Sideways (2004)

Don't get disappointed if there's actually no scene where two guys get stuck in a bottle...

Genre: Adventure Comedy Drama Romance

Starring: Paul Giamatti (The Illusionist; American Splendor), Thomas Hayden Church (George Of The Jungle; The Specials)

Directed By: Alexander Payne (Election; About Schmidt)

Overview: Two friends go on a week-long road trip, taking in some golf, some local wineries and a couple of their women, before Jack's wedding.

Acting: Awesome! That twitchy neurotic versus that care-free thrillseeker. Those two have real chemistry. Everyone did an amazing job, and the funny scenes were hilariously delivered.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: The road trip shots of the wine regions and the golf courses were real nice. There were few innovative shots and good angles. Again, very impressive.
Rating: 7

Script: The script was realistic and hilarious. All the characters speak truth, and there's definitely wisdom in the writing. Excellent.
Rating: 8

Plot: The plot's the thing. Amazing story, and they throw in such great and hilarious scenes, but each one is very character building, especially the nude scenes...
Rating: 10

Mood: The mood is calm, followed by turbulence. Dramatic and heavy, followed by funny stuff. All told though, this is a love story that is masked completely in a "guys on a bender road trip" story. The underlying and constant theme of wine really made the story a lot better.
Rating: 9

Yes, he's drinking out of the spit bucket...

Overall Rating: 86% (Awesome, Any Way You Look At It)

Aftertaste: Finally a movie that fits the rating system! Wine, you know. This movie is great. There are few love stories that entertain men, and few road trip cheating-on-the-soon-to-be-wife-Hell-Week stories that any woman would like. This is a perfect blend of the two and it's no wonder it was nominated for Oscars aplenty. See it. You'll like it, no matter who you are.

Boogie Nights (1997)

Rollergirl, numchuks, leisure suits... What else do you need?!

Genre: Drama Comedy

Starring: Mark Wahlberg (Three Kings; The Italian Job), Julianne Moore (The Hours; The Shipping News),

Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson (Punch-Drunk Love; Magnolia)
Overview: A caricature of the late 70s porn industry, we follow the exploits and tribulations of Dirk Diggler.

Acting: Don Cheadle, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, William H. Macy. It seems that every up and coming actor (that made it) from the late 90s is in this. They all do a great job, and the cast is all-star. The direction was excellent.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: The images were terrific. Those long single take shots where we watch the character go from room to room, and the vast party scenes with tons of people interacting. Time and again I was impressed by another spectacular shot, oh, not to forget those film reel shots... Then there's the juxtaposing in the end sequences, terrific.
Rating: 8

Script: "My wife's over there with an ass in her cock, and you want to talk to me about lighting?"

This script is brilliant. The dialogue is exciting, vibrant, and really real and hilarious. Almost every single scene had absolutely perfect dialogue or narrative. Keep an eye on this writer, Paul Thomas Anderson. He wrote Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love too, no wonder - see those!
Rating: 9

Plot: The movie was about as long as Dirk's dong. Too big IS possible, but this writer has a thing about epic film, and if someone can hold our attention for that long then kudos to you. He did it too. The plot is all encompassing. From introduction to ascent to descent, but not only him, his friends and lovers too. This was really well laid out, really well thought out.
Rating: 8

Mood: The mood was Holy Jumpin' Disco Porno! Immersed into the style and the mahogany, the moustaches and the crazy boots, and the fonts, oh Lord. Every single scene exuded and dripped tacky kitsch. From Rollergirl to white suits Saturday Night Fever dance floors, and that tour around his new house... The best part was that when the scenes has to be serious, they toned down the look just enough. Amazing.
Rating: 10

There's Dirk, covering up his Diggler...

Overall Rating: 86% (Get Down!)

Aftertaste: The film is amazing! I don't know why I overlooked it for so long, everyone told me how great it was and I just always thought I had something better to see. Sadly mistaken. Don't make that mistake yourself. And for the ladies out there, you'll appreciate that last scene. :P
People, seriously: see this.

