AmateurMovieReviews.com

My rating: 5/5

When I started watching this film I had no idea what to expect and was confused as all hell. With the film only having about 10 minutes of dialogue and no apparent plot, I can see why some would shy away from it. As the movie progressed, it became more and more apparent that Eraserhead is abstract and not everyone’s cup of tea. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the beautiful(In an odd way) shots and the room for interpretation that Lynch provided. He was tedious with every angle, shot, and sound in the film. Instead of using a score or music for his film, he used carefully distorted industrial and mechanical sounds. By doing this, he successfully created the environment that this movie relied strongly upon. The entire film is much like a painting rather than a movie. Lynch was used a series of images, sexual symbols, and sounds to personify the environment and make the viewer feel like they were there themselves. He conjures up a dark, dehumanized parallel universe that makes you feel sorry for those living in it. Different scenes enticed awkward emotions and responses such as the dinner where he finds out she is pregnant. He tapped well into the mindset of a young male and took that point of view. For instance, the dinner scene. Meeting her mom was just awkward as hell as they painstakingly tried to hold conversation. Then shortly after the father asks him to cut the chickens followed by the mother’s proclamation that Mary is pregnant(She also makes sexual advances towards him). This is something that any young man fears dearly, and the atmosphere of the film reflects this. In another scene you discover that Mary has moved in and that the child was born. The child just happens to be a reptilian monster wrapped in gauze and cries hysterically all the time. Eventually, Mary leaves the baby with him and moves back in with her parents. Again, this scene invokes the fear of any young male. The fear of: having a messed up child, the loss of sleep that comes with a newborn(In this case, reptile), and the fear of abandonment(Not to mention the small things that happen such as her taking up the whole bed and covers). As the movie progresses, he just sits there and listens to the baby cry and watches a lady in his radiator sing(It is important to note that the lady in the radiator is a reoccurring symbol throughout). He has also shown a love interest in the woman across the hall from him. At the end of the film, he cuts the gauze away, stabs the baby monster and it begins to grow and fill up the room. The closing scene is of him and the radiator lady hugging in a blast of divine light. The movie is full of strong imagery and symbols like I said, so I’d like to share my interpretation.

Symbols: The opening scene starts with a man(Who I think is some type of holy figure) on a black planet pulling levers and levitating a sperm-like creature from Henry’s mouth into a hole followed by a transition to Henry walking home to his ratty apartment. My opinion is that it is an obvious depiction of sex/fertilization.

As we’re introduced to Henry and his apartment, it quickly becomes evident that he is lonely and extremely anxious. He doesn’t receive any mail and struggles to speak to his neighbor(He wants to hit it). We’re then taken into his apartment which is a one-flat, minimalistic dump. Henry puts on some music and then looks into the radiator for a brief moment and the scene ends with a bricked over window view(Representing the captivity his anxiety has put him in (He can no longer see the outside world for what it truly is). The entire scene shows how lonely he is and his resulting anxiety(Another fear of a young male).

Later on in the dinner scene, the father asks Henry to cut the man made chickens because of his arm injury. Henry replies ” Do I just cut them like regular chickens?” He then cuts into the chicken and it starts convulsing, twitching, and ovulating. The father asking him to cut the chicken is a right of passage, giving him his daughter making him a father figure(Head of the household) himself.

After Mary moves in, he receives a worm in the mail and hides it from Mary when she asks if there was mail. He then falls asleep transitioning into a dream sequence with the lady in the radiator. As he watches her sing on the stage, little worms like the one he got in the mail are falling all over the stage. As she sings “In Heaven Everything is Fine” the deformed woman steps on the worms. Suddenly we’re back in Henry’s apartment where Mary is tossing around. He starts pulling giant worms resembling the one from the mail out of Mary . He then looks over to find the worm he hid alive and dancing then it eats him. Immediately, it’s back to his apartment where the sexy woman next door locked herself out and asks to sleep over. As Henry is attempting the put his mack on, the baby is screaming and he tries furiously to hide it. As he’s doing his thing with the neighbor, they melt down(Hard to explain) and he is back in the radiator. Henry steps on the stage and touches the singing woman. All of a sudden, the man from the opening scene replaces her and a large tree is brought out. Henry starts to panic and his head falls off, showing the baby’s head underneath. I feel that the worms represent his poor qualities(Regret, Guilt, Fear) that are causing his anxiety and the giant worms coming from Mary represent the burden he placed on her. The small worm dancing is meant to taunt him, telling him that no matter what he does he cannot redeem himself. Also, the worm eating him represents the overwhelming anxiety as it consumes his soul as well as his life. The beautiful woman across the hall represents everything he desires and cannot have. He hides the baby from her so she won’t see his burden and have sex with him.

