Haynerator

So, you hear the title 'Kandahar Break', and your mind is instantly drawn to preconceived comparisons to all the war films of recent years you have seen. Trying to artistically, and/or factually, portray the horrors of the middle-east that have occurred over the past decade. But don't worry, you're not the only one who did this. I did too, what else do you expect? With films like 'Jarhead', 'The Hurt Locker', and 'The Green Zone' all having their crack at taking an artistic stance on the current political situations masked with their own stories. So why would you even bother to watch another one of these many types of films? Perhaps, because unlike the others, there aren't any gun-toting militia displaying vague humility and fighting for their country to highlight patriotism, entice us with script and visuals, and perhaps tell us how bad things are as well.

Kandahar Break, is in fact, a simple drama centered around love. But not your simple 'Pride And Prejudice', oh no, one enshrouded in corruption and intrigue. In fact, could you call it a love story? Perhaps not, a survival story perhaps? Culture clashes? For what you initially perceive to be a standard 'war film', in fact comes at you with many a surprise. It's very refreshing to see someone break away from archetypical expectations and use these settings for something a lot more interesting.

But in implying this film has a romance at its core, it shouldn't be assumed that this film is a "date movie" or any such like. This actually has the potential to appeal to a variety of tastes. It is not without its social commentary, but that is to say the film is not focused on it. These things happen in the background while something much more seemingly simple in terms of plot happens in front. It feels as if all the complex scenarios of the environment have been shoved aside. But this I see as an incredibly positive thing. This strengthens the emotional intent of the protagonist and allows you to open a window into perceiving his priorities.

Some of the acting can leave a little to be desired, though under the circumstances this isn't such a deterrence. The story in fact is gripping enough to be able to allow you to set aside the very minor discrepancies in performance, at least on first viewing. Though with this being David Whitney's debut feature, there is a lot to be commended for, as filming in Pakistan was not without its troubles. Some of the dangers shown on screen, in actuality, happened to the crew themselves. With four of the Pakistani crew members being wounded after being shot at by Taliban, the shoot had to be relocated to Tunisia to finish the film. Not only does this make the film an on-screen adventure, but a very real (and dangerous) one too.

After winning awards at Newport Film Festival (UK) for Best Film and Best Actor, as well as for Best Feature at the Philadelphia Film Festival, it's apparent that all this effort was not wasted. Though it doesn't need to win awards to prove this. Despite small flaws in some performance, this an immensely impressive first feature from a new director, and shows tremendous potential for a future career.

A fantastic colour palette, original, superbly directed, well written and brilliantly executed. This is an 8 out of 10, a film not to be missed.

Now, clearly, as the title and brief synopsis suggest, the first impressions of this film through text make it sound like some 'smultchzy', weepy, emotional film aimed at women and sensitive males in which people love, have problems, love again and thus; happy ending. But this simply is not the case with this film, with such pre-conceptions it becomes easy for expectations to be exceeded rather soon. Initially this film seems like nothing special, we have some rapidly established characters, yet with minimal connection to the audience. This is fine, and you'd expect this to develop throughout the film; but it seems as if this doesn't develop quickly enough. After being briefly introduced to our characters and the central plot, we are at a wedding, and it is here where 'Michael' meets 'Kim'. The immediate chemistry between Braff and Bilson seemed to be not that disparate to the chemistry displayed between Braff and Natalie Portman in the highly acclaimed film 'Garden State', this is slightly disappointing, but only to those who have seen the film in question. This chemistry, however, successfully veers off into something more unique and intriguing as the film goes on. Also, in its opening scenes, there is nothing that shouts "I am great!" There are few nice shots and it's generally aesthetically ordinary. Much of the acting is fairly quotidian with the exception of a handful of cast members, and the script promptly seems quite plain with some nice bits of dialogue here and there. Yet with all these obvious flaws outlined very early on, there is still something quite captivating about this film, and at first thought, it's hard to pin-point exactly what it is.

As mentioned, there is much to be desired of the acting; all the cast performed their roles very well, but there always felt like there was something missing in their performance. In particular, Rachel Bilson ('The O.C.'), who seems somewhat unconvincing at times. Braff gives a fantastic performance however, especially in some heavy scenes nearer the end of the film where he irrevocably portrays his emotions and facial expressions. Casey Affleck is quite surprising too, having not seen him in anything before myself, I expected him to be on par with his brother Ben Affleck in terms of acting ability. Casey is convincing in his role, he doesn't quite surmount his brother, but he definitely shows some promise, (despite his peculiarly effeminate voice.)

One of the films underlying themes is how we treat our dreams and aspirations, as well as how we deal with the common dilemmas of modern day civilisation. It makes a point of arguing what is worth fighting for and why, as well as displaying the options of running away. You don't necessarily learn from these points, but for certain people it's not impossible to assume that it could put some viewers' individual real-life problems into some form of perspective in terms of how they're dealing with them. This is a great aspect, be it intentional or fluke. Though despite this, some character actions and behavioural traits don't seem to make complete sense. For example, 'Kim' knows that 'Michael' is in a committed relationship, yet she tries to seduce him anyway, and personally I can't comprehend why you would try to aide and incur the self sabotage of someone's relationship for personal gain. This made 'Kim' a mystery, and gives a very ambivalent feeling towards her, being that you enjoy aspects of her character, yet at the same time dislike her actions.

This goes for most characters though; there is a great deal of ambivalence and even contempt for a lot of the cast, and in the films early moments it's hard to see why. As the film goes on, or more specifically, near the end, you realise something about the characters, and the artistic intentions with the characters involved. Throughout the film the contempt and ambivalence for the characters is consistent, assumedly this would be a bad thing, but this is in fact not a mistake. The only reason this is felt is because the mind expects to have a specified emotional attachment towards each of the characters dictated to it by the film. But this is one of those surprising elements; the film does not care whether you like the characters or not, it has a complete disregard for your personal feelings on how you wish the events to turn out as well as how you desire the characters to behave. The film basically says "Here is a story for you, but I don't care if you like it or not", the reason for this, is because every single character, good performance or not, is just incredibly human. Every character has a certain level of good qualities as well as a great deal of flaws, none of the characters are perfect, and none of them claim to be. This realisation makes any discontentment towards the characters vanish.