Solaris (2002)

A very different space saga, and certainly not for everyone

Genre: Sci-Fi Drama Romance

Starring: George Clooney (Syriana; O Brother, Where Art Thou?), Natascha McElhone (Ronin; The Truman Show)

Directed By: Steven Soderbergh (Sex, Lies, And Videotape; Ocean's Eleven)

Overview: A psychiatrist is sent to rescue a team of researchers, but instead finds himself engrossed in the reason they never went home.

Acting: There were a couple of issues, Jeremy Davies role of Snow was a tad underdirected. Viola Davis plays a touch too paranoid for my liking. The headliners do a great job though. I'm not a Clooney fan, and this movie made me think to reconsider.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The shots are terrific. I had a bit of a problem with the darkening of the top of the screen to represent memory flashbacks, but Solaris is pretty and the sets are appropriately futuristic. What did it though, were the artsy film noir-esque shots that kept popping up. Really nice.
Rating: 8

Script: The script was great, if empty of direction. Luckily I'm not one of those people who asks, "what's going on?" every 10 minutes, so I give it kudos in spite. They explain just enough to keep you guessing along with the players.
Rating: 8

Plot: The plot's little details were definitely hard to follow in that "everything must be explained" kind of way. Remember the end of 2001? Nothing so vague, but now you get the idea. As for the overall plot, very believable, no holes. Good stuff. Neat concept. I like it when I'm not lead by the nose.
Rating: 8

Mood: The mood is the thing. Combined with a very believable near future realism, the slow trip we take into the character's haunted memories and the psychological ordeal which he faces is improved by the themes and imagery. The danger in putting so much stock in theme is this: if someone doesn't like it, it can ruin the whole movie. Be careful of this one. If you don't like it, you'll hate it. Rating: 9

No Total Recall three-titted space hookers in this one...

Overall Rating: 80% (Real Bright)

Aftertaste: Everyone told me this was going to be boring and stupid, except for the person who lent it to me. We have very similar tastes in film, so I put my faith in him. Now I understand how both opinions can stand. In a way it's not sci-fi at all, it's pure true psychological thriller, but without all the suspense. I liked it. It's more of a slow exploration of memory and the mind, and since we aren't "Spielbeurged" through the plot and imagery, the regular movie crowds may not like it. I'm not the regular movie crowd...

This is Spinal Tap (1984)

Umlauts over the 'N'! They kill me!

Genre: Music Comedy Rockumentary Mockumentary

Starring: Michael McKean (A Mighty Wind; Best In Show), Christopher Guest (Mrs Henderson Presents; Waiting For Guffman)

Directed By: Rob Reiner (When Harry Met Sally...; A Few Good Men)

Overview: The Classic Mock Doc about Cock Rock

Acting: The acting is ad-lib, as it is for all these types of Mock Docs using these actors. A Mighty Wind, Best of Show, and Waiting for Guffman all have the same crew, but (I believe) this is the first of them all, and it's probably the best.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The documentary style is good, nothing too exceptional, but they do a good job making it look real. Not terrific, not distracting.
Rating: 6

Script: The script goes right to the edge without going too stupid over the top. The actors have a great rapport and the fact that it's truly improvisational makes a big difference, you can tell. Funny, funny, funny stuff. Excellent.
Rating: 8

Plot: The plot takes us to this quite successful band on the way up. Turns out that throughout the progress of the film it kind of goes down, and down some more, then down again, and next they're playing at a puppet show. It's a nice trip through their American tour.
Rating: 7

Mood: The tongues, always with the tongues! The spandex, the hilarious songs, and Stonehenge? If you were ever a late 70s, early 80s fan of Cock Rock, you really are missing something by not watching this.
Rating: 8

The film was so successful they made an actual album after the film.