(There’s a scene where a kid finds his head on the street and takes it to a factory where they make erasers out of heads. Can’t really figure it out).

He then wakes up alone with the baby and tries to visit the neighbor(He thinks he got with her the night before), but no one answers. The baby begins laughing at him and the woman appears with another man. Henry then angrily cuts the gauze and pokes at the monster baby’s organs. The baby grows massive and the lights go out. Then a flash to the man on the dark planet attempting to stop the machine(The world Henry’s anxiety has created), but to no avail. There is a flash of light and he is hugging the lady from the radiator as they’re engulfed in the divine light. The baby laughing about the woman shows again that he cannot have what he wants due to his burden. Him stabbing the baby is his self termination.

As for the movie as a whole, I think the baby is just a normal baby and he cannot cope with the burden of fatherhood due to his anxiety. The lady in the radiator is his contemplation of suicide. The first time he watches her only a couple of worms or “burdens” leak through the ceiling. The second time there is a ton of them, representing his overwhelming anxiety. He can no longer crush his fears and has to face them. In the third radiator sequence, he touches her(Weighing consequences) and the dark man appears. Then his head pops ogg the baby head replaces his. The baby’s appearance is his inner view of himself. I think the end sequence where he cuts the baby is him committing suicide and the scene with the singing lady is his liberation from the anxiety that plagues his life(The dark planet is destroyed, there are no factory sounds, and the divine light engulfs the visible world around them. The divine light is obviously a symbol for Heaven).

I could be completely wrong about all of this, but this is what I got after watching it for the first time this week and look forward to hearing differing opinions/ideas. I enjoyed the movie a lot because it left me thinking and trying to figure it out and also invoked feeling(No matter how awkward, uncomfortable, or close to home). Isn’t that what art is supposed to do? Make us feel?

Thanks for reading!

By Joey Hancock

5 out of 5 Stars

A Lizard saves the day.

SIERRA VISTA – An animated film that plays like a real movie. “Rango” came out this past weekend and is already bringing in the crowds.

“Rango” is an animated adventure that is as good for adults as it is for children. Rango is an eccentric lizard that has lost his family and life as he knew it. Instead of going the typical route that many films like these go, Rango doesn’t go searching for his family. Instead Rango sets out to begin a new life for himself.

The story is ultimately about becoming who you want to be and accepting who you really are.
The film takes place in Mojave desert outside of Las Vegas. The animation is spectacular. Many times during the film I caught myself thinking the pictures on the screen were real. They are not, they are all animated.

The title character is voiced by Johnny Depp and is just an ordinary lizard. Actually he is a chameleon but a lizard nonetheless. After losing his family in the beginning of the film Rango sets off to Dirt, an uncivilized town with inhabitants of all species. Birds, mice, moles, lizards, a turtle for a mayor, and Rattlesnake Jake make up the townspeople. Rango is thrust into the position of town sheriff after killing the hawk that has been terrorizing and eating the citizens of Dirt. Running dangerously low on water, the source of income that the town uses, Rango sets out to find what has caused the water to run dry.

Rango takes part in showdowns, tough talk in saloons, and a very entertaining scene involving bats that is reminiscent of the helicopter attacks in “Apocalypse Now”. He faces the town villain, Rattlesnake Jake, and wins the hearts of the citizens.

The film plays like a western you would expect John Wayne to star in. While being animated the story has many aspects of a real western film that seems to have faded out long ago. Great story accompanied by voiceovers by outstanding actors such as Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Ned Beatty, Stephen Root, Bill Nighy and Timothy Olyphant bring depth and realism to the characters.

Directed by Gore Verbinski, who directed Depp in three of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, brings art into this film and stays away from over the top CGI effects that would have ruined the feel of the story. He also decided to stick with 2D instead of going the route of 3D which I feel was a great idea because 3D would have been unnecessary. Instead he let the film be normal and stand on its own feet. Very much respect for Verbinski in going this way with the film.
I hope everyone will go see this movie about a little lizard that becomes larger than life to his friends. Just because it is animated doesn’t mean that it’s only for kids.