In this instance, the film fantastically avoids being predictable, as well as being some kind of 'feel good' escapist film to enjoy every once in a while on a weekend afternoon. The film convincingly tells a story of human life, and common modern social behaviour in adulthood. This overall makes for a very surprising film, and at the end you're left feeling very satisfied, and the feeling that you greatly enjoyed the movie. Even though the acting and cinematography leave much to the imagination at times, the films avoidance of escapism and its unpredictability just make this film rather unique and highly enjoyable. It may require you stick with it however, but either way, 8 out of 10 for originality!

A man wakes up in a bath tub, with absolutely no idea of who he is or how he got there. He soon finds himself accused of being a serial killer, and pursued by strange men with bright white faces. He sets out on a mission to find some answers; but before too long, he finds himself part of a much more sinister plot. Director Alex Proyas ('I, Robot', 'The Crow') directs this Burton/Gilliam-esquire portrayal of understanding the essence of being.

This is very well compiled movie, with some great undertones to it. The opening is pretty gripping, in which a lot seems to happen and is somewhat subliminal in content. It is very fast paced, and erratically cut together so that it doesn't spend too long on each scene, this doesn't often give you time to consciously take in what happen, but the mind still registers what is going on. These erratic visuals make for an incredibly surreal opening; it is imperative that you allow yourself to suspend disbelief, and brace yourself for science-fiction mayhem. This setup is reflective of the protagonist 'Murdoch' (Rufus Sewell), being that neither the audience nor the main character understand what is going on at all. Lots of questions are asked, and it isn't until about 40 minutes in that the first question is vaguely answered.

However, the length of time to answer even one question does not feel like a long time. Due to the pacing and the whole manner of execution in the first 40 minutes, it is easy to forget about time (considering you are at least accepting of such a genre of film). This is aided very well by some fantastically designed sets, lit perfectly to emulate the title and storyline of the film. Due to this, it is onerous to reference parts of the film without spoiling much of the plot.

The plot is surprisingly deep for a film of its genre, with certain underlying themes as well as visuals which are slightly reminiscent of Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil'. It deals with the concept of what truly makes us human, and judges how unique we really are as a species. This is not only an aspect dealt with directly in the plot, but also has the potential to make you think about it too. The development of this plot is also superb, amidst the fast pace, the progression seems to be quite gradual.

The acting talents were pretty inconsistent around this film, whilst there were some good performances; there were also some bad ones which detracted from the flow of the film at times. The film itself is remarkably gripping due to its pacing and visual intensity. But the acting takes you out of this. In particular, Kiefer Sutherland; while his character is a pretty strong and solid character, Sutherland just simply isn't convincing in his role. He seems to be trying too hard to be disparate to the roles he has performed before, as if trying to set himself up as a character actor, but unfortunately he fails with horrid consequences. Jennifer Connelly is also fairly mediocre; she gives a fairly bland, empty performance and is somewhat disappointing. Despite this, when the acting's good...It is really good; Richard O'Brien for one gives a fantastic performance as a darkly sinister villain, whilst also adequately incorporating his much loved element of camp behaviour. Rufus Sewell shines too, in the beginning he seems fairly unsure, but as the film goes on he gradually emerges to give a very interesting and plausible performance. Similarly, William Hurt gives a great performance too. These performances make for some good tension and suspense throughout; being that the plot is quite secretive in its build-up, it is hard to predict some actions as the film moves along.

While there are some great visuals in cinematographic terms, as well as good performances and an intriguing story; there are some parts of the script which don't seem to fit, being that certain parts of dialogue are quite cheesy, in a bad sense. The line "I have Murdoch in mind" (which doesn't make sense here) is quite a paltry piece of speech. When watching the film it will be obvious why it has been noted.

The special effects are also quite enjoyable, but they start to become overused by the end of the film. The climax to this film is somewhat a little dissatisfying and predictable, at which point tension and suspense becomes negligible. It is a surprising climax to have given the nature of the rest of the film, and due to the content of the climax, it is also somewhat tedious in its execution and brings the film down substantially. However, after this there is a great final scene in a visual sense.

Overall, this film is pretty entertaining and not a typical film of the sci-fi genre. This is definitely one for fans of the genre, especially those who enjoyed 'Brazil' or 'The Matrix'. With some great performances, and a generally good script this is a highly entertaining and engaging film which requires some brain power to follow (which is often refreshing with a film of this style). This is 8 out of 10, unique, creative and visually enthralling. It is also heavily suggested that it be viewed in a darkened room for optimal impact.

The word visionary, is a poor label to slap on Snyder. I would give him credit for it in '300' being that I've not read the book for it, but in the instance of 'Watchmen', I have read and greatly enjoyed the graphic novel. Whilst reading it I was unsurprised that a movie was being made, and was also unsurprised that Snyder would be directing. But from the point I heard his name, my expectations started to drop. Having seen, and been greatly dissatisfied by, '300' and 'Dawn of the Dead' (His biggest previous hits) I couldn't say I was expecting too much directionally from 'Watchmen'.

Often when low expectations are in order, they are exceeded particularly easily. However they were matched, and actually having read the graphic novel, I saw exactly what kind of director Snyder is. He is a lazy one. Pretty much for all of his shots, he used the graphic novel as a storyboard. He used practically no creativity in creating his shots; he just took them straight out of the book and slapped them onto the big screen. This does not make Snyder a visionary; this makes him a very lazy boy, as well as a cop-out. I can only assume this was his vague attempt at appealing to fans of the novel, when fans have already been drawn in by the name of the film.

