forehead1 Reviews

Caddyshack (1980)

Aged like a cheap wine...

[4/10 · 23 October 2006]

...in that it has turned to vinegar.

Until last weekend it had been a good decade since I last watched Caddyshack, and my memory was still tainted by childhood recollections of numerous one-liners and some hilarious set-pieces. Now a little older, a little wiser, and the film even older it comes across as outdated and muddled, with very little to recommend it to the first-time viewer.

Sure, some jokes still work and the performances of both Murray and Dangerfield still manage to raise a smile, but the disjointed plot-less storyline irritates and the puerility of some of the gags is quite unbelievable.

The format chosen by the SNL crew is understandable but the failure to develop (or even look into) the characters to any degree leaves a clumsy, confused mess that literally feels like watching an extended run of standalone (mediocre) sketches all cobbled into one.

The late seventies/early eighties brought about many teen comedies (Porky's, Animal House, etc.) that have passed the test of time. Caddyshack alas cannot be considered one of them.

Where the Heart Is (2000)

There are chick-flicks, and then there is Where The Heart Is

[4/10 · 15 September 2006]

Having been tempted by the promise of a story about a girl making home in a supermarket, and seeing the actresses involved, I opted to watch this film ahead of another in the expectancy that it would be at least the most watchable of the two. I write this short review now in the hope of warning another poor sap not to make the same mistake.

Natalie Portman plays Novalee Nation, a pregnant teenager from Tennessee who gets ditched by the father at a Wal-Mart store in a small middle-of-nowhere town in Oklahoma. Having no family to fall back on she lives secretly in the supermarket until the birth of her child, when she is befriended by the local townsfolk who take her in.

Cue plenty of vomit-inducing scenes as Novalee learns that not all redneck hicks are knuckle-dragging rapists and serial killers, some offering her true love over the years as she grows from naïve waif to confident adult.

Fortunately, the plot is so insultingly predictable that I was able to reach for the sick-bucket well within time for each 'tear-jerking' moment. The characters are the worst kind of clichéd stereotypes and there is nothing here that hasn't been done – much better in most cases – somewhere before. The two-hour runtime really begins to drag.

Plus points? The direction cannot be faulted and is successful in bringing across the atmosphere of this warm but desolate place. Ashley Judd's talents are wasted as Novalee's friend and confidante, and Stockard Channing is criminally underused as the woman who invites Novalee into her home - possibly the only character depicted with more than just a single dimension to them.

Portman holds the film up, her looks and style as impressive as ever and almost making a likable character out of somebody who is so fundamentally self-centred. Unfortunately her attributes alone are not enough to save this poor example of a 'chick-flick' from its inevitable resting place: sleepover parties for pre-pubescent girls.

If you're over the age of twelve or have a Y chromosome in your body, avoid.

Biker Boyz (2003)

Awful poorly directed high-speed crash of a movie

[2/10 · 14 July 2006]

A film about drag-racing motorbikes was never likely to win any screenplay awards, but the least an undemanding audience could expect is some brainless thrills, a couple of decent-enough performances and perhaps an enjoyable but throwaway 100-minute experience. Well, at least the brainless part was achieved…

Suffice to say, it's a long time since I've seen a major cinema release directed so badly. Reggie Rock Bythewood fails spectacularly at just about every aspect, not least his utter inability to inject any feel of excitement into the integral racing scenes. The bikes appear to be doing a sluggish 30mph and the effects shots and camera movements used to mask this are laughably amateur. Even the limited stunts are totally unimpressive. Surely a few bucks spent on the odd jump or explosion here and there isn't too much to ask? Needless to say there were strict restrictions evident on the shoestring budget.

"But Larry Fishburne's in it!" I hear you cry. "It can't be all that bad?" Unfortunately the erstwhile Morpheus just adds to the horror, the poor bloke obviously realising just what he'd gotten himself into early on. You can see the wincing embarrassment on his face as he's forced to spout out tedious lines while strapped into uncomfortably snug leathers, playing a cringeworthy 'hip dad' role not seen since early '90s sketch shows.

The rest of the cast are even worse, and coupled with very poor editing the film comes across like lots of individual scenes cut together rather than as one flowing storyline. The ill-fitting soundtrack follows suit (banal post-2000 hip-hop/RnB mostly) as it is often completely out of synchrony with the 'action' on display.