Overall Rating: 72% (Good Stuff)

Aftertaste: The film is one of those where people say, "You haven't seen Spinal Tap?" And I know why they say that because the hype was huge back in the day, and the film is still relevant now, especially when compared to A Mighty Wind, it being the same actors and everything. It's not a movie where, upon hearing one has not seen it, I will open my eyes wide wondering how being a Canadian and not seeing Spinal Tap can possibly co-exist. It's good, yes. I'm glad I saw it, yes. If someone asks me how it is? I'll say, "Go to my website."

Yellow Submarine (1968)

If I had a yellow submarine, I'd totally get that checked out by a doctor...

Genre: Animated Family Comedy Adventure Fantasy Musical (USA, UK)

Starring: The Beatles (John, Paul, Ringo, George)

Directed By: George Dunning

Overview: Pepperland is attacked by the Blue Meanies. The Beatles are recruited to take the Yellow Submarine back to Pepperland and save the populace!

Acting: The Beatles, admittedly are not the best voice actors, and their acting skills can't adequately be gauged by the typecasted roles they've been given. But since you asked...
Rating: 6

Cinematography: The visuals are what this movie is all about. It's psychedelic and amazing and creepy and weird and cliché all at the same time. I was disappointed a couple of times at the lack of imagination that went into a one or two of the scenes, but the rest of the movie really made up for it.
Rating: 7

Script: The script is full of puns. I remember this being funnier, (granted I was 7 when I first heard this), and there were some good ones, and some groaners, all in good fun, but really not much else was going on in the way of dialogue. It's really all about the music anyways (which I won't include under script).
Rating: 6

Plot: The plot was a little disjointed. It was about a submarine that goes from realm to realm to get back to Pepperland and the adventures and songs along the way. Expect nothing deep.
Rating: 6

Mood: The psychedelic and musical mood is what this is all about. With great sequences like the animation for Eleanor Rigby, and the land of all those strange animals, and the Foothills of the Headlands... This is what I remember well.
Rating: 8

Paul, John, George and Dingo

Overall Rating: 66% (A Bit Of A Sinker)

Aftertaste: The reason I bought this movie was pure nostalgia. I was thinking about recently, and I was in Montreal, and it was right there, available, beckoning to me. I don't regret the decision, though I don't remember it being so short, and I wish they has just cut the boring sequences rather than force us through them as they played some obscure tune...

Seven Years in Tibet (1997)

No the kid's name is NOT TIBET.

Genre: Drama

Starring: Brad Pitt (Fight Club; Kalifornia), Jamyang Jamtsho Wangchuk

Directed By: Jean-Jacques Annaud (Enemy At The Gates; In The Name Of The Rose)

Overview: This is the true story of Heinrich Harrer and his long stay in Tibet, where he befriends the young adolescent Dalai Lama.

Acting: The acting is great, everyone follows good direction and this goes off without a hitch, thought no great Oscar moments. I still wonder if Brad Pitt was doing an apt Austrian Accent. I guess I'll never know.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The panoramic scenery of the city of Lhasa and the Dalai Lama's palace, along with the Himalayas are grandiose as expected. Sadly nothing terribly ingenious was presented to us beyond that. Real good stuff though.
Rating: 7

Script: Again, the writing was good but not amazing. What I found odd throughout was that everyone was speaking English. The Tibetans, the Chinese, the Austrians, and the Germans. But in one scene, I swear the soldiers were speaking Tibetan. What the hell was that about? Overall really well written, especially the Lama's lines.
Rating: 7

Plot: The movie ran a little long I found. Too much prep and pre Lama, too little depth of Heinrich and the boy versus the story of Chinese occupation. But again, overall, a tremendously told tale.
Rating: 7

Mood: The best parts, honestly, were the culture setting mood shots. The opening scenes show us Great Nazi banners and black uniforms all over in Germany, juxtaposed by the peaceful pilgrimages to Lhasa to the four year old Dalai Lama. The Tibetan chanting made me wish there was more of it, and I found myself wanting to be immersed a little more in the visual aspects of the great dining halls and meeting rooms of the monks and council members, which sadly we did not see. But again, top notch stuff, very professional.
Rating: 7

And no Brad Pitt doesn't try to punch the Dalai Lama in the ear...