The film also lacked a lot of the depth that the book had. The film had an onslaught of flashback sequences establishing characters psyche, and the way they are in the present time frame. While somewhat necessary to the depth of character, there are many more inventive ways of establishing the same sense of character, and this is once again laziness, but on the hands of screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse. However, while these flashbacks gave great depth of character to the cast members who could act well, it detracted very heavily from the main story, which is where the depth is lacking the most.

In the novel, the story is a very well executed consistently running undertone. In the film it is a poor one. We start with an introduction to the main plot, and then it seems to be practically dropped for all the flashbacks and character establishment. By the end the main plot is wrapped up far too quickly, with minimal and static development which could easily leave new audiences a little bemused and clueless as to what happened, as well as how and why.

The shining performance here is without a doubt, Jackie Earle Haley. Haley plays 'Rorschach', the darkest and deepest character, and his performance throughout is absolutely perfect. Not only does he portray the character well from the book, but he simply performs brilliantly as an actor. Billy Crudup also gave a fantastic performance as 'Dr. Manhattan', his facial expressions and attenuate display of emotion is executed superbly. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for most of the other cast, in particular Malin Akerman, who plays 'Silk Spectre II'. Whilst she is without a doubt the most stereotypical character in the novel, this is no reason why she cannot perform well. She is greatly unimpressive. Patrick Wilson lacked something too. He's not a terrible actor from what I've seen before, but it feels as if he is lacking something as 'Nite Owl II'. It is possible that this is down to Snyder's direction, but could equally be Wilson's fault.

Whilst overall depth is lost, with only two exceptional performances, and replicated camera work; it can't be faulted that the special effects are stunning. The effects are quite thrilling, but the thrill isn't really felt too much, it's eye candy with no heart. The fight scenes with gratuitous violence, 'Rorschach's unorthodox methods of acquiring information, and almost anything involving 'Dr. Manhattan' (in particular, obliterating Vietcong with a single thought), made for a visually pleasing set of scenes, even if the cinematography is just an uninventive replication.

Though, these scenes are simply not enough. Due to the lack of story depth, it leaves most in-between scenes feeling underdeveloped and a little tedious; perhaps not so much for fans of the novel, but especially for new audiences. It feels like they tried to simply replicate the graphic novel as is, whilst taking odd bits out here and there. For new audiences this will create a feeling of emptiness, due to the fact that there are subtle nuances within the book that might not seem valuable, but add to the character as well as story, and are thus actually important.

As a companion to the book, this is pretty entertaining and works well, being that fans will know what is going on and are able to fill in any blanks. But for new audiences, especially those who've never heard of 'Watchmen' before, this will just seem tedious, undeveloped and perhaps just a little bit messy with some visual high-points around. Added to this, the soundtrack was particularly 'try-hard', including Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' during a notably cheesy love scene. As well as some dreadful rock song over the end credits. This seemed distinctly detached from the rest of the film, especially given the time period.

Overall, this works best as a companion to the book and is mostly fan orientated. But for new audiences I don't really recommend it, for there will be disappointment and emptiness. Personally, I must admit that I was reasonably entertained by the film, but I feel this is because I am a fan of the novel, and therefore know the ins and outs of the story. But it doesn't really do the book much justice to be perfectly honest. I'll be keeping an eye out for Jackie Earle Haley, but I won't be rushing out to see this film again. This is a fairly unimpressive 6 out of 10; an uncreative, lazy, near beat-for-beat replication.

'Light Yagami' comes across a powerful notebook with the power to kill whomever's name is written within it. He starts to use this newly acquired ability to rid the world of criminals...But is he really any better than those he is taking the lives of? Adapted from a Manga series, 'Death Note' is a teenage phenomenon of the new millennium...With great popularity, comes great wads of cash.

Having not ever heard of this series before seeing the film, I could only take it for face value. Though I am sure if I knew nothing about it, it would be apparent this film was adapted from some form of comic due to various elements across it. Unfortunately, as a complete piece, this doesn't flow all too well. It came across as more of a TV serial given that the plot development felt as if it were coming across as episodes. This is one of the films several let downs.

The film started with some nice opening aerial shots amiably edited together, there were some nice shots throughout the film, but unfortunately such shots seemed to be placed at random places rather than being a persistent theme. As well as this, the overall look of the film clearly couldn't decide whether it wanted to reflect some form of altered reality, or whether it wanted to be a depiction closer to the original medium; in this sense it is somewhat messy. There were also various characters which seemed to have been plucked out from the Manga, being that there was a great deal of bad overacting and certain typically cartoonish characters. Additionally, many of the characters had the physical demeanour of that you would expect from a Japanese Anime.

It is disappointing that they couldn't treat this film as live-action, it seems that the people involved couldn't comprehend the difference, or it is equally possible that they sacrificed consistency to please a great deal of existing fans. This film seems to have a very niche market, being teenagers and existing fans. It is incredibly clear through this film as to why there is such great popularity amongst this series, however I don't think in this instance it worked well as a live-action film. For example, the 'Gods of Death' or 'Shinigamis' were CGI spectacles. This is an unsure aspect, it is clear that they are a key part of the original concept, but it doesn't seem as if they fit in all too well in this film considering the opening build-up.

The initial development is adequately intriguing, but this becomes lost within the first quarter of the film when the predictability comes into it. Due to 'Light's personal usage of the 'Death Note', it was foreseen that there would be some kind of internal debate as to whether he is doing the right thing by killing criminals, or whether he is just as bad as them. This is an aspect which is trying to be clever, but just comes across as predictable. As well as that, this element quickly dwindled and wasn't really referenced again.

There were numerous predictable elements to this film, such as the actions in which the protagonist takes as well as certain characters relationships to other characters. Resultantly any created tension seems lost due to the conjecture of the upcoming events. Assisting this is the dimensionality of the characters. With the exception of 'Light', all the characters are either one dimensional or two dimensional and don't really have any expanded psyche. This made for a set of particularly monotonous and transparent characters.

'Light' (Tatsuya Fujiwara) is the only genuinely multi dimensional character within the span of the film, and is actually quite a talented young actor. Some of his performance felt distinctly like that of an Anime character however, and I think this was down to the direction. 'Light' also has some good character development, and is possibly the only unpredictable element. This is very gratifying.