If you must see this film, it will only be for the benefit of viewing some truly hilarious (but utterly unintentionally so) moments (e.g. the 'tragic accident' at the start), which actually added the second star to this almost so-bad-it's-depressing movie.

In comparison, The Fast And The Furious looks like the bloody Shawshank Redemption.

Dead Heat (2002)

Thank God for 24

[1/10 · 5 October 2005]

Kiefer Sutherland is and always has been a talented, powerful actor, who showed promise at a young age but has yet to find his place on the big screen. Why then, you may ask, did he decide it was a good idea to star in this inane piece of made-for-TV drivel? We can only hope he fired his agent afterwards.

The plot involves a retired police officer (Sutherland) being convinced to buy a stake in a racehorse by his small-time crook brother (Anthony LaPaglia), only to get caught up in a caper involving the local mob. All while trying to win back the affections of his estranged wife (Rhada Mitchell). Or at least I think that was what it was about. It's hard to concentrate when you're fighting the urge to fall asleep for the best part of 90 minutes.

An extremely dull series of events follow: so basic, unexciting and unfunny you have to marvel at how somebody could possibly pitch such a script, let alone succeed in getting it produced. A week-night, graveyard-slot film if ever I've seen one.

Usually I would think nothing more of such an effort, vowing to avoid future post-midnight screenings of movies I've never heard of. But with the acting talent involved in this it warranted a comment. I feel relieved for Sutherland and LaPaglia who have since struck gold with their prime-time television hits, and Mitchell who is continuing to forge a nice line of critically-acclaimed Hollywood roles (although, to be frank, neither of them manage to add any spark to the dreary proceedings around them in Dead Heat).

The only saving grace for the actors involved is that this effort flew so far under the radar it was never in a position where it could seriously endanger any of their careers.

That was an hour and a half of my life I will never get back.

The 39 Steps (1959)

Incomparable to the novel

[2/10 · 30 September 2004]

This 1959 version of The Thirty-Nine Steps is so far removed from the original work by John Buchan that it does neither any justice to compare the two.

As it is, it has to be taken as a standalone movie and, as such, it fails miserably.

The plot, performances (particularly those of the support actors) and set-pieces are all woefully under-par for even a movie of this modest magnitude. The pacing is extremely questionable, with the all-important finale seemingly tacked-on to allow more time for a pointless romance to emerge two-thirds into the film. There is also a slight comedic theme running throughout, odd and inappropriate for an alleged taut espionage thriller.

Avoid.

2/10

Identity (2003)

Lets itself down

[6/10 · 5 February 2004]

(CONTAINS SPOILERS)

Identity is another example of a film suffering from the 'Sixth Sense Syndrome', where a movie cannot resist throwing a number of plot twists into the closing chapter - whether they add to the picture or not.

The film starts brightly - quickly getting into the story and cleverly showing how all of the characters' actions led to the group coming together. The following hour keeps the tension up, with a number of red-herrings thrown into the mixture to ensure this is not your average run-of-the-mill murder mystery. The dark and stormy surroundings also work wonders, complimenting the remote location to create a really nervy atmosphere. Then it gets weird.

Don't get me wrong: I liked the death-row convict/psychosis revelation, and felt it - initially - added to an already entertaining and original picture. However, the writers obviously felt this alone was enough to satisfy the audience and did not put the effort into successfully integrating it into the plot of the rest of the movie. Really, this shock should have been brought in 20-30 minutes earlier (or the run-time extended by this amount), allowing it to develop into the story and not just appear as a tacked-on afterthought. Regrettably, Identity nose-dives from this point on, with twist after surprise after shock crammed into the remaining minutes, making redundant the great work that had preceded it and leaving you feeling like you've just watched a slightly more bizarre conclusion to 'Along Came A Spider'. The less said about the final couple of scenes, the better.

Could've been good, but one or two plot twists too far render Identity into just the 'watchable' category.

6/10

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Not intolerable, but certainly cruel

[3/10 · 20 November 2003]

Not the worst film I've ever seen, however I could think of many better ways of spending the two hours of my life I wasted in that cinema.

I couldn't care less who made this film, Coen brothers or not it was a very run-of-the-mill and drab picture. Worst of all, for a supposed comedy there was hardly a smile raised.