By Joey Hancock

Blue Valentine plays like a car wreck, you slow down to look even though you know you shouldn’t be so nosy. The film which was originally rated NC-17 and later switched to an R rating by the MPAA, follows Dean and Cindy, a young married couple, through their first six years of marriage. Derek Cianfrance, the film’s writer and director, shows the birth and demise of a relationship that you find yourself rooting for by the end.

Towards the end of the couples six year marriage, Cianfrance shows the mental and physical exhaustion that is crippling Cindy, these struggles do not bother Dean as long as Cindy stays his wife. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play the Pennsylvania working class couple with a young daughter, who was born at the beginning of their relationship. Dean is a house painter with a drinking problem and no ambition while Cindy is a nurse who went to college to become a doctor. Dean and Cindy first meet at her grandmother’s retirement home, quite an odd place to meet your future wife.

At the beginning Dean and Cindy are goofy and playful which is shown in the scene of the first date where Dean sings and plays a ukulele while Cindy tap dances in a storefront. The relationship seems to be going fine when Cindy finds out that she is pregnant, and when asked by Dean if it is his she replies quietly, “Probably not.” This is the turning point of the relationship. Dean doesn’t care that the baby is probably not his, and he chooses to make it his own and to care for Cindy and the child. Dean and Cindy get married hastily by a Justice of the Peace and begin their lives as a family.

Over the next years of marriage Dean and Cindy grow further apart. Cindy quietly blaming Dean for the loss of her dreams, and Dean just being content being a father and husband. “Blue Valentine” switches back and forth from the beginning of the relationship to present day as if asking the viewer to find out what and when everything went wrong. The marriage isn’t ending because of a death or adultery like many films show. The couple has simply grown apart. Gosling and Williams play these characters with great style and ability. Any awards that come their way are greatly deserved.

Cianfrance’s script is a modern day love story that goes south quickly. Written well and directed superbly the film’s scope and perception of love gone wrong is one that anyone who has been in and fallen out of love should go see. Roger Ebert stated on his website that many reviewers have said, “Cianfrance isn’t clear on how or what went wrong.” This is left for you, the viewer, to figure out, and is anyone actually clear on what goes wrong in simply growing apart? I don’t think so.

This review was submitted via our Submit a Review page.

The King’s Speech stammers it’s way into the hearts of the audience.

This review was submitted via our Submit a Review page.

Stammering or stuttering can be a problem for any person, especially if they are required to speak in front of people. For King George VI, the stammering King of England during World War II, this was an even more daunting ailment. Having to speak firmly and assertively on broadcasts to ease the minds of worried Britains during wartime weighed heavily on George’s mind and vocal chords.

Director Tom Hooper tells the story of King George VI superbly and artfully. Colin Firth, and Helena Bonham Carter take on the roles of king and queen with such fervor and realness that you want to believe these are the real king and queen of the time by the end of the film. Geoffrey Rush also presents an outstanding performance as Lionel Logue, a failed Australian actor turned speech therapist, and eventual best friend to King George VI.

Colin Firth, who is well known for films that center around love, such as Pride and Prejudice, shows a whole new side to his acting. Firth masters the stammer he must use throughout the film and has a seriousness that is needed to play a king, but also shows a vulnerable side when addressing his stammer to others. Firth transforms himself into the character as he does in many of his movies, most notably A Single Man. Helena Bonham Carter, who is well known for her out of the ordinary and merciless characters is loving and devoted to her husband, and she goes out of her way to help him.

The main scenes of the film center on Firth and Rush’s characters as they struggle internally and externally to stop the king’s stammering. Firth’s stubbornness as king and Rush’s outspoken Lionel clash and have a mental battle throughout the film that you can feel watching the movie. Towards the end of the film there is a critical scene in which King George VI finds out that Lionel’s credentials as a therapist aren’t what he told him they were. Firth explodes in anger and fires Logue, but he hears none of this. The argument continues with Logue asking the king why he should listen to him with the king exclaiming, “Because I have a voice!” This sentence resonates in the mind of the king as he realizes that he does have a voice and he can speak in a way that will make people listen.
Much of the film takes place indoors and the rooms are filmed with great precision and detail. Most historical dramas on kings of England show grand palaces and ballrooms. The King’s Speech is much more subtle. Instead of vast estates, the film is shot in small rooms and long hallways giving the film a more personal feel and a more intimate setting for the characters.

