubrick knows how to direct an idea like this. His genius makes this not only watchable, but one the best films I have ever seen. People underestimate movies like these, because they take well-known cliches and turn them into statling works of originality. Why do you think people like George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, Krzystof Kieslowski and, yes, Stanley Kubrick, have never won an Oscar? The ones who are teased are the ones to watch, I think.

One other thing: Peter Sellers. Good god. Who can possibly deny his genius?

Seinfeld (1989–1998)

One of the best TV shows ever.

[18 December 2000]

I don't watch much TV anymore. I'm sick of it. Shows that you need to watch every night to know the running story...I'm sick of long entertainment. Give me movies any day! Yet I could watch "Seinfeld" until the cows come home! Never has a TV show so amazingly used sitcom cliches and sitcom set-ups, etc. as the basis for it's material(which we have been led to believe over and over again that it's about nothing). It is a pessimistic show, but it also uses that as a basis for its imaginitve plots and inspired performances. I loved this show when it was churning out new episodes and I still love to watch the repeats! It exists in some bizarre parallel universe that emphasises people's self-centred tendancies. It's quite a moral show, too(in a satirical way. Don't get it wrong! It doesn't glamorise selfish behavior!). So many movies have been praised for using previous materials to create a piece of film that is entirely original. I place "Seinfeld" in the same category. My favourite episode is STILL "The Contest"(they say m************ is the ultimate act of selfishness).

The Truman Show (1998)

Peter Weir's greatest achievement.

[10 December 2000]

10/10

This film is an objective, bold, original masterpiece, housing Jim Carrey's best performance and Peter Weir's finest work of art. I consider this to be one of the greatest films of all time.

Peter Weir is, undoubtedly, the best director Australia gave birth to. I found out that Andrew Niccol, the writer, is a New Zealander not long after. Funny that Hollywood would consider such a biting project. Also the fact that it is poetic, not too long, superbly written and containing elements of film craftsmanship that I have never seen used to such brilliant effect. Why would Hollywood consider such a project? Proabably because Jim Carrey showed interest...

The whole experience is a detached one because it seems as though we are watching an assemblage of footage gathered up from shots of the Truman Show itself along with interview footage and just general "fly-on-the-wall" stuff. Looking back at the profound originality of the concept, I never suspected someone would want to use the idea presented in the film as the basis for an ACTUAL TV show. But, boy, did I underestimate the gullibility of general audiences!!!!

This can now be looked at as a satirical masterpiece because of all the stupid "fly-on-the-wall" shows we see on TV now. It truly is a statement on the influence of the media, etc. After seeing this movie, I was appalled at myself for being drawn into the world of TV. Now, after being there for that long, I pat myself on the back for making better observations.

This is the ultimate story of a man trapped by the influence of pop culture and an addictive source. It is subjective from the music and nothing else. I always believe music to be the anchor for everything in a movie, and the sparingly used soapie music in this is superb!!! What a beautiful film!!

Once again, 10/10.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Critics?

[9/10 · 5 December 2000]

There's just three things I want to say about this film that I forgot in my last comment:

1. Roger Ebert gave it ***1/2 out of ****. 2. If you're going to listen to critics, listen to the ones who liked it. 3. This is a Disney animated film. It's for kids. It's just a taster...OK, that was more than three things.

Three Colors: Red (1994)

What a way to make a movie.

[10/10 · 21 November 2000]

"Three Colours: Red" is an out-of-body movie experience. It is the third on the masterful Krzystof Kieslowski's powerful and original Three Colours trilogy, and it is the best. I've never seen a film like it. It is a masterpiece. See this movie. Who says foreign cinema is boring? This film is riveting! There is too much in this movie to begin making comments. I reckon this is the best film of the 90s(although I heven't seen Goodfellas or Pulp Fiction). It is JUST underneath "Citizen Kane". I love it! I recommend it to anyone in the right age! Kieslowski was one of the most original directors of all time. Such a shame that this, his finest work, was his last.

Citizen Kane (1941)

My honest opinion: No-one is allowed to have a favourite film unless they've seen "Citizen Kane".