Dull, overlong and predictable. The crimes Hollywood seems to be committing far too often these days.

3/10

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Awful, Simply Awful

[3/10 · 6 November 2003]

The Matrix: What has happened to this once great premise? Was it the success of the original that caused the filmmakers to disappear completely up their own arses? Or did they just lose their heads in the dollar-signs floating all around them to produce this mess?

Reloaded was a disappointment, Revolutions is an atrocity.

The worst film I've ever seen at the cinema. 3/10

Black Hawk Down (2001)

Yawn

[3/10 · 3 June 2003]

You cannot make a movie that is nothing more than a two-hour shoot-out. It just doesn't work. Apart from the fact that the 'shock' of the fight wears off after a while, having a battle scene that takes up 75% of the film's run-time leaves no room for character development - and hence you could not give a monkeys who lives or who dies. This was the same problem with 'We Were Soldiers', where all of the storyline was condensed into the first 30 minutes, freeing the remaining screen-time to be dedicated to nothing but non-stop gratuitous violence. You need to even out the action scenes with advancements in the plot to give the story any meaning and to keep your audience's attention.

What's even worse is that the battles aren't even that impressive. Certainly the visuals, sound and editing were better in both 'We Were Soldiers' and 'Saving Private Ryan' (a film made some years ago now).

There are obviously certain historic issues that need to be addressed, but when a movie is this dull anyway, who cares?

Any film that has me fighting to stay awake on a Friday night must have something seriously wrong with it.

3/10

Spaceballs (1987)

The worst spoof ever made

[1/10 · 27 May 2003]

(And one of the worst movies ever produced)

There is no doubt in my mind that this is an awful, awful film. Anything that has me fighting to keep my eyes open for 90 minutes is going to be bad, let alone a 'laugh a minute' comedy that doesn't ever manage to raise a smile.

It took me 16 years to get around to watching this, and all I can imagine is that decent humour was thin on the ground back in the late 80s. Now I know this to be false, so why on Earth do I know so many people who consider this film to be amusing? It defies logic.

What makes it all the worse is that this fails with a SPOOF - probably the easiest form of humour to produce to a decent standard. 'Spaceballs' would fail to get a pass mark if it was written by 16 year-old students for an A-Level assignment, let alone made as a major Hollywood production. When I was at school a group of us produced a short radio programme spoofing Star Wars. It was about as funny as being stabbed repeatedly through the heart, yet for its 15 minute duration managed to be more amusing than the material the entire length of Spaceballs showcased.

Mel Brooks' films are notorious for being either hits or misses. This one is definitely a miss.

1/10 (Yes, it's that bad)

X2 (2003)

I just wrote a review of this film

[5/10 · 8 May 2003]

But due to the pop-up advertisements this site now has crashing my Explorer (YET AGAIN) all was lost. And I can't be bothered to write it up again.

Suffice to say, this angered me almost as much as X2. A prime example of what is wrong with Hollywood today. Taking a decent, original movie and producing a thoughtless, boring, action-filled rehash that anyone who has been going to the cinema for over five years will have seen a thousand times already. And yet the masses love it.

Where do we go from here?

5/10

25th Hour (2002)

Nothing happens

[5/10 · 6 May 2003]

The Royal Tenenbaums was an excellent example of how you can make a good movie from a thin, broken plot - just by developing the characters and making them exciting and intriguing. 25th Hour tries to get away with this by following a number of sub-plots into dead ends, hoping the whole thing will have some sort of cohesion come the end. It doesn't really work, and the sad thing is that there are plenty of opportunities to develop a really good story here.

Spike Lee must take the brunt of the criticism - the direction is less than subtle and is an obvious attempt to distract from the plot's shortcomings. Yet another example of style over substance in Hollywood. This film - and Lee's direction - is so far up it's own arse at some points it is cringeworthy to watch. You can imagine the stage direction in some of the scenes, "Okay Ed, really go for it here - after we add the music this'll be your Oscar scene..."

Not awful by any means, but the fact is without the names of Norton and Lee attached, this film would have past unnoticed.