The film culminates on King George VI’s speech to the public on radio that explains England is entering the war with Germany. Firth and Rush are near perfect in this scene and wraps up the film with a feeling of accomplishment.

This post was submitted via our submit a review link

At first I was hesitant about seeing a movie directed by Ben Affleck because his last couple of directing efforts left a lot to be desired. It turns that as director of this movie he’s exemplary and probably should direct himself more often, as he’s done a great job both in front of and behind the lens in this excellent heist film.

The movie has three great robbery sequences and a car chase, all of which are directed terrifically. These set pieces frame the film well. The action scenes are graphic and suspenseful. The last one is a tense climax almost up there with Heat’s big heist and helps keep the pace of the film, which threatens to slip too far in some of the more emotional parts.
The stark realism is what makes the movie. The characters are believable because they don’t come across as too slick and predictable, even the criminals come across as unassuming and ordinary people caught up in extraordinarily difficult situations. The old-fashioned back drop of Charleston adds to the grittiness of the movie.

The Town could have easily fallen into the trap of being a Heat rip off but the movie’s originality makes it one of a kind. This is an excellent addition to bank robbery films thanks to a strong dramatic script, a top ensemble cast, great action, and actor/director Affleck.

Recently, I found myself flipping through the television channels around 10:30 one night. I happened upon the Indie Channel, which was broadcasting the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. Since I had never seen it during the 20 years since it was been released, I figured I would watch it for a few minutes to see what the fuss was all about way back when it hit the theaters and caused such uproar.

Wow. The little I saw can only be described as powerful.

My memories of this release are vague, but I recollect letters to editors of papers and protestors, and I believe there even threats as well. I also remember Jewish viewers claiming it was excellent, while Christians were outraged, which, even at the time, I thought pretty odd. Now that I have seen at least part of it, I still shake my head in wonder. I honestly do not know how anyone can watch it and think there is anything inherently blasphemous about it. If anything, it makes the dry words taught at Sunday schools across the world convey a much deeper meaning than any teacher any could.

I was prepared for the blatant torture scenes, but the whole concept of the Angel of Mercy/Satan taking Jesus down from the cross and giving him the chance of a normal life was all new to me. I am not sure I understood the whole thing about his bedding Mary Magdalene and those 2 other women, but I get that he achieved what he wanted, and that was to lead a normal life, until his deathbed, when Judas pointed out that Jesus was a traitor for not fulfilling his fate. I thought it very interesting that the scene with Paul preaching about the death of Jesus and his resurrection was added; confusion and anger at hearing that brought the story more depth and reality, at least for me. The realization that Judas was right was oddly satisfying, as well, and the way the movie ended was appropriate. (However, I would not have used those colors and music in the fade-out. White or black, to me, would have been more appropriate.)

Regardless of your religious affiliation, you probably will have some reaction to this movie in terms of the sets, which are beautifully authentic. You can almost feel the heat of the desert and costumes. Some of the areas I did find jarring would be in the dialog and casting. Obviously, the movie would not have be made in Hebrew for a largely English-speaking version, but some of the phrases seemed just a bit too modern for that time. I am not entirely sure I would have cast Judas as this production did, and even the makeup and tattoo markings applied to Mary Magdalene did not appear right for the times. Plus, this is purely a personal view, but since it occurred in the area of the world where it did, I would think everyone would be much darker skinned and black haired than who constituted the main cast. Yet, that is all superficial, especially if one has taken the time to read the book. This story is more about human situations than if the proper costuming has been considered. Most will never notice that sort of thing anyway.

It often takes me awhile to catch up on movies that everyone is talking about, and this is no exception. The way I see it, we all get exposed to things when we are supposed to, when the time is right for us. Now, I do not know why my seeing it now is better than seeing it 20 years ago, but it does add a layer of sensitivity to my already layered knowledge of Judeo and Christian tenets. Yet, I keep in mind that it is still an entertainment value, and as such, is vulnerable to interpretation and focus. I may not like a lot of movies, and may question many director standards, but I think that Martin Scorsese did an excellent job of conveying humanity, ridicule and triumph. One purpose of aret is to be provocative and cause us to think and question, but all too often we forget that and just wish to have it tickle our problems away. The Last Temptation of Christ does that, and even better-it is mesmerizing.