However, the basic premise of this is none too special and it's fairly inane which makes it some very easy viewing. The aforementioned underlying theme of moral questionability seemed to be a bit pretentious, as if trying hard to make the story more than it was. This was some badly executed attempted intellect in which interest is simply lost.

There isn't really much else to say on this, other than this film does make you want to read the Manga. Despite the predictability and simplicity of the story, it is clear the original medium is greatly aesthetically pleasing, and it would probably have more to it in terms of story and character. While this film has many various flaws in artistic taste as well as script, this film is actually entertaining and somewhat enjoyable, as a whole. It's a film that can be viewed with very little brain power; the more you turn off your mindset, the more likely you are to appreciate the film visually.

Whilst having various discrepancies, it still manages to vaguely capture the uniqueness that quite possibly makes the whole concept so internationally popular. Although the interesting shots are quite clumsily dispersed through the film, there are enough of them regularly to keep you visually enthralled. That isn't to say, however, that this film is captivating in any way.

Overall, this is a surprising 7 out of 10 because of what it becomes towards the end. The film was pretty disappointing overall when thought about, having many poor points to it, but it's actually quite pleasurable and more or less satisfying. It's not bad...But it could have been a lot better.

'Scott' has lost everything, he is trying to move on with his life and forget his past. But it's no easy task, and it's not too long before reality starts to become questioned. Director Jay Purcell shifts his interests to the United States, by initially starting off with this short movie. Whilst having distinctly personal ties to this production myself; I will, to the best of my ability, be as unbiased and objective as possible.

There are multiple impressions given off by this short film by the end. There are some inconsistencies, yet overall this displays a lot of potential. Aesthetically this is greatly pleasing; the cinematography is unmistakeably unique and inventive, combining a nice mix of interesting angles and tampering of focus. Particularly in the opening sequence which in it's early moments is somewhat simple but also quite powerful. Added to this the lighting give this a pretty big budget feel.

Unfortunately, the budget was very small and restricted. Had it been bigger it may have been possible to achieve a better cast. The only two cast members who really shone here were Rodrigo DeMedeiros and Agnes Muljadi. DeMedeiros gave a pleasantly natural performance; unfortunately there were a few lines of dialogue delivered which felt a bit contrived, and while it was down to the script, these lines felt a bit too poetically 'try hard'. Though, DeMedeiros wasn't the only one with such dialogue. Muljadi is a little uncertain in this, yet her performance can be seen as a good reflection of her character, 'Lizzie', though she is somewhat discordant in certain scenes. Despite this, she definitely shows promise and is by no means written off, for there are particular parts in this production where she delivers fantastically. Initially she seems like a bad actress, though by the end of the film it is realised that she used her abilities well to portray quite a difficult character.

A lot of the extras brought this down somewhat, there are points where the film starts to really draw you in, but is broken off by some poor delivery by some extras. Michael Donovan slightly assists this drawback with a peculiar accent. There is also a flashback which seems a little cheesy, but this doesn't distract too much from the overall piece.

However, these inconsistencies are foreseen in such an early production in Purcell's career. Having such a low budget severely limits certain aspects that wish to be acquired. Faults are to be expected in such a situation, even though, it is clear to tell when these faults are that of the talent and not of the business side of the production. In the case of 'Continuum' the talent is not to blame; this is a production which is rife with potential and not necessarily a business venture with high aspirations.

Nonetheless, 'Continuum' has a great story which flows very well. While there are certain elements which pull you out of captivation, this overall feels like a proper film and it would be nice if it were longer. There are some genuinely moving moments, as well as some great expressions and delivery from the aforementioned dominant cast members.

As a stand alone piece it's no surprise if this doesn't receive much praise; but any rational human being can see the promising talent of a creatively intriguing future for not only the director, but for the cast and the production company too. This is 8 out of 10, a tremendous effort from everybody involved as well as an immensely enjoyable 30 minutes.

A gentleman arrives at 'Ann's doorstep, requesting 4 eggs for her neighbours' recipe. Before long, there are two gentlemen...And they refuse to leave. Director Michael Haneke remakes his 1997 film of the same name, allegedly identically duplicating his original film for a wider audience in the west. 'Funny Games' breaks down the horror genre into a form which demonstrates how violence is viewed by today's modern generation.

Having not seen the original, I decided to commit to some research before watching this. Often with a remake, various important aspects are changed to modernise the film to fit into contemporary criteria. In the case of 'Funny Games U.S', it is generally accepted that this remake is a "shot for shot" replication, with the exception of some negligible technicalities.

Many have complained and enquired as to why this film was remade, as often the reproduction never fares well against the rudimentary predecessor. However, if one looks closely and pays attention, it is more than evident as to the reasoning. Haneke is trying to bring about the realisation of the current trend within the horror genre; being the fascination with violence as entertainment.

The horror within this film is more character based, which is what the essence of a scary movie should be about. I've never personally been too interested by the generic escapist horror films of the western film industry. There is never generally a sense of realism, and often revolves around a suspension of disbelief creating a vaguely entertaining couple of hours, which for the most part were probably more fun for the special effects team rather than the audience. In the case of 'Funny Games' we have a clever twist on the genre, where the fear is composed of character traits rather than actions and special effects, which make for a much more disturbing factor. The characters personalities are brought about primarily through their facial expressions and their physical mannerisms, making this the only justified remake out there. It is difficult to concentrate on these visual aspects whilst reading subtitles, which is where for natively English-speaking viewers; the aspect would be lost in the original.

These traits are brought about by a great cast; Michael Pitt is quite possibly the star of the film giving us some particularly chilling glares and genuinely frightening idiosyncrasies. Whilst Roth and Watts gave some great performances too, there were some moments where they felt a little unrealistic. However, this does not write them off from the film, their efforts here are to be commended tremendously, for it's no surprise if either one said they played challenging roles.