[10/10 · 10 November 2000]

Well, that and "Casablanca"(which is "the" movie). Where "Casablanca" is hailed by critics from all times and places as "the" movie, "Citizen Kane" is hailed by critics from all times and places as the greatest film of all time.

Why? Ah, the immortal question. One of which I decline to answer. So many people have told me during conversation that they either hated "Citizen Kane" or haven't seen it. You want to be a film-goer? Then NEVER dismiss this movie!!!!!! This is the silent giant, the film that is very often dismissed and unfortunately so. There are so many examples like this, but "Citizen Kane" is the most ironic and unfortunate of all the classic examples.

I urge anyone bothering to read this comment to see this movie. I say again, you're not allowed to have a favourite movie if you haven't seen it. You tell me "Star Wars" is your favourite movie, I'll ask; 'Have you seen "Citizen Kane"?' You tell me "The Godfather" is your favourite movie, I'll ask; 'Have you seen "Citizen Kane"?' You tell me "The Blob" is your favourite movie and...well, I probably won't bother asking because you obviously have no taste, but you get the idea!

"Citizen Kane" is everything I had hoped for in a movie. It is not my favourite(It's number 4 on my list), but, seriously, how could movies get much better? It's one of those "before-their-time" films, it's a technological breakthrough, it's intelligent, emotional, entertaining, imaginative, the kind of film that you like to talk about. One thing it is not: It does not draw you into its centre as a kind of "out-of-body" movie experience. But, of all non "out-of-body" movie experiences, it is the best. In fact, if I had never had an "out-of-body" movie experience, this would probably be my all-time favourite film. But it's not. "The Wizard of Oz" is. Anyway...

10/10.

P.S.: See this movie.

Blithe Spirit (1945)

"Being John Malkovich", eat your heart out!

[10/10 · 9 November 2000]

I saw this movie after I read a recommendation in the TV guide and had never heard of it, but when I heard it was directed by David Lean, I was there. Wasn't I pleasantly surprised at what I saw! A genuine work of imagination; charming, witty, and slyly dark in tone(although it was filmed in technicolour). I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am comparing it to the recent "Being John Malkovich" because the way both films are employed is in a similar way. I wouldn't dream of revealing plot details here, but if you've seen "Malkovich" and liked it, I recommend this one.

It is interesting that David Lean (the "master of the epic") made a film like this in his prime. It just goes to show that his films aren't long, boring melodramas. They can be imaginative, funny and entertaining. I enjoyed "Lawrence of Arabia", but "Blithe Spirit" really surprised me!

10/10(!)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

The worst Indy.

[9/10 · 2 November 2000]

People are going to hate me for saying this! I don't think "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" is a bad movie. Not by a long shot! I love this movie! I give it 9/10! I just think of the Indy's it has the least impact. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" had a sense of magic and mystery to it, something that enabled this bizarre dimension to take hold of the audience's imagination. It also was a masterpiece of cunning subtext and pure action. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was just as inventive, just as entertaining as the original, just a little more over-the-top. "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" feels more mature and grown up.

This is a good thing, I think. It makes sense for a movie like this to be more mature when it is dealing with more mature issues. The unknown is the theme of the other movies. This movie deals with family matters more than anything. That's what adds to the new kind of entertainment this film evokes. This is the original bit. The rest is like a collection of newspaper clippings.

Oh, sorry, there's something else that's original! The introduction with young Indy is also original!! I thought River Phoenix was superb. The most elaborate part of the movie!

And as for the rest of the movie...

The movie is really not as colourful as the other movies. You see the punches hitting people, you see the bullets going through the Nazis' chests. In the others, you could see a definite 10cm distance between the fist and the face. No matter! There are some hair-raising moments.

I haven't got an awful lot to say about this one. I think there's a lot to like about it. Just don't expect anything spectacularly different from this and the other movies.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

I don't think I'll end up calling this one the best in the trilogy. I used to.

[10/10 · 2 November 2000]

"The Empire Strikes Back" is brilliant. Never has a sequel so elaborately outbeaten an original in quality! I rank this one up there with the greatest films of all time. Original version: 10/10. Special Edition: 10/10. I shall never forget this one.