One day, my daughter decided that she wanted to see Bridge to Terabithia although, alhough, in her mind, it was for little kids. So we settled down to what I expected would be another predictable Disney fantasy. It turned out to be not so predictable.

First, I must confess that I had read nothing at all about this movie, and, as a rule, am not that excited by Disney productions overall. I will admit that I do believe they are usually wholesome, safe and mildly amusing, but with limited viewing time, I am apt to choose something a bit meatier. Bridge to Terabithia fit that description. It completely held my attention for the entire time, which the majority of movies and most television shows cannot claim. (Actually, if a show holds my interest until it is over, even if I have been working out the entire time, I consider it a better than average production.)

I am not saying that this movie totally wowed me, but it definitely moved me. From what I hear, it moved many people. Perhaps the main reason (and stop reading here if you have not seen it but are planning to do so) is that the main character dies with 45 minutes left to go. How Disney handled the death and the resulting situations was done very well, but that is not saying tears did not follow. It is impossible to not be saddened at the loss of life of a cute young girl whose innate intelligence and eccentricities separated her from all other kids except for her young male co-star-who, until that point, was also friendless. We can all relate to such feelings, but most of us did not have to deal of our best friend in fifth grade.

After viewing this movie, I read about an audience viewer who became highly upset that the movie disturbed her grandchildren. First, it is rated PG and not G, so that should have told them something. Second, if I was going to take a 5 year old, I would have checked it out first. This is a story about fantasy, and sense of magic, but both originate from the imaginations of the main character. What gives this movie an edge is that the surviving one matures enough to realize that he can use the gift of imagination to bring joy to someone else. It is very heartwarming and poignant, and thus very Disney.

Yet, the usual Disney stereotypes are present, such as the mean kids, the tough kid who finds a heart, the lovely teacher, and ridiculing siblings. Everything we have come to expect to clearly show children the distinct difference between black and white and good and bad. However, those predictable characters are not so superficial because the principle actors are mesmerizing and the supporting cast is larger than life. The main female character has a wardrobe that is quite different from the norm, but it suits her spunk. The little sister of the leading male tugs at every heartstring. You have to say this for Disney, they do recognize talented children actors when they find them. The setting is also exceptional, not quite your average woods but not totally photo-shopped, either. It is what you would expect of an average forest that has been enhanced by the imagination of an older child.

Bridge to Terabithia was filmed in 2006 in Auckland, New Zealand over a 10 week period, and included the rural forest areas of Riverhead and Puhoi. It was by based on the novel by Katherine Paterson, and was number two at the box office in the U.S. and Canada on its opening weekend. The son of the author, David L. Paterson, was also one of the producers and screenwriters. (He is noted on the dedication page, for his real life friend who was struck by lightning and killed when they were aged eight.) The film was a recipient of the F.I.L.M. award (Finding Inspiration in Literature and Movies) and the final film of Cinematographer Michael Chapman before his retirement.

I was surprised and glad to have seen it. I may even watch it again. If you want to take a walk into a world that you may not frequent, give Bridge to Terabithia a chance. But be warned that it is a tear-jerker for both happy and sad reasons.

Some movies are considered chick flicks while others are more guy dramas. This movie definitely falls into the latter category. As a chick however, I must say that I liked it, which is more than I can say about many movies. But this is a very somber and violent movie, and if a gal is queasy, like me, there will be scenes that are quite difficult to watch. But what do you expect when a movie concerns criminal activities, revenge, and family honor?

This was filmed is some of the depressing places in London in 2007. From dreary, graffiti lined streets, to the constant rain, to scary and abandoned public areas, it is not a world in which most people would voluntarily enter. The lives of the main characters are not much better.

The head of a Russian organized crime family, Semyon (Academy Award nominee Armin Mueller-Stahl) is having problems with his son Kirill (Vincent Cassel). It seems that Kirill is not satisfied with getting drunk daily and being disgustingly obnoxious; he has recently ordered hit men on former friends without consulting dad. Russian Nikolai Luzhin (Viggo Mortensen) is hired to be the driver of the son, does a lot of dirty work for Kirill, like chopping fingers off dead bodies and dropping them into the river.