Overall Rating: 70% (Seven Times Ten, Even)

Aftertaste: I read that Brad Pitt was banned from China for his role in this film. For that alone, I guess it's worth seeing. If China fears such truth, then it must be good right? My expectations for this film were right on par with what was delivered, and though good, it will only be one of the many movies I point to in the video store and say "seen it" without further comment. Everything about this was good, but I found it lacking the excellence it was capable of delivering.

Big Fish (2003)

I don't see a fish, I see a tree, but Burton's weird like that.

Genre: Drama Fantasy Comedy Adventure

Starring: Ewan McGregor (The Pillow Book; Trainspotting), Albert Finney (Erin Brockovich; Corpse Bride)

Directed By: Tim Burton (Charlie And The Chocolate Factory; Beetle Juice)

Overview: A son explores the truth of his father as he dies, rather than the tall tales his father spun to him throughout his youth.

Acting: The acting was good, Ewan McGregor, Danny DeVito, you can't go wrong. Ewan does a good job of making the fantastical as fantastic as possible.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The cinematography was good, cars in trees, run down homes, great big giants, but really when it came down to it, where's the Tim Burton I know and love? Batman, Nightmare Before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands. What does all this have in common? GOTH. Stick to what you know Tim, and maybe we won't be disappointed, to hell with branching out.
Rating: 7

Script: The dialogue was well written, but it wasn't all that great. I expected these great grand tales of adventure, and it was all common love life stuff, nothing truly fantastical. Just a dude's regular life, embellished.
Rating: 6

Plot: The plot let me down, boy. I thought it would be all mystique and adventure. It wasn't. And stop showing me Helena Bonham Carter's ugly-ass feet. This made me think "When is this going to get good like everyone SAID it would?" The answer: Never. And the end? Blah. Stupid fish.
Rating: 5

Mood: The mood was well maintained. Some bubbly yet touching and sad yet hopeful tale like in The Majestic, but minus the relevance to history or truth. The lesson here is you can go on living a lie, and when your father's dying, let him escape into a world that you've helped him invent, even though 24 hours ago, you told him to go to hell for lying to you for your whole life.
Rating: 6

Looks like Carter's been spending a little too much time in a Fight Club...

Overall Rating: 62% (The Tall Fish Tale Is That This Is Good)

Aftertaste: This movie almost made me fast forward to the good parts. It wasn't a waste of my time, but to everyone who told me it was good? I don't understand you. I want to watch The Station Agent again cause it's better and more quirky, and more real and a better lesson teacher. That's what Big Fish makes me want to do. It was totally overblown, and I don't get what people are raving about. Don't believe the hype.

Cannes International Ad Festival (2004)

Mmmm.... ew.

Genre: Collage of contest submissions

Starring: Advertising from all over the world

Directed By: Too many to name

Overview: This annual festival is a competition of the best commercials from 2004.

Acting: These are the best commercials of 2004. 30 seconds is all the people have to impress the audience and get them to buy stuff. It's a tall order for actors, especially since most commercial actors are fairly new. Well the acting was very well done, all round.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The witty cinematography was less impressive than last year. Much less art than I expected. The focus really wasn't on the cinematography this year.
Rating: 6

Script: The scripts, on occasion, made no sense, the dramatic scenes weren't as poignant as they could have been, but the comedy was gold. Great stuff.
Rating: 7

Plot: The plots ranged from non-existent to simply put to very good. It's not fair really. They don't have the time to get a full story out, but for the sake of the rating system, overall the ideas did keep us focused enough to wait for the next one. Sometimes though they repeated too many commercials of the same theme, like Bud Light did. It got old after awhile.
Rating: 6

Mood: The mood of the Cannes Festival has to be added to the context of actually being in a theater full of other people laughing and saying, "hmmm" the same time you are. For this reason it jumps up a notch. Nice presentation.
Rating: 8

"Me? Oh hell yeah I LOVE commercials! I love corporate AMERICA!!!"