There are a lot of one-take scenes; in which there is only one camera angle. Whilst there is an accumulative awareness of a relatively fast pace, the suspended shots are in actuality quite long. This is not initially realised, being that these prolonged shots are totally absorbing and bring you directly into the film, and in parts making you feel like you are actually there with the characters. This aspect is scrutinised by the film though, rhetorically questioning emotions you might feel whilst watching the film. Albeit, certain aspects of the film feel distinctly realistic, you are often reminded that this film is entertainment, but are also asked if it is entertaining.

In the opening sequence, these extended angles also give a somewhat visually relaxed and light-hearted feeling, which ultimately add to any discontent that might be felt during certain events of the film. In spite of this, these protracted shots are a clear indication of why some audiences might turn off and become bored. Furthermore, certain audiences might be dissatisfied that this is not a typically predictable film. The only technically established connection is with Pitt's character, which for fans of escapism, this is less than gratifying. Though, for viewers with a more sacrificial mindset, this is greatly pleasing.

Another notably interesting feature to this film; is the use of two musical genres for the soundtrack. Classical, and Thrash Metal. These two genres directly reference the characteristics of Pitt's character; whilst one represents his physical demeanour, the other represents his mentality. The classical music also refers to Roth, Watts and Devon Gearhart. Gearhart is the son of Roth and Watts, who for his age gives a brilliantly realistic performance.

From this point on it's quite grandiose to present a vague insight into the remaining elements of this film without spoiling anything too much. This is a film full of surprises being more of a thriller than a horror film, though ultimately it's hard to think anything other than "this is strange". It seems to be a film purposefully orientated around affecting mindsets and satirically sniping at the modern horror genre.

It's hard to place a specific niche here, for it is somewhere in the middle of a thriller and a horror, which is quite possibly why it is still struggling to break even. Unfortunately I am unable to find the gross revenue for the original film, though it is fair to say chances are it made profit due to the several awards it won.

This is most definitely not a film for an average slasher/splatter horror fan, for its objectives will simply be neglected or misunderstood. Regardless, this film is still worth a view by anyone with a serious interest in film. I rate this 9 out of 10, for it's very captivating and intriguing, with well designed characters and a great script. Haneke and his crew have done a superb job on this, and based on this remake of a film I've not seen, I look forward to digging up and watching his various other projects.

Developed from a 2004 short film of the same name, 'Cashback' is the story of 'Ben Willis' (Sean Biggerstaff), who has just broken up with his girlfriend, 'Suzy' (Michelle Ryan). As a result of the following grief, he develops insomnia and takes up a night-shift job at a local supermarket. It is here where 'Ben's artistic imagination blossoms, giving us a creative view-point of 'Ben's world.

First impressions are quite possibly what make this film so surprising. I knew nothing of this film other than a brief synopsis and seeing the DVD cover before watching it. On first thought, due to the poster and the DVD cover, one would assume that this is going to be something along the lines of 'American Pie', filled with crude jokes and gratuitous nudity making it an entertaining comedy to watch every once in a while. Though in the case of 'Cashback', the impressions are thwarted and this becomes a fairly mould bending take on the 'Romantic-Comedy' genre.

The romance aspect to this is fairly subtle; it is more of a consistent underlying theme than something in the foreground. Though relationships play a fairly large part in 'Ben's psyche, it cunningly avoids being cheesy or stomach churning by building humour or art on top of it. For example; 'Ben's development into his current mental state is chronicled by a series of cleverly intertwined flashback sequences, which were brilliantly transitioned between past and present. During these sequences we have a nicely incorporated aspect of early exposure to certain life experiences, which are shown to influence the path of fate. Despite the content of the sequences feeling somewhat anachronistic, it painted a great portrait as to the reasoning behind 'Ben's persona, as well as his best friend 'Sean' who happens to be the complete opposite.

Surrounding 'Ben' are a series of misogynistic characters, and this makes the use of nudity come across as a much more clever aspect than it would do if misogyny wasn't surrounding the protagonist. Being that 'Ben' is an artist; we see through his eyes how he perceives the female form. Full nudity is shown in various parts of the film, but is never displayed in a sexually stimulating manner; it is only ever shown as an art form and becomes a very justified and important section of the film.

Cinematographically this film is directly reflective of 'Ben's personality, aiding in developing a connection between the audience and the character. Whilst some of the imagery felt a little cliché, it fits in well being that it is proved artistic formulae. However, some of the few clichéd moments are adapted in experimental ways. The use of time manipulation for example; in 'Ben's imagination he can stop time, displaying a visual metaphor for the appreciation of every moment of life. During these moments, 'Ben' engages his creative mindset to draw some of these frozen moments. This is a nice insight into bridging the gap between reality and imagination.

'Ben' is somewhat disconnected from reality, fairly placid, and doesn't seem to physically display much emotion. It is apparent that he is a believer of fate and is thus accepting of the erroneous factors that come his way. This helps to identify with his character, as well feel for him in realising that it probably isn't the healthiest course of action. Though, this is overcome with assorted humorous goings on around the night-shift.

This is a very funny film, filled with immensely colourful main characters. While the humour can often be crude or perhaps simple, it works well in keeping with the theme of the film, and due to the personalities of the characters executing such humour it becomes very enjoyable. However, a lot of the comedy is performed in a way specifically designed to be funny, carried out by characters designed to be crazy. These characters felt more like plot devices than people to care about regarding the progression of the protagonist. I feel the comedy would have had much more of an effect had these characters been a bit more natural.

Despite this, the cast were well picked; each performing greatly in their roles. The most natural of the cast being Biggerstaff and Fox, the only actors whose roles were written to be taken with seriousness. Overall, the acting is one of the best elements of the film, and if nothing else across the film is personally admired by the viewer, the acting and cinematography should hopefully be enough to captivate the audience throughout.

This is probably one of those films in which you will find new things each time. With many underlying themes and messages, it can be watched with various perspectives, and different aspects can be taken from it dependent on the individual. This is art, poetry, comedy, romance and drama all combined together into one subtle masterpiece.