Meanwhile, Anna Khitrova (Academy Award nominee Naomi Watts), is a midwife who witnesses a young teenager dying while giving birth and leaving an orphaned daughter. Anna finds a Russian diary on the girl, and gives it to her uncle for translation. It turns out that the girl was impregnated from a rape involving Semyon while his son entrapped her. The two then kept her hostage for months. However, as fate would have it (of course, if it were not for this there would be no movie plot) Anna had already given a copy of the diary to Semyon, since he was mentioned by name, unknowing his profession. Once Semyon discovers there is proof of his fathering a child through statutory rape, and the holding of that minor against her will, he moves to eradicate the diary and uncle. Meanwhile, Kirill kidnaps the baby to kill her so there can be no proof of the crime for which his father was resonsible.

If, like most movie goers, you have the irrepressible faith that all ends well, in this case you are right again. It turns out that Luzhin is not just your average chauffeur and mobster; he is an undercover agent with plans on infiltrating the family to extinguish them. To do so, he must prove his loyalty, whatever that entails. Yet, he has a heart underneath the amazingly tough exterior. Instead of killing the uncle, he sends him into hiding. Instead of retaining information about the family of the dead victim, he gives it to Anna. And, instead of allowing Kirill to drown the baby, he stops him with the news that Kirill can be in charge, if Dad goes to prison. (Kirill, it is safe to say, does not have a warm relationship with his father, so this option looks good to him.) In the end, father and son both get sent away, and Luzhin finds himself exactly where he planned to be. The future of the mob is left up in the air, although the baby is much happier. She has been adopted by Anna.

This is one more of those situations where people, through no fault of their own, find themselves trapped by bizarre circumstances. The teenager crossing paths that of mob members, Anna finding the diary, the father controlling his son, the uncle and his innocent attempt to discover answers all ends up causing danger, pain and loss. If this movie says anything, it is along the line about the tangled web others weave.

That said, even with some subtitles, this complications of this movie are fairly easy to follow. However, the sex scenes, gruesome murders, and fight in which naked Luzhin gets repeatedly stabbed are not for everyone, especially children. It could be coincidental, but from the start of the movie, every scene is dark and gloomy, even though it is the height of the Christmas season. Yet, by the end, when the uncle has returned and the baby is safe, it is a lovely summer day. What else can better reflect good conquering evil?

This movie is worth watching if you believe in such an unshakable power.

Review By Jason Schwartzman

The Dark Knight, the sequel to 2005′s Batman Begins, has set a new precedent for what the comic book movie can be. It is dark, intense and fast, demanding the viewer’s attention for the entirety of the film’s two and a half hours. The movie is wholly superior to Tim Burton’s heralded Batman (1989) and of course the Batman films that followed it, most notably Joel Schumacher’s failed Batman and Robin (1997).

The Dark Knight builds on the success of Batman Begins, but goes in a different direction stylistically. Whereas Batman Begins was tight, focused and built around Christian Bale’s Batman, The Dark Knight follows the path of it’s iconic villain, The Joker. The movie is wide-open and wildly chaotic, just like the Clown Prince of Crime. Heath Ledger’s Joker is a vast improvement over Jack Nicholson’s. Ledger’s Joker is genuinely scary. His twisted stories and freakish mannerisms overshadow Batman. Ledger’s performance, his last completed work before his death, lives up to the hype, and even has inspired talk of a Best Supporting Actor nod. His unique characterization develops into perhaps the best villain since The Silence Of The Lamb’s Hannibal Lector.

The plot picks up as The Joker is hired by various villains to assassinate Batman in order to protect their suddenly vulnerable money. Batman, however, finds a new ally in the DA, Harvey Dent, a man not accidentally labeled The White Knight of Gotham City. Dent is played by Aaron Eckhart, who offers the arrogance and the towering, intimidating presence required for the role that means to project a real alternative to Batman and vigilantism.

The common thread though is Ledger’s Joker, who has no logical motivation and whose origin is a mystery lest you believe the sickening but contradictory tales he offers about how he receives his grotesque facial scars.