Overall Rating: 68% (Waddaya Expect? They're Commercials...)

Aftertaste: The ads were good, as expected, but there was less art and the friend I went with added that the selections for the Gold Award weren't always the best of the bunch, it seemed quite obvious that there was some politicking going on. Ultimately it was better last year: more art, more serious commercials that left you with something to think about rather than something to laugh about, but hell it's good sometimes to go to an art house and know that the place is packed.

Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events (2004) - * TOP 5 * - Viewed Twice

Neo-Victorian I call it...

Genre: Family Adventure Comedy Fantasy (USA, Germany)

Starring: Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind; The Mask), Emily Browning (Ghost Ship)

Directed By: Brad Silberling (Moonlight Mile; City Of Angels)

Overview: Three children become orphans and are sent to live with Count Olaf, whose interests lie more in the fortune of their parents than the care of the children.

Acting: The acting is impeccable throughout, Jim Carrey is awesome as always and the kids are great. Even Dustin Hoffman makes an appearance to raise the bar that much more.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: The vast detail that went into the sets makes this a big-screen must see. Don't wait to rent it! The fantastical settings makes everything fall perfectly into place. A true visual spectacle.
Rating: 9

Script: "He tried to kill us with a train!"
"How could he get a train?"

The script is one of the best I've heard. The delivery and the writing is quirky enough to keep the words fresh, witty and interesting, and the obvious interruptions meant to twist the plot along add that nervous feel to the situations. The little monologues are ever poetic. This is a masterpiece of words. Rating: 10

Plot: Based on three of the children's books, the plot carries us on a children's adventure of discovery and escape only to become re-entwined within the machinations of the villainous but wise Count Olaf. The best part about this plot is that it takes you around from strange to even odder character and even involves the youngest orphan, a one-year-old, in the escapes the orphans take part in.
Rating: 9

Mood: When you go Goth, you're great in my books, so it's bumped up automatically for that, but the mood doesn't stay somber. Some scenes are vivid and happy, until juxtaposed with the darkness of the theme. I love the way this is a kid's movie, while still being frightening and entertaining. From start to finish, literally from the opening credits to the ending ones, we are immersed in the feel. No one left the theater until the credits were almost finished, the animation sequences were too interesting. Honestly, this will shake the foundations of children's entertainment. Better mood than that too commercial Harry Potter, by a LONG shot.
Rating: 10

"Give me that child before she eats the living room table!"

Overall Rating: 94% (Holy Jumpin' Un-Unfortunate. See this.)

Aftertaste: Best family movie I've seen in years. Better than Shrek or any other Pixar film I can think of, sorry Antz, even you. This is up there with Snow White: a Tale of Terror in it's feel and visuals, which is a gothic and horrific retelling of the story, far more sinister than you could imagine. I recommend this (and Snow White) to any single person, ever...

Anywhere.

Hostage (2005)

It's possible you missed this one when you blinked that day

Genre: Action Crime Drama Thriller (USA, Germany)

Starring: Bruce Willis (Sin City; Pulp Fiction), Kevin Pollak (End Of Days; The Usual Suspects)

Directed By: Florent Emilio Siri

Overview: A once acclaimed hostage negotiator turned small town police chief must do what he can to save his own family.

Acting: The acting was actually good. I read a review that says the acting is poor, but I think the few cheesy scenes are more the director's fault than any actor's. Ben Foster has a great way of looking tortured, and he made the movie for me.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The budget's good, so the explosions and fire are top-drawer, but there are maybe a few too many slow-mo dramatic drawn out moments, thought not so many that it wrecks the film by any means. The gore effects are quite graphic and don't pull any punches, adding a healthy element of fright and pain.
Rating: 7

Script: The script was well written! Yes, some moments were below par, but this movie is based on a novel, so it isn't all cheese and corny lines.
Rating: 6