Of the original trilogy, I think this one was the best. Of the Special Editions, I now think "Star Wars" is the best. This is only because it was such as elaborate update. I truly think Lucas wanted to outdo this one, because Irvin Kershner had made the better film. Lucas succeeded. He didn't need to do much to "Empire", though. This is such a complete film, with such a complete feel to it. However, I did love the update!

It's hard to describe this one. It is a dark, melodramatic fantasy told in the most detailed way. This has not got the all-round enveloping feeling that the original film has. It has a feeling that the world it is bringing us back to is a more convincing one. One that tells us it is possible more than it could be possible. It has all the elements of the original, but has a more mature, adult level.

I think I can honestly say that there is more subtext in the "Star Wars" movies than any others. It is not a cunning and biting satire or an overly offensive rip-off. It is basically a general feeling that there is more to the story than what is seen and heard. You can snese it in your nerves. Of all the "Star Wars" movies, I think "Empire" realises it the best.

I would not dream of spoiling this movie, nor to any movie. I like to think I just praise them and encourage people to see them. Just let me tell you one thing(POSSIBLE SPOILER): Don't expect a happy ending!

"The Empire Strikes Back" is an imaginative, intelligent masterpiece. Entertaining and enlightening. The scariest and yet the best of the "Star Wars" movies. Not your classic fairy-tale. I guess that's what I liked about it!

Three Kings (1999)

"Pulp Fiction" meets "Saving Private Ryan".

[10/10 · 27 October 2000]

People may think I'm a weird person for saying this, but after I saw this movie, I had a big, cheezy grin on my face. Never before has such an intense movie made me feel so alive and happy. It generates positive energy while covering serious subject matter. It is a weird movie. It is a sick movie. And it is a brilliant movie.

War has never been handled like this before. "Saving Private Ryan" showed us what war is like for those who fought it. "Schindler's List" showed us a story that took place during a war. This movie shows us a very recent war, a war that is still fresh in everyone's mind and so handles it in a modern way.

The film is set after the Gulf War and concerns American soldiers in dispute with Iraqi soldiers. "Three Kings"(I finally said the title!) does not have a very original storyline - which I would not dream of spoiling here - but the way it is done is unlike any movie I have previously seen. Roger Ebert said that most movies droll on in formula, but "Three Kings" is "awake and hyper".

The photography, to me, makes this movie. Never before has a film looked like it was shot on home video. This is documentary-style taken to a new extreme. An extreme in which we are taken into the most controversial insides of the movie(and of a human being!!).

The subtext in "Three Kings" is of an elaborate degree(my favourite moment is when we see a Bart Simpson doll on the front of a car). You have to see it to believe it! Be warned, though. It is sickly violent in parts.

"Three Kings" was not nominated for any Oscars this year. If you ask me, it should have been nominated for nearly every one of them!

10/10

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

...well, this is my favourite movie! What do you want me to say?

[10/10 · 27 October 2000]

I think this is the best film of all time. That is, of the movies I have so far seen. I've seen a few movies. I'm only 17 years old, by the way. I've seen enough to identify a "great" film. I only saw this one a few months ago and I have since been calling it my all-time favourite movie. But then there's the all-powerful question: why? Hm! Why indeed...

My all-time favourite(funny how we call it that) before this one was "Mary Poppins". This one has basically the same great elements I described in my comment on that film, only better. What more do you want in a kid's movie? I'm sure adults would prefer something of a bit more adult-taste, but that's what makes good kid's movies so great, the sly adult humour!!

The best kid's movies have sly adult humour. Just look at the grisly "Babe: Pig in the City" and the "Toy Story" movies. They are subtext-galore! But of course, the secret to a great kid's movie is attracting the kids. Once you've drawn the kids in, you know you've done a good job. Once you've drawn the adults in, you know you've done a great job!

"The Wizard of Oz" is great in sooooooooo many ways I will not begin to describe them!! Oh, all right, one way. The black and white(red and white?) beginning and end have more stark realism to them than most adult's movies and the anticipation of the colour brings the hyperactive imagination of this masterpiece forward in joyous splendour!

This film is a work of pure imagination, intelligence and entertainment. It enriches you in every way possible and leaves you feeling a sensation that can't be described as an emotion. How many movies can do that to you? Only one!