5/10

Equilibrium (2002)

Equilibrium falls at the first hurdle

[5/10 · 27 March 2003]

Sadly, no matter how good Equilibrium could have been it was always going to fail due to it's plot shortcomings: namely the premise that every 'controlled' member of the state is unable to experience any feelings. If this were the case then there should have been no evidence of any sort of joy, anger, frustration, panic, and all of the other "sense offences" we see conveyed by almost everyone (drugged or not) throughout the film. The theory doesn't hold any water either: with no feelings nobody would be responsible for their actions and therefore would go about doing anything they please (which, strictly, would be nothing as they would have no desire to do anything and therefore would just rot away, which wouldn't bother them either as they wouldn't be scared of death - but that's a whole new can of worms in itself). The result would be anarchy. Even the forced-repetition of everything in their lives could not stifle this.

The movie is also brought down by the ludicrous ALL ACTION last 10-20 minutes. It seems as if the writers couldn't be bothered spending the time writing out a decent finale, so they decided just to fill it with special effects and stunts and hope nobody would notice. Too many films are guilty of this and if we don't start making a fuss about it this will continue to happen.

It was always going to command comparisons with The Matrix but that is not surprising given it was produced mere months afterwards and doesn't even try to hide it's attempts at 'emulating' the aforementioned picture. No wonder then why the producers thought it best to shelve it for a couple of years rather than grant it the 'rip-off' tag it would have rightly received back in 2000.

Nevertheless this is a watchable flick which - given better writing - could have been a lot better. Bit of a shame really.

5/10

Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)

One of the worst films I've ever seen

[2/10 · 4 March 2003]

In fact, the only reason I have given it a rating of '2' rather than '1' is that it's SO bad it's almost laughable. Almost.

The original 'Under Siege' was a surprisingly watchable offering, but this poor excuse for an action film is so abysmal even hardened thrill-seekers will be looking at their watches after ten minutes, eagerly awaiting the credits. Everything about this movie is awful, none the more than Seagal's own performance: without a shadow of a doubt the worst showing by any actor or actress I have ever seen in a major motion picture.

I don't even know why I am wasting my time thinking about this film anymore. Just heed my message: Don't ever watch Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.

2/10

The Stand (1994)

Good film but not a patch on the book

[7/10 · 7 November 2002]

This is still worth watching - especially if you can't find time to read the book - but beware even with it's six hour run-time it cannot manage to convey the amount of detail King provided in his novel on the characters or the storyline.

It's also a shame that - from a book that is so character-orientated - a number of the actors display a kind of cheesy-ness more often seen in daytime soap operas. The main cast do play their parts well enough though.

The film was always going to be a disappointment compared to the book, after all the majority of Stephen King adaptions have been less than impressive. A couple of extra hours to fill in the gaps would've helped too.

However if you haven't read the book or are prepared for the TV-movie package it comes in, then The Stand is still enjoyable enough.

Film - 7/10 Book - 9/10

Road to Perdition (2002)

Decidedly average

[5/10 · 11 October 2002]

I notice this film has already made it into the imdb top #250, which puzzles me somewhat considering it's one of the most run-of-the-mill films I've seen in years.

Not wanting to drone on about it, I just felt there was nothing there: the plot was incredibly thin and predictable, and seemed to act purely as a vessel for Mendes' (impressive) direction.

After looking forward to seeing Hanks playing a 'bad guy' for once, I was disappointed (although admittedly not surprised) to see him playing a character with not a bad bone in his body. Yes he has an 'evil' job, but his morals are good and we are on his side throughout the film. And watching him playing the quiet good-guy for the 1,000,000th time in his career means there wasn't even room to concentrate on developing interesting characters (a la American Beauty).

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing inherently wrong with it - there's just nothing unique with it either. True story - the day after I saw it somebody asked me what I watched at the cinema the day before. It took me 30 seconds to remember! 5/10

We Were Soldiers (2002)

A view from across the pond [Could include spoilers]

[4/10 · 14 March 2002]

(A different perspective is needed for the non-Americans reading here.)

I am bewildered by anyone claiming this film is "moving" in any form whatsoever. It is plainly just another Saving Private Ryan clone, using a true story and occasional shots of families back home to detract from the fact that 75 per cent of what we see is simple gratuitous violence.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Saving... and thoroughly enjoyed the gritty battle scenes depicted here. I just take offence to the fact that this movie - and it appears many of its viewers - believe there is something deeper just because of an over-long opening half-hour and sporadic moments of gorping realisation from Gibson. The brief sub-plot of the enemy trooper went almost unnoticed and was a feeble attempt to portray both sides 'equally'.