However, undeterred by its visually captivating style and overall experimentation, the film is actually none too memorable. In the end it is still only a tentative form of a 'Romantic-Comedy'. This isn't really anything more than an enjoyable piece of artistic entertainment with lots of laughs and thoughtful aspects, but is easily forgotten. Though, director Sean Ellis is to be commended here for 'Cashback' is visually impressive with an interesting story, and anyone can see he has a potentially substantial career ahead of him. An inventive twist on a typically clichéd genre - 6 out of 10.

This was a film which seemed very unsure of itself; from beginning to end it was rife with inconsistencies. We start with a brief setup, a short insight into our protagonists' childhood in India with a retrospective narrative. While clear it was a flashback sequence (one of many, may I add), this had some nice imagery to it and set the mood for our sudden jump to Brick Lane, London.

The first few shots of the area in which 'Nazneen' (Tannishtha Chatterjee) lives had an appealing effect. Whilst visually coming across as so very obviously British, we had an overlapping soundtrack of traditional Indian influence which gave an interesting contradiction. This contradiction would have been a good thing to carry throughout; however, sometimes a regular cinematic ambient composition was intertwined in certain scenes, which is the first of our inconsistencies as this mix did not work.

It was difficult to distinguish between traditional Indian culture, and British stereotypes of Indian culture. 'Nazneen' lives in a small flat, in a loveless marriage with two daughters, and a husband who has thus far been designed to be a hated figure from the offset. Whilst the husband, 'Chanu' (Satish Kaushik), appeared to have typical traditional values, he came across with some very stereotypical personality aspects of how we preconceive an Indian husband, living in England, to be.

One of 'Chanu's traditional persona elements was that he was the man of the house, therefore he should be the main provider. With this prominent ego as the characters base temperament, it's no surprise that he is greatly disheartened by 'Nazneen' receiving a sewing machine from a friendly neighbour. With an assumedly natural talent for sewing, she soon gets some small decent business from a young man, 'Karim' (Christopher Simpson), who initially seems to be the perfect match for 'Nazneen', who quickly develops a genuine infatuation towards 'Karim' for the first time in her life. This was a well incorporated element of a new experience, though the progress of this aspect gave the inclination of 'too much, too soon' and doesn't give the audience enough time to develop a form of emotional connection with this particular plot line.

It was also a bit challenging to develop a sense of interest in any character that wasn't 'Nazneen'. While each character was not without their own form of development, the character development was fairly static. In the sense that you become familiarised with the current persona of a character, who suddenly displays a set of new traits, making it hard to comprehend the reasoning behind the actions of certain characters. 'Karim' is a good example of this.

Racism is an element that was fairly predictable, and was built upon with various riots and anti-terrorism movements surrounding '9/11'. However this element seemed to begin congregating towards something, but was dropped during its early introduction and then later brought back in deep into it, aspects of which could only be assumed to fill in any gaps. There were many sequences within the film like this, which is why it is inconsistent.

There were other moments of the film which felt like they were important, but were severely underplayed. I couldn't help but feel that these were elements possibly expanded upon in the book. In this sense I kind of want to read the book, but this is not with good reason.

It is my personal belief that when adapting something across mediums, they should perform as separate entities and have the natural ability to work well on their own. Unfortunately with this film it feels like the novel would be required to back up various sections of plot during the course of the film. If you have read the book and while reading this you disagree, then you have just proved my point. This gave the accumulated feeling that the writers tried to incorporate as much of the book as possible into the screenplay, and thus becoming more of a film aimed towards fans of the original medium rather than appealing to new audiences.

This was a major drawback for the film, and began to give the impression that this was structurally unsound. Added to this, we have various points of symbolism in the beginning, as well as metaphors but these seem to dwindle across the span of the film, and gradually making the film fairly empty and bland the closer to the end we get. As well as this, the acting was overall none too special. There was nobody notably bad, but there also wasn't anybody exceptional and combined together with the aforementioned discrepancies, we have a fairly bland and empty form of emotional contempt for the audience.

Resultantly, the film felt like it had a very simple story which was trying to be controversial or somewhat edgy by basing itself around typical Indian tradition, which for the most part felt more like stereotypes than factual tradition.

Though while there is much wrong with it, the story itself is actually none too bad and is at the very least an interesting plot, which luckily keeps you watching. This had the potential to be a fairly decent film had the symbolism been consistent, and the structure could have been a lot better. Rather than making it longer to compensate for aspects of the book they wanted to incorporate, it is possible that certain parts could have been cut out rather than being underplayed.

Overall I am still torn as to my personal feelings towards this film, and give it 5 out of 10 for I am literally stuck in the middle. This film is recommended for people who enjoyed the book, but for people who have not; I strongly discourage this film.

There's not really much to say about a blockbuster designed for entertainment, however, this was only barely entertaining, and I shall dictate why. We start off with a somewhat interesting opening, which has clearly messed around with chronology and was actually a good scene to pull people in with. After this it slows down to an engagement party of 'Ethan' and 'Julia' (Michelle Monaghan), and as a scene it felt like it was unnecessarily long due to the obvious prediction that this will be where he's called out for his initial mission to instigate the films plot.

Pretty much after this, we move into all the 'whizz-whizz, bang-bang' and it escalates from there with various visually pleasing action sequences throughout the film. There always felt like there was something missing in some of the action sequences, it felt like they were trying to accumulate to something bigger. This wouldn't have been a problem had they been structured around each other better, but the mix of 'half-cocked' and 'fully-cocked' sequences were a bit messy, added to this, my mind kept saying "wow" or "cool" but this wasn't felt.

Some of the most entertaining parts were actually the build-ups, such as infiltrating into places, preparing their trademark prosthetic masks and voice changers to temporarily steal someone's identity and such. But there was a lot of building up, and mixed in with the 'half-cocked' action sequences, we are left in limbo, hoping for something much bigger and better to come along.