It has been said that no-one can truly lay claim to "The Wizard of Oz". Not even Judy Garland(who isalmost as good as Julie Andrews in "Mary Poppins") or MGM. I think that is a welcome relief to me, after scores and scores of "Alfred Hitchcock's..." movies and "A Film By..." appearing on the screen before a film. This film feels as though it has fallen from the sky or from "over the rainbow". I believe the soundtrack to be the most important thing in a movie and I think this movie has the best soundtrack ever. Don't ever change it! It is fine the way it is!

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Was there ever a crazier, wilder, scarier, wittier, more romantic, more adventurous, more action-packed, nuttier, crazier(oops, already said that), more un-freaking-believeable, more unrealistic thrill-ride

[9/10 · 26 October 2000]

I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!

WOW!! Every time I see this movie I am on the edge of my seat! What a movie!!! There is ten times more energy in this movie than the original "Raiders" (although I thought that was the better movie because of its intelligent subtext), but this is no bad movie! Not by a long shot!

This movie will definitely not appeal to everyone. There is some real sick taste to some of the jokes and some may consider it racist or offensive. Point taken. But I'll tell you this: even the most famous of film critics will tell you to just stop winging and enjoy the ride!!

The dry humor is there. The subtext is a little more surface layer, but its there. And the entertainment!! Well, the entertainment surpasses every action/adventure ever made! This movie is just plain fun, and on that level, it succeeds with flying colors!!!!

Mary Poppins (1964)

The most underrated film of all time.

[10/10 · 24 October 2000]

Oh, how I love this movie! I am 17 years old now. It was the first movie I ever saw and It has remained my favourite until this year when I saw "The Wizard of Oz"(I think you get the idea of my taste in favourite movies!!!). This film, of all the wacky kid's musicals made, is the best rival for "The Wizard of Oz" to the throne. Kid's movies don't come much better than this!! It is also one of the most original movies ever made.

I think the title "Mary Poppins" is the most misleading thing about the movie. Mary herself is not the main character of the film. I honestly think Bert is. Bert is the down-to-earth character who guides the children. Mary Poppins just dropped from the sky and added a little spice. Bert has all the real responsibilities. Of course, the story focuses mainly on the neglected children in an upperclass family.

I am amazed at how easy it was for Hollywood to forget this film. If you ask me, this is the best example of how to use a big budget and make a great movie. For a film loaded with special effects, elaborate sets, colourful costumes, amazing stunts and dance sequences - the list goes on - with an imagination to match, I've never seen a group of actors handle it so well!

Julie Andrews makes this movie. Her performance is the one every big shot Hollywood actor should be looking at when it comes to acting among special effects! And for a film debut as well!!!!! Dick Van Dyke is perfect and I love Mr. Banks' character because aside from all his boring behavior, he remains interesting in his quirky environment. This movie exists in a world of its own.

It's difficult to describe the world created in Mary Poppins as it is unlike any I've ever seen conveyed before. It is perhaps what I would describe as the land of children's dreams as I remember many a childhood dream of this kind. The clever thing about this is that the world actually exists. It is not a dream(like "The Wizard of Oz").

This is my second favourite film of all time. I think the only reason "The Wizard of Oz" is first is because it is not made by Disney. Disney has a formula that "Mary Poppins" goes by. "The Wizard of Oz" goes by the beat of its own drum. That aside, I recommend this film to absolutely everybody. I love it!

Oh, yeah, the soundtrack!! Second best soundtrack in a movie as well!(Guess which is first?)

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

One of the most original films ever made!

[10/10 · 20 October 2000]

I don't think there was a decade where more original movies were made than the 1980s. This was the one that sparked classics like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Dick Tracy", "The Neverending Story" and , of course, the other "Indiana Jones" movies. It is both a satire and a tribute to the old adventure serials shown on TV that Steven Spielberg hated and George Lucas loved. It is a very politically incorrect film with cartoony visuals (that I hope never get changed!) and a brilliant musical score.

I have seen this movie a million times and find it just as entertaining as when I first watched it on a Saturday afternoon in place of a matinee film. It truly is unlike any film I had seen before. Who on earth would have dreamed up an archaeologist as an adventurer? That is the basis for many things to come.