The battle scenes themselves were not immune from fault. Some of the extras were going down like they'd just been tugged by a bungee rope, and 'invincible' Gibson managed to waltz around, head held high, like he owned the place for the entire three days without getting a scratch. True story huh? It reminded me of an old-fashioned war-movie at times, when you knew as soon as a soldier mentioned their home/wife/kids (delete as appropriate) they were going to be capped within the next five minutes.

Some moments are incredibly cheesy and I found the typical Yankee-doodle-dah predictable and tiresome. I would have had more respect for the film if it had kept to Gibson's character's claim that they were fighting for each other, not the country; yet what do we see at the end - the defeated enemy officer finding a 'stars n stripes' on the victorious battle field, the losers lying dead behind him.

I was going to comment that Hollywood's blind patriotism must be boring even Americans by now, but looking at the views on this board it appears I am mistaken. It was obvious this film was going to be a success after the September tragedy, but I just hope it doesn't help to stoke the fires of the 'war is good/revenge = justice' attitude President Bush seems to be emitting in the current state of affairs.

Engrossing battle scenes, but the rest of the film tries to pretend it's something it's not. 4/10

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Disappointingly disappointing

[6/10 · 5 February 2002]

When I first heard about this film I couldn't wait to see it. 'Another quirky film with a Fight Club twist' I was told; 'If you liked Twelve Monkeys and Memento [loved 'em] you'll enjoy this.' Not necessarily true.

While watchable, I was left with an empty feeling when exiting the cinema. I was hoping for so much more, but all I got was a below-average movie with a good ending. An interesting idea, I feel Cruise snapped up the rights to 'Open Your Eyes' without thinking about how the film would come across in the mainstream. Crowe tried his best, but I don't think enough was added to make the improvements the film needed. While enjoying the last third (to a point - anyone who states it isn't taking huge liberties regarding Total Recall is kidding themselves) I was only just managing to keep my attention after the fairly drab bulk of the film. Yes character building was a necessity in this story, but the love story alone was not enough for me to warrant 90 minutes + of my viewing. A new angle or sub-plot needed to be implemented.

Sadly I wasn't even kept thinking throughout. I knew very little about the film beforehand but I could predict it like a particularly badly written episode of Neighbours from fairly early on in the picture. Once again: disappointing. 6/10

The King of Comedy (1982)

Almost a good film

[6/10 · 11 January 2002]

While there is no doubt The King of Comedy is an innovative, encapsulating film, I feel it is let down in two major areas.

First, the style of the movie is changed midway from mixing between Rupert's fantasies and reality to a conventional linear narrative. Here I feel the alteration detracted from my enjoyment of the film: the first half keeps you guessing ("Is this really happening? If not is it going to happen later?" etc.) but the remainder of the film is fairly straightforward and also predictable.

Secondly, I am fed up with seeing De Niro in the role of normal-ish bloke with a psychotic edge. Despite the film being released in '83 I didn't see it until 2002 and had already tired of watching De Niro play similar roles many times.

As it stands The King of Comedy is slightly above-average. 6/10

Space Truckers (1996)

The worst sci-fi ever?

[2/10 · 6 January 2002]

I'd never heard of this film before I caught it on the telly last night. I do hope it was never given a cinema release as this would be an insult to the silver screen and movie-goers alike.

Was it supposed to be serious, was it supposed to be funny? Why the outrageously basic plot? Does anyone actually care?...

Awful film.

2/10

The Jackal (1997)

Did anyone else want The Jackal to win?

[4/10 · 28 December 2001]

After all that preparation I was looking forward to seeing Willis come out on top. Never mind.

What did I think about the movie? Put it this way, the "hero" of this film is a convicted IRA terrorist. Nuff said.

(A generous) 4/10

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

If you've never read the book...

[4/10 · 19 December 2001]

...or are over twelve years old, I suggest giving this movie a miss.

Not being a fan of the Fantasy genre I didn't think I'd enjoy it but usually when I think like this a movie surprises me. Not this time. I left the cinema feeling I'd wasted three hours of my life and thinking I should've read the book beforehand. It wasn't that I didn't understand anything in the film, just that all my mates who had read the book seemed to enjoy it, and the rest of us didn't. But then again, if a story is good enough it should lose little impact in transferring to the big screen.