Plot: The plot is very decent, it's based on a novel, so it can't be all that bad, though things seem to fall into place a little too perfectly. The premise is better than the final predictable conclusion, but the trip is actually quite entertaining, and the character Mars has a way of being an almost ever constant Deus Ex Machina, changing obvious scenes in his actions. He's a nice plot twist all in one character.
Rating: 7

Mood: The typical Hollywood tale of hope through adversity is predictable and because of this you won't really see this movie as anything special. The twist of making the Chief get more involved by having his family be put at risk alleviates this a little, especially since his family's kidnappers aren't constantly tying his hands and telling him what to do. This is action though, and the action has it's gripping moments, certainly.
Rating: 6

"Don't go into the light!" "What the hell, does EVERY six year old see dead people?"

Overall Rating: 66% (Matinée Material)

Aftertaste: The fact that I had zero expectation and saw this as a promo for free in theaters definitely makes this better than it is. You won't see this movie in too many homes, but when you're fighting over what to see and she's seen everything but this and you won't watch Sense and Sensibility again, this is an acceptable compromise. Fades quickly, but not with a bitter taste.

Cube Zero (2004)

I think you'll agree that tagline does appropriately reflect the opinion of most viewers.

Genre: Sci-Fi Horror Mystery Thriller (Canada)

Starring: Zachary Bennett ("Road To Avonlea"), Stephanie Moore ("Queer As Folk")

Directed By: Ernie Barbarash

Overview: In this prequel to the original Cube, one of the Cube maintenance men descends into the maze of traps to rescue a woman.

Acting: Horrifically melodramatic as expected, but some scenes were just over the top. The lack of trust amidst equally trapped victims shows us plainly that the director is obviously also the writer, and he rattles weakly in both.
Rating: 5

Cinematography: The images are good. Simple dark rooms and up close shots of really gory deaths kept true to the original film. This is what you'll rent this movie for.
Rating: 7

Script: The script had some good writing, but when it mattered it failed, and was poorly delivered by the actors, though I blame the director for this. I'm sure his vision unfolded the way he wanted, sadly, not the way I wanted.
Rating: 4

Plot: The plot stared off really good, here's some people trapped in a maze of rooms, trying to get out. This time we focus on the maintenance guys and the experiments they perform, which is frankly really unfair after all. The middle though, was filled with the same old traps as the original movie. I can (and did) come up with a few more original traps than were used, but I suppose the director blew the budget and ended up having to use stock footage. The end was appropriate but a real let-down, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered, namely: Who actually let this guy do another sequel?
Rating: 4

Mood: The mood was a little less paranoia-inducing from the original, though this one give us more backstory such as why the Cube was invented and by whom. Unfortunately the writer decided to make it hyper-futuristic instead of the 'conspiracy theorist's vision of unknown technology' like the original implied. With a budget not adequate to sustain the vision, the future looks retarded, with tattooed foreheads and metal gloves bleeping over Saran-wrap keyboards. The guy with the prosthetic eye looked ridiculous, as though a ball of tin-foil was stuck there. Troma Studios should sue these guys for ripping them off.
Rating: 4

I don't even know how they managed to get one shot that makes the movie look good...

Overall Rating: 48% (A True Time Trap)

Aftertaste: The original is really good. The sequel, Hypercube, was higher budget, but too out there. This one takes us back to the original, but with none of the genuine fear and character development of the original. The third, I just realized, also ruined the ending of the original Cube by it's sinister implication that even if you leave, you don't live. Yuck. You know it's a bad sequel when...

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

Oh would you look at that, a yellow submarine!

Genre: Adventure Comedy Drama

Starring: Bill Murray (Broken Flowers; What About Bob), Owen Wilson (The Wedding Crashers; Shanghai Noon)

Directed By: Wes Anderson (Rushmore; The Royal Tenenbaums)

Overview: A Cousteau-style Marine researcher hunts after the shark that ate his partner. Along the way he is re-united with his son, who joins him for the ride.