It is a strange sensation trying to put this film into words. It is dry, silly, nutty, constantly loaded with action and yet it remains one of the greatest films of all time. I'll see what I can do in describing it:

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is set in Pre-World War II times when the Nazis, apparantly, were obbsessed with religious artefacts and tried to take possession of the fabled Ark of the Covenant which contains some vast power. It really exists in a universe of its own (think "Being John Malkovich") and not ours which is what makes it such great escapism. The man who has been assigned by the U.S. government to track the Nazis down is an archaeologist named Indiana Jones. What follows is an epic set in several locales of weird beauty and surprisingly good places for chase scenes and fight scenes.

This movie is set in South America, North America, Nepal, Egypt, Tunisia (I think), the Atlantic Ocean and some unknown deserted island. It has fight scenes and "temple scenes" involving Nazis, drunken Nepalese men, swordsmen, marksmen, traitorous jungle men and one big, bad Nazi soldier. It also has the best chase scene ever in a movie involving numerous vehicles, weapons and endlessly creative opportunities. What I have just described is what is on the surface level.

The subtext in this movie comes from the universe it creates - and rips off. The sets look as though they have been built for destroying, the costumes look like they have been taken out of the circus, the make-up is deliberately bad, the acting is over-the-top and sentimental and the special effects are cheesy, tacky and meant to be that way. I hope they never update this film!

What makes this film convincing is the brilliant camera work, editing, direction, sound effects and music. They make the cartoony universe all the more convincing and it provides a balance for the sometimes biting subtext. The other side of the balancing act is done on the entertainment scale. I believe this film to be the best pure entertainment ever!

(One other thing. The character of Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. The most original anti-hero ever made. That "shooting-of-the-swordsman" scene shows just what kind of a character he is!)

I said before that Steven Spielberg hated adventure serials and George Lucas loved them. I found this out from a book on Lucasfilm's CV. This is what I think made the film such a spectacular success. This is one of my favourite films. a genuine original in the tradition of "Forrest Gump" and "The Truman Show". Never change it, Mr. Spielberg. You have done an amazing job! 10/10!!

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

It just keeps getting better and better.

[10/10 · 19 October 2000]

"No words to describe it!" "A masterpiece!" "Dazzling" "The greatest movie ever made!" There is something very strange about these words because, if you ask me, no other movie stuffed up Hollywood more. I do, however, agree with all the above comments used by IMDb users, except one...

"Star Wars" is not the greatest film of all time. "Star Wars: Special Edition" is one of them. I believe it has the potential to be the greatest film of all time, but we must wait for another update. I think there is more in "Star Wars" to be said tan any other film, but to actually say it would be doing it injustice. This is a film that you analyse to the nth degree but always come back to the same circuit of analysis.

I can understand why some IMDb users didn't like this film. It is corny, predictable, slow-moving and more of a space opera than an action-adventure. But when you think about it, these are the things that make it so great, because we know what to expect and we are able to view it a million times over.

To explain the storyline would also be injustice. There is an attention to detail so strong in this filom and all the others that takes our attention off the story and allows us to focus on the journey. Another reason is because it creates a world of such infinite possibilities, myths and legends that even a simple domestic dispute would make it interesting. This film tells the story in the most simple way, focusing mainly on the journey and letting the rest speak for itself (in some of the corniest one-liners ever).

This is a gem. A real original film. It is unlike any film made before. It is inspired by the old "Flash Gordon" adventure serials but does not satirise them like "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It does not even pay much homage to them. It just uses them as the basis for what unfolds - an epic, dramatic, operatic and elaborate masterpiece.

Variety is another word I use to describe this film. There are more types of actors in this film than any other, from stage actors to character actors, traditional actors to method actors, puppets to computer generated...things. This movie has - and is - everything! It is traditional, yet before its time. It is original yet contrived. It is slow yet entertaining. It is objective yet subjective. How can anyone not like this film?

No review of "Star Wars" would be complete without mentioning John Williams' musical score. That, to me, is what holds the film together. Without THAT music, it would have been a disaster. Yes, the special effects are superb. Not everything revolves around special effects, you know!

I said at the beginning that this film stuffed up Hollywood more than any other. To be honest, I think that was a good thing. After a few decades, it took the attention off the place, which is what I think George Lucas would have wanted ("I was never in Hollywood geographically"). This was not the "epitome" of moviemaking. Hollywood just thought it was and has tried to make something better ever since.