I won't go on about the faults - although the repetitive storyline (battle, walk; battle, walk) and the needless over-acting are worth a mention. It was aesthetically pleasing, but huge sets and great CGI don't count for much when you are fighting to keep your eyes open in your chair. There are only so many times you can gasp at a huge building/statue/mountain before you get bored and start demanding an interesting plot.

This film would've been a flop if the book wasn't so well-known. As it is, thousands will come to see "how it comes across" on the big-screen. These people won't know what it's like to see the story for the first time in this way, and will probably find it difficult to understand why the rest of us keep a blank expression throughout.

To cap off, if you enjoyed the book you're likely to enjoy the film. If you've never read the book you'll be looking at your watch every five minutes from an hour into it, trying to forget how long you'll be in there.

Kids will like it though.

4/10

The Man with Two Brains (1983)

One of the most underrated comedies of all time

[8/10 · 19 December 2001]

An extremely funny movie, it deserves to be up there with Airplane! and The Naked Gun in the best 'stupid-funny' films of all time.

Steve Martin excels as the surgeon who falls in love with a dis-membered brain, and Kathleen Turner is perfect for the heartless gold-digger wife role she is given.

I am amazed at how many people have never heard of this film, let alone seen it. Go watch it now - I guarantee you'll be quoting it for months.

Scary Movie 2 (2001)

More of the same (rubbish)

[4/10 · 11 September 2001]

Despite finding the original Scary Movie an incredible disappointment I was dragged to see this much-of-the-same sequel.

The opening 10-20 minutes are actually quite funny; there are hit-and-miss moments but generally the jokes hit the spot. I found myself laughing at both the Exorcist parodies and the cringingly disgusting "Caretaker", and was preparing myself to be pleasantly surprised. However I should have known better and the film quickly descended into the same boring junk as the original.

What is so infuriating about sitting and watching a film like this is how you can watch it and KNOW in yourself: "I could write something funnier than this". 'Spoofing' is one of the easiest forms of humour yet the writers of these Scary Movie films still seem to be able to miss the spot on so many occasions. The majority of the jokes are lame and predictable and I felt embarassed being amongst fellow adults who were laughing hysterically at the most pathetic scenes. The makers have also managed to miss many obvious comedy moments which - while being predictable - would have at least added some generally amusing moments to this weak attempt at a spoof.

I was also ashamed to see the amount of scenes that had been stolen from other films. I am not talking about the parts that had been spoofed but rather the bits that had been taken straight from other COMEDY movies, such as the cat attacking Cindy (remember There's Something About Mary, anybody?). And why was this film given an 18 certificate when it was clearly designed to be enjoyed by viewers in the lower-age teen bracket?

I am a young adult who enjoys 'toilet-humour' comedy films, but I did not enjoy this. It just isn't funny.

Memento (2000)

Terrific original movie

[8/10 · 11 September 2001]

After a summer of so many disappointing cinema "Blockbusters" the film I enjoyed most over the warmer months happened to be a video, watched in the comfort of my own home.

After spotting it in my local Blockbusters (how ironic!) I remembered a generous review I'd read a few months back and decided to give it a whirl. It was the best decision I made all summer.

I won't go into details on the plot of the film (there's plenty of others on here already) but I will say this: Memento is the most original, intelligent film I have seen in a long long time. The 'reverse' narrative might not be for everyone (if you found it too difficult to follow you are obviously too stupid to be watching films like this) but it was a new idea that worked perfectly with the story line involved.

When I started to watch it I saw Teddy had been shot and realised the plot was to unfold from there; I thought: "Hmmm, interesting idea - but it won't keep me interested". How wrong I was. The movie flows perfectly throughout and the writing and directing ensures you are permanently engrossed from start to finish. The beginning creates the illusion that you know what is coming, but this is quashed as the plot starts to unfold and you realise that even though you have seen the outcome: you have no idea what is coming next. I felt that without the slightly weak end to the film (well, beginning of the story :-)) this would have made it into my all-time greats list. As it is, I gave it a 'very good' rating of 8/10.

However, seeing as this particular style of non-linear narrative is unlikely to be reproduced often, Memento could well go down in history as one of the 'classics'.