Other players include Batman and Dent’s love interest, Rachel Dawes, played by an underwhelming Maggie Gyllenhal (replacing Katie Holmes) and two veterans of the first movie, the always solid Michael Caine and Gary Oldman as Alfred Pennyworth (the butler) and Officer Jim Gordon respectively. Morgan Freeman has a small, but strong role reprising Bruce Wayne’s right hand man, Lucious Fox.

The film is just as much a crime drama as a superhero movie. It carries the heavy themes of chance, fate and entropy just as Batman Begins revolved around fear.

The action is nearly non-stop, the chase scenes breathtaking and the dialogue razor-sharp. This isn’t George Clooney’s forgettable caped crusader; this is Christian Bale’s Dark Knight, developed not for young kids, but instead an older, more intelligent audience.

In the wake of almost unimaginable hype, The Dark Knight does not disappoint.

Submitted Via Our Submit A Review Page.

Last night, I had the pleasure of seeing Amadeus, and once again, thoroughly loved it. Now granted, the roles of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri are probably two of the meatiest parts available to male actors, but it takes sheer genius to be able to carry them off. When it succeeds, it is magical. About 20 years ago, this movie won 40 awards, including 8 Academy Awards and the coveted Best Picture award, which generated a public intrigue that had formerly bordered on disinterest. I am not surprised, because it seems that our society is not that concerned about the history of musical composers. This story is absolutely fascinating.

Signor Salieri always wished to compose music; as a young teen, be begged God to give him the opportunity to do so, and in payment, he would lead a life of virtue. Within 15 years, Salieri was Court Composer in Vienna. It was around this time that he heard about the child prodigy, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, but disregarded him. Within a few years, however, he heard a Mozart serenade and was convinced of his genius, and to a greater degree than anyone else. As the creations of Mozart began to be performed publicly, Salieri feared competition, and attempted to sabotage his professional standing among royalty. There came a point where Salieri concluded that he was doing so not because of mere jealousy, but because of an intense despair that God had failed to give him merely mediocre talent, yet gave musical brilliance to a sniggering, immature, bawdy, lascivious young man Salieri referred to as the creature. To make matters worse, Salieri knew the added torture of being probably the one and only person able to recognize the compositions of Mozart for the angelic perfection which they were.

Salieri denounced his agreement with God and vowed that not only would his virtuous existence end, he would also ruin Mozart. In this, he accomplished his goals. Without work or students, Mozart became destitute. His wife and children left him, and the royal musical circle refused to acknowledge or help him. Other musical venues cheated him and attempts were made to plagiarize his work. Salieri, now viewed by Mozart as his only friend, regretted his decisions and decided to confess his traitorous deeds. He was hoping to receive forgiveness, but by this time, the mind of Mozart was muddled by alcohol and syphilis. He thus thought Salieri mad. After Mozart died before reaching age 40, Salieri finally achieved the fame he always wished. Yet, he knew that his talent was far less than that of the man he had a hand in destroying. Salieri spent the remainder of his life in agonizing, and even his suicide attempt failed.

This movie is full of the most beautiful settings, costumes and music imaginable, and the raucous behavior is fun enough to keep even younger folks entertained. His innate abilities have the power to mesmerize anyone, even those who would never classify themselves as music aficionados. What this movie does surprisingly well through the exquisite direction, casting and acting is to elicit sympathy from the audience for both Mozart and Salieri. It’s an astonishing feat in an industry that likes to paint bad guys versus good guys. We can not help but feel the jealousy of Salieri, and the frustration that his young student is outshining him. We can also relate to the confusion and anguish of Mozart when his life takes a downhill turn. We can even understand his the attraction his wife felt to such a famous and talented rogue, along with exasperation when there is no longer money to run the household or support their offspring.

It is also remarkable that few of the main characters managed to remain in the public eye during the last two decades. Except for F. Murray Abraham, the Best Actor Oscar Winner in 1984 for his performance in this production, most were relatively unknown to the world, then as well as now. (Within a month of the Academy Awards, I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Abraham in a live off-Broadway performance, and he astounded me in that as well.)

Yes, this story can hit home to a lot of people, filled as it is with envy, pride and regret, and it is worth seeing if you get a chance. No one can watch it without doing some serious thinking about how they live their life. We need reminders about that from time to time.