Critic Roger Ebert once said in an essay that Hollywood has given us three kinds of film genres: the Western, the musical and film noir. In a strange way, "Star Wars" is all three of them and so are the other films. Yes, I think the other films are great. Yes, I thought "The Phantom Menace" was underrated. To be honest, I don't think George Lucas could go wrong and I think the updated versions of all SIX of the films will be superb. Maybe "Star Wars" will end up being the best film of all time! What about that?

Titanic (1997)

In my opinion, a brilliant film, but I am so glad it didn't make it into the top 250.

[9/10 · 11 October 1999]

The day James Cameron makes "the best film on earth" is the day I hold a gun at a copy of "Star Wars".

I think Cameron has made some pretty good films. None of them are on my favourites list, not even this one, but there was a definite style or quality that I just can't put my finger on. It;'s like my fascination with director Jan De Bont(Twister). He doesn't make the best films on Earth, but he could do if he opens up a little more, or if he stops trying to be cool. I believe this is also where Cameron faulters.

He said his goal with this film was "to show the world the Titanic's brief and glorious life as well as the tragic irony". In my opinion, his goal was to convince people that what he had created was "the best movie ever made" and he succeeded. I thought this was a "good" film but not "the best" film. People have just become zombies when they were led to believe this.

I will say this loud and clear: I do not like Leo. I also believe that he, like Cameron, is a fad that people have fallen for and not seen through. No wonder they worked together on this film. Leo too could be a great actor, if he would just let go of his egotistical nature and "cool boy" attitude.

Yes, all I'm really complaining about in this film are: the director, and the lead actor. The rest, I thought, was phenomenal. The visual effects(I couldn't compare them to anything else that year), the impressive acting, the sets, the costumes, the inspired plot(telling an untold and deliberately fictitious story about the Titanic and what could have happened had it not been for the iceberg), and many more technical and psychological aspects. Cameron obviously wanted several life issues featured in this film(i.e., class and social standing, hope, placing too much confidence in one thing and recieving nothing from it). This I believe he achieved. I thought his cover-up goal of telling the story of what happened before the Titanic sank was achieved, but his other goal, creating the best film ever, was not.

This never should have won best picture at the Oscars. It never should have won even half of the awards at the Academy Awards ceremony. I believe it only won those awards because there was nothing better that year(Good Will Hunting, As Good As It Gets, L.A. Confidential, The Full Monty, all were not worthy of the Best Picture role, in my opinion). I just thank the internet movie database for thinking the same, as I discovered on the Top 250 list, when, much to my relief, this film wasn't listed.

*********9

(You know what should have won? "Men In Black")

Men in Black (1997)

What IS it with this movie???

[8/10 · 25 June 1999]

People have strange attractions. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and I don't know why. I saw it twice at the cinema and I am one of those crazy people who owns this movie. I must have seen it about thirty to forty times and I still can't get to the bottom of it. It's just one of those movies that you can analyse until the cows come home but in the end it's just a very enjoyable experience. The acting was mediocre, I thought. Of course, Will Smith is hilarious in his role. I think he should take up full-time acting and leave his singing career behind. The special effects were convincing enough, nothing unique or stunning. The plot was simple yet complex enough to keep us going and the costumes were just...BLACK!! What gets me about this movie is that it doesn't try to be something special. It doesn't try to break new ground with special effects and it doesn't deliberately draw us in with moving moments and touching scenes. It just gives us a general piece of entertainment. I got the impression that I was just watching funny-guy Will Smith acting in a low-budget foreign movie with a heap of special effects. Speaking of funny, the movie was just that. That was what was also good about it. Comedy was not what I expected from this movie and I was utterly surprised when I laughed my head off in the cinema. Not something one does normally when watching a movie that has been advertised since the beginning of the year. I still don't know what it is with this movie. Maybe I'm just a sucker for Spielberg(did I mention him at all???)...

Inspector Gadget (1983–2023)

A mystery to be solved. Who better than...anyone else???