Acting: The cast is all star, so as you can expect, it's a well done production. The direction is strange at times, but you soon find out that this is the mood of the film. Murray is funny as always. Seems his humour is more subtle these days, since Lost in Translation.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: Big budgets make for experienced cameramen and art directors, but this film had some really great additions. CGI fish and 70s style low-budge Cousteau documentary clips throughout give it a nice weird feel. I really liked the part where they have a cut out of the ship, and they go through explaining what each section is for, and now and again, they re-use this set. Point being: very original.
Rating: 9

Script: The script is weird. It's well written, the continuity is there, but the lines aren't really laugh out loud hilarious, it's more on of those quirky intellectual comedies, kinda like I Heart Huckabees, though there's no science lesson, it's all fantasy.
Rating: 7

Plot: The plot is pretty solid, A touch of Moby Dick vengeance, with some family strife thrown in, and some good action, which was hilarious. The end really comes together and there's just enough drama to entertain us plot seekers.
Rating: 8

Mood: The mood was the whole movie. Every scene had some quirky oddity about it, and the adventure was fantastical throughout. Be careful though, this is not the kind of comedy that will keep you in stitches.
Rating: 9

It's sad being a neglected killer whale, doing all you can to get attention...

Overall Rating: 82% (You'll Be Immersed)

Aftertaste: The Life Aquatic is a safe bet if you're over 25 and looking for the exact opposite of American Pie. It's a good story and digs a little at the subtler parts of your brain, creating synaptic burn-in in some of those un-used areas of your mind. Hence, it'll stick with you for a good while.

The Merchant of Venice (2004) - * HIDDEN GEM *

Not a story about how a guy needs to get three tumours that look like people removed from the side of his head

Genre: Drama (USA, Italy, Luxembourg, UK)

Starring: Al Pacino (Serpico; Dog Day Afternoon), Jeremy Irons (Lolita; The Lion King)

Directed By: Michael Radford (1984; Dancing At The Blue Iguana)
Overview: A Venetian Christian agrees to a strange loan agreement with a Jew: 3000 ducats, if not repaid on time paid by a pound of flesh. This classic tale also includes the strange test for the betrothal of Porche.

Acting: The performance of Irons seemed a touch melodrama, but I'm sure the director had a lot to do with that. As for Shylock, I think the director left the perfection that is Pacino untouched. His portrayal was melodramatic, but it really seemed that the character necessitated it. Pacino is really impressing me these days and he bumps this film up a full two notches.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: The shots of Venice and the costumes and the slow pans; real well done, and lends so much weight to the overall effect of the film. Amazing.
Rating: 8

Script: Seriously, it's Shakespeare. It's bound to be good right? And in a way your expectations are elevated. Some of his plays are confusing, filled with doubt as to the meaning of the words, of the scenes, but this was a good adaptation, especially in the climax and the end. The Bard has a way of making sure that every line is poetry. Granted, that was his specialty, and he is immortal for it.
Rating: 9

Plot: I found the climactic scene to be a touch long and in the end it would seem that a Jew so focused on the law would know it a little better than to endanger his wealth and his life for a bond, for an agreement. Shakespeare obviously threw a touch of realism out the window for the sake of drama, but really good overall.
Rating: 7

Mood: The costumes and the spitting in Jew eyes and the weight of everything Shylock touched...Inspiring. It's no wonder every actor wants to do Shakespeare. The director faces quite the challenge when it comes to The Bard insofar that it is very difficult to ruin. When it comes to mood however, the mood can be wrecked quickly because of such expectation. I commend the director in this, and he made it work, and the foreign suitors added to it all.
Rating: 8

Did you know that the law made it so that Jews hat to wear read hats? True story.

Overall Rating: 82% (Worth A Slice)

Aftertaste: The movie is best seen in theaters, it really helps the experience. There is a certain mood created by the crowd, much as, I suspect, was intended with the original audiences. If you liked Hamlet, (any version) and Titus, which I highly recommend, then you really will like this. It's better than Henry V, I can tell you that much. Pacino really shines. This will stay in my head a good long time.