The various tension created in certain action sequences were pointless. Being a Hollywood blockbuster we know how the events will turn out so the attempted doubt of 'will he/won't he' is fairly negligible. This goes for most films designed to entertain, but it's a bad sign when it becomes worth mentioning.

The emotional scenes between 'Ethan' and 'Julia' were stomach churning as well, and they make you laugh because you simply cannot take Tom Cruise seriously. To date, the only films I've appreciated and liked him in have been 'Collateral' and his bit part in 'Tropic Thunder', apart from this he is never a character, he is always an actor playing a character.

'Cloverfield' producer and executive producer of 'Lost' J.J. Abrams makes his feature film directional debut here, and he was clearly a poor choice. If by any chance you're looking to assess Michelle Monaghan's acting talents, don't choose this film. The director and/or writer clearly did not care about her, nor her character. 'Julia' was a very stereotypical weepy housewife type character whose sole purpose was absolutely nothing more than a plot device; a simple prop would have sufficed for her role.

The only actor who did stand out, however, was Phillip Seymour Hoffman who played our supreme villain. Unfortunately his character felt underplayed, and this is a great shame because it would have been nice to see more of him. His character, 'Owen Davian', was very shallow and heartless; Hoffman played this perfectly being that the only emotion that came through him was anger, the rest of the time he was always very calm, and had no problem with doing what "needed" to be done.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers, was very strange in this. Perhaps he's spent too much time away from home and has had his natural dialect affected, because his Irish accent was very inconsistent. This is very peculiar considering he was born, and grew up, in Ireland.

Simon Pegg also had a bit part in this. He was great in his scenes but his purpose was poorly executed. It seemed as if he was there only to provide some light comic relief to certain aspects of attempted drama, but this failed being that the drama was never very dramatic, it made you laugh more often than feel anything negative.

There were a lot of instances of laughing at bits not intended for humour, but it couldn't be helped. It was often during moments of dead seriousness from some cast members, the majority of the time from Tom Cruise, who is irritating from the outset. Sure he can carry a role as an action hero well, but he's the same in them all. In this film, he distinctly reminded me of the character he was playing in the first 10 minutes of 'Minority Report' that I managed to sit through.

Unfortunately, it's very hard to care about any of the characters in this film. If any of them were to die suddenly (even 'Ethan'), I'd doubt anything would be felt. The same goes for the story, the introduction was interesting but this is lost during the film because you just want to see the action. Various scenes of dialogue leave you thinking 'C'mon, get on with it!' and this is a bad reaction to have when they've attempted to convolute the plot, but you just don't care.

This is fairly typical, and in keeping with the first two 'Mission: Impossible' films, however, they should have just left it at the first film. The second was greatly disappointing, and this one just comes across as a trilogy for trilogies sake to redeem themselves of the second film. It's a fairly standard, predictable and cliché piece of entertainment, which only just barely gets away with it.

I rate this 4 out of 10. Interest isn't sustained, there's a lot of building up with failed tension, a lot of bad acting, lack of care for anything that's going on, and its unimaginative dialogue. The aspects that were good though, were Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Simon Pegg, and the balance of realism between suspension of disbelief. This film was entertaining to see once, but a second time would be purely exhausting. Being that I would have been quite happy to dip in and out of this; overall, the film is more like an ornament on a mantelpiece, which you glance at every so often.

Based on true events of a Brazilian slum in Rio de Janeiro, 'City of God' tells a harrowing tale of one boys fight to escape poverty and crime. Over the course of roughly two decades, the story is told through the eyes of our young protagonist; 'Rocket', who desperately wants to make something of himself and free himself from the violence, drugs, robberies and corruption of the 'City of God'.

It's established very early on in the film that the name of the slum, 'City of God', is blatant irony being that the place is completely overrun with all forms of crime and immorality. The first 20-30 minutes depict how the young citizens of the slum view crime as a necessity, and the only way in which they can make something of themselves and claim respect amongst the local population. It is clear that over time to some characters their "necessities" have started to become entertaining, and sadly this is passed on to the younger generations who then also aspire to such crimes.

'Rocket' introduces us to many important characters that are well respected in the community. One of which is 'Lil Zé', 18, and the sole king of the 'City of God'. An inhumane and immoral character who only received maximum respect through murder and drugs. 'Lil Zé' is an immensely frightening character; it's very hard to find a soul or a shred of humanity within him. He is a prime example of an underlying tone of a vicious cycle; influenced by older boys when he was younger, he aspired to become something greater than those who looked down upon him as a child and made himself the most feared member of the slum. There is one particularly devastating scene which demonstrates this, it is also likely to stick with you forever.

Everybody fears everybody within the community, 'Lil Zé' has a large gang, and to join his side is a symbol of respect, and this is the ideal that all the young people of the slum have been taught. All except 'Rocket', who hopes to become a photographer one day, to form a legitimate career and to escape the hold the city has over him.

'Rocket' is a sign of courage and hope, he even quotes that the slum is purgatory at one point, and 'Rocket' highlights this by being the only, or one of few, young people to hope to have aspirations of becoming something worth while and legitimate, where others view money as their only form of escape. During the course of the film, however, he becomes influenced by his surroundings and attempts to turn to the world of crime, but he has too much heart to commit any such acts. Each guy 'Rocket' met on his attempted descent was a "cool guy", and he couldn't bring himself to do any harm.

It's amazing how someone as young as 'Rocket' (also 18) can think like he does within his surroundings. Whilst everyone else desires respect through crime, he desires it through legal methods. This can either be construed as fate, some form of intervention from 'God', or it could be because of the underplayed idea of his brother, 'Goose', wanting better for him and this ideal being subconsciously active throughout 'Rocket's life.

Amongst all the various crime and drug use and dealing, it is made perfectly clear that all the main characters involved are but only teenagers. They like to party, hang out on the beach, and our protagonist has a crush on a pretty young girl called 'Angélica', who he wants to sleep with. These are simple lives made extraordinary, and for the most part, nobody wants that. 'Lil Zé', however, is displayed to be purely business orientated and has very little interest in anything other than his respect and power. If his hormones kick in, he will act upon them illegitimately.

Though 'Zé' appears to be devoid of emotions and humanity, a small amount is shown during the film. He displays a little envy, aggression and a small amount of sadness in one scene, however this is quickly ended. This makes you wonder as to whether he is actually instinctively psychotic, or perhaps just badly damaged from a tough childhood.

Visually, this is quite a strange film. It has a somewhat light-hearted aura surrounding it which is sometimes strengthened by an excellent soundtrack. This makes for an extra punch because it highlights how natural and normal this life is for all the residents of the city and can be quite a tough thing to think about. Some of the imagery, however, is very powerful and graphic making them often hard to handle. This imagery is made strong by a wonderful young cast who give excellent performances throughout. I'm sure if I were fluent in Portuguese, I'd find some small discrepancies within their line delivery, but as it stands, everybody seems very natural bringing about very strong characters.

The soundtrack is superbly chosen, at certain times of terror, the soundtrack adds an oddly ambivalent sense of joy around the actions going on. It's as if, through the audiences perspective we see tragedy and brutality, but for the characters they see necessity or entertainment.

The film is brilliantly paced, very fast, with some excellent cinematographic choices. The pace and overall intensity of the film encourages you to keep involved, and despite the tough imagery in certain parts, it's hard to look away. I can't seem to find much wrong with this film, and feel that it deserves 10 out of 10 for its courageous story matter and the confidence to not shy away from any details of, sadly, what many slums still are today. Even if this doesn't accurately portray life in certain slums, as a piece of art, this is brilliant.

The cinematography in the opening scene is worth mentioning, it sets a very suspicious mood which gives the audience a very early sense of intrigue. If you know nothing of the 'Munich Massacre', then the graphic nature of this opening scene will have a bigger impact upon you. The tension and suspense created during these early moments of the film set a nice pace to be carried through. Spielberg's portrayal of these events creates a very well executed shocking sense of realism.

I couldn't help but feel, however, that to some people interest might be lost within the first 10 minutes. After showing a portion of reconstructed events in somewhat realistic detail, the film shifts to a slower pace with less intrigue with the display of on-lookers watching their TV sets, and reporters at the scene. This can however be construed to be with good reason, setting an authentic mood of how people reacted to the news at the time with a very clueless perspective, which was achieved well with some archive footage of the events. For audience members who remember watching these events on the news, this can easily bring back emotions experienced at the time.

There is a great feeling of an independent production surrounding this, with a Hollywood look pasted over the top – You can see the money, and with Spielberg in charge, it's no surprise this got a major release into the box office. This isn't particularly a bad thing though; this just goes to show what you can accomplish when a real life drama is granted a healthy budget. Though it seemed at times that the money was used to acquire the best equipment possible rather than considering the mood of the scenery, resultantly, this made several sets visually come across as a studio stage where each scene was, in actuality, shot on location. However this does not distract from the rest of the film too much, maintaining suspense, intrigue and tension throughout.

Eric Bana gave an amazing performance, practically stealing the show. It's clear he worked very hard on his accent. Though Geoffrey Rush delivered some great acting too, his accent didn't feel too solid. Everybody slipped up a tiny bit here and there, but I think Rush's accent was the least consistent. Daniel Craig was fairly mediocre in this, a bit semi-natural. He carried his role well but wasn't very consistent – There were moments when it felt like he was over-acting, as if trying too hard to grant his character a sense of realism.

The other notably great performance was from Mathieu Amalric who plays a character called 'Louis', 'Avner's primary source for gathering names of 'Black September' members. He is a very intricate, well written character – There is something naturally sinister about Amalric as an actor, and this aided him well here, making 'Louis' a subtly untrustworthy character. The chemistry between Amalric and Bana was brilliant, they were very natural together and this made their scenes together very captivating.

One particular scene to mention shows 'Louis' taking 'Avner' to his father's place for lunch, surrounded by a very large family. 'Louis's father came across as a somewhat contrived character in the things he said. The character was written to portray a certain level of wisdom, delivering various metaphors such as; "Butchers' hands, gentle souls", and saying to his son, "You centaur, you minotaur." The whole scene was an explosion of forced metaphor and felt a little detached from the rest of the film.

Structured around attempts on members of 'Black September', 'Munich' is well designed and artistically executed. Each attempt on a member of 'Black September' brings an excellent level of conflicting humanity, evil and power. Their first potential assassination brings about the realisation that they are not only killing people with terrorist involvement, they are killing fathers, sons, uncles and brothers. These people, despite their evil, are people who will be missed. Though 'Avner's team believe themselves to have faith in the operation they are carrying out, their morality often gets in the way as they try to execute their target, and their target alone, bringing about a certain degree of failure with each attempt.

The character development is well orchestrated, giving us a group of very compassionate and moral assassins. This is displayed best at the meal time scenes; the main characters always share large home-cooked meals with each other to discuss their execution plans. This is some great symbolism, showing how they can participate in something so tidy and civilised, only to discuss plans of something so messy and monstrous. These meal times gradually display a realisation of potential futility in their operation. As the film moves along, 'Avner' starts to question the morality of what he is the leader of. If what he is doing, is the right thing to do? Whether it is justified? Whether he was manipulated by the government of his own country, to carry out an operation for selfish national objectives or pure revenge? It's a very well orchestrated ambivalent mix of compassion and evil, and the protagonist knows this. Due to this, we ultimately have a traumatised hero who feels as if he has accomplished nothing, making not only the character, but the audience realise the futility of retaliation and terrorism as a whole.

I rate this film a respectable 7 out of 10, it's a well worth seeing and is very enjoyable. Great performances, story, script and great historical research. From what I've read of the actual events of the 'Munich Massacre', the film appears to be very historically accurate, and the mix of fiction is superbly balanced. It's great to see an A-Lister like Steven Spielberg tackle such a