[25 June 1999]

The fact that the hero of this show is the wacky sidekick made this show one of the most clever and original shows of its time. All of the gadgets that...Gadget used just shows what a fantastic policeman he would be, but where would the humour be? No. Better to leave the cases to the geeky niece who "tags along" with the cases and ends up solving them herself. The addition of the Brain character was a clever one. That dog was always my favourite character. He only added to the humour contained in this show. A really wild and wacky show with a few mysteries still to solve. Well, one really. WHAT DOES DR. CLAW LOOK LIKE??? I guess I'll have to wait until the movie comes out. Apparently Rupert Everett is playing Dr. Claw and we all know what Rupert Everett looks like, don't we? Matthew Broderick should be great as the big Inspector himself. I just hope he can pick up from where he left off in that shocking "Godzilla". If there are repeats in America(as I know there are in Australia), then I strongly suggest watching them. Well worth a kid's afternoon after school(Better than doing homework, isn't it).

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

There's no such thing as the perfect movie.

[9/10 · 6 June 1999]

Is there such thing as the perfect movie? After coming out of the theatre, I thought that what I had witnessed had to be. Then I thought back to beautiful movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Philadelphia" and the original "Star Wars". It's my personal opinion now that there could never, ever be the perfect movie, but this one was soooo close!

My comment about the original "Star Wars" was that I looked at the "Star Wars" saga not as a group of movies but as an ongoing myth that consists of six chapters, each with their own central storyline and basic plot but with the continous storyline that streches from the beginning of this "movie" to the end of "Return of the Jedi". This is why "Star Wars" could be described as "so simple, yet so complex". This chapter in particular serves basically as the introduction to the saga. The Trade Federation is the basic enemy but will eventually become the evil empire, and the Galactic Republic, which is seen first off as the most powerful, will become the suffering Rebellion. Perhaps people were disappointed somewhat by the fact that this was Episode 1 and it fulfilled its Episode 1 duties, telling the story about the way the Star Wars actually started, much like "Return of the Jedi" was the concluding movie that wound everything up in a nice little passage. All of the "Star Wars" movies, once all have been made, should then be seen as one long movie broken into six divisions which can be watched from beginning to end.

But speaking specifically about this chapter, most people found that this one was separated somewhat from the other films and didn't have that feeling of Han Solo saving the day or Darth Vader breathing endlessly. I thought it was great to be transported to the same galaxy but with new characters in it. It was something of a relief not to have the same old characters back again in "all-new, exciting adventures". The acting was certainly better this time around, although it was obvious that Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor seemed somewhat separated from their usual movies dealing with human issues. They were good in their roles, though. I definitely felt compassion for them, much like Han Solo or Luke Skywalker. It was interesting seeing more than one Obi-Wan Kenobi-type character onscreen. Qui-Gon Jinn was more the Obi-Wan Kenobi than Obi-Wan Kenobi was. Contrary to popular opinions, I rather liked Jar-Jar Binks! i won't say why, I'll just say that I found his slapstick comedy did work for "The Phantom Menace". I would have loved to see the typical R2-D2/C-3PO chemistry again. No such luck, though. C-3PO was not on-screen for very long. Natalie Portman was OK. She reminded me a lot of Carrie Fisher. Samuel L. Jackson would have been great as a lead character. He stood out in his acting ability, very spiritual and meditative yet strong and firm. The one actor who I though made the movie was the Ian McDiarmid who reprised the role of Emperor Palpatine in the form of Senator Palpatine. He seemed very sneaky and cunning, almost revealing his inner-evil, but conceals it to a point. He definitely stood out from the rest.

Speaking of speaking out from the rest, I suppose you're wondering why I haven't mentioned special effects. Probably because I found them SO spectacular, SO stunning and SO convincing that when I walked out of the cinema, I was staggering. The mistake I made was trying to absorb every single aspect of the movie in one sitting. You just can't do that with a film like this(note I said "film", not "movie"!)! The sound effects, the acting, the screenplay, the effects and everything a film-critic or an actor or a director would try and do to sort the good from the bad...I had to admit defeat! The pod race, well, I haven't seen Ben-Hur, but if the chariot race is better than that it will HAVE to be good! The lightsaber fights were dazzling. I really felt for Qui-Gon Jinn when......Oh, sorry, there are still people who haven't seen it, aren't there?

I think I have expressed myself enough positively. I have to make a final judgement and it is negative I'm afraid. This is why there could NEVER be a perfect movie. JAKE LLOYD!! I loved "Home Alone" it was my favourite movie for ages, but when put into a universe full of war, aliens and spiritual concepts? I'm sorry Jake, but I think you'd better settle for a kid's movie set on EARTH! Darth Maul probably wasn't the most evil character in the galaky, not a Darth Vader by a long shot. I've done enough complaining. Perhaps I can start to truly understand it when I see it a second time. I'm not a "top ten" type of person, but if this movie beats Titanic then it probably would deserve to. Overall, a very dramatic and childish introduction to the legendary world. I couldn't help but be taken by surprise. After reading half of the the book beforehand(a BIG mistake, I might add) I wasn't expecting to be blown away. Literally, though, I was blown so far that you could say I was blown to a galaxy far, far away! A superb achievement by George Lucas. He truly has made something spectacular, and aside from the pessimism I brought to this comment, hey! Nothing's perfect!

South Park (1997– )

Three episodes was enough for me...

[28 May 1999]

I do admit, this show has its funny moments. The absolute wildness and insanity of it definitely outweighs the opponents, "The Simpsons" and "Beavis and Butthead", but it is certainly too over-the-top for me. Parents be-warned. This is not a cartoon!

I was reading a review in the paper once about some of the most watched kids shows. I could have guessed the rest, but then I saw this show listed among them and then I realised what was happening. The kids will ask their parents; "Mum, can I watch South Park?", and the mum will reply; "What is it", and the kid will say; "Don't worry, mum, it's only a cartoon!". Only a cartoon. That's the understatement of the millennium. I imagine that all of these cartoon shows are only cartoons so that more possibilities can be put in. If it was live action, there would be limits to what the characters can do.

All in all, this is not the most preferred show for me to be watching. Sickening, fast-paced and rude is loved by some but loathed by others, but I urge parents never to let their kids watch South Park! IT-IS-NOT-A-KID'S-SHOW!!!

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

I knew there was more the first time I watched it!

[10/10 · 28 May 1999]

I can honestly say that my serious obsession with Star Wars has only started recently. I am anticipating the new Star Wars with awe and this one, so far, is one of my favourite movies! After my first viewing of the film, I just thought to myself, "Is that it?", thinking that there surely must be more. I had already seen Episodes 5 and 6 and when I saw this one I still felt that it was missing something. I can say now that people should not be considering this to be a movie. Sure, it's filmed as a movie, it is shown at a movie theatre and it was intended to be a movie-that was George Lucas' intention-but it isn't a movie. It's the fourth chapter of a myth, a myth that is almost complete.

After so many years of Star Wars and with the obsession becoming so vast that absolutely everything has been translated from it, I don't think George Lucas realises what he has done. He has invented the modern day myth! He has created something that will go down in history as world-wide culture and yet he is still saying; "It's only a movie." It puzzles me that after so long, Mr. Lucas has still failed to realise what he has done. I think there should be a temple with a golden statue of him in it, but hey, if he continues to make this myth then we're happy!

This movie is what it is thanks to the creative genius that is George Lucas. Certainly, the special effects were what pulled people into movie theatres to watch this, but they got so much more than what they bargained for. Every type of emotion, character, culture, religion and more is in this chapter, providing creative and inventive genius. The plot is simple yet becomes far more complex when it continues and unfolds more and more stories as it goes along.

Perhaps this movie was considered classic because it was made by a Hollywood studio. Hollywood was breathing down Lucas' neck for a while and I believe that it was 20th Century Fox themselves that gave this movie a bit of class and a feel of watching the good old films of the fifties, except with a lot more creative energy involved. I think that George Lucas still didn't get enough freedom in the past and was held back in the first one(or is that fourth one?). Episodes 5 and 6 were different. Lucasfilm financed it themselves, but they had different directors at the helm. With the upcoming chapter, Episode 1, George Lucas is given unlimited freedom and is able to do whatever he wants. It's my opinion that if Episode 1 was released back then, it would have been considered too confusing and complex, but thanks to Hollywood, George Lucas has been able to create possibly the best "movie" of the millennium, and he can now complete his vision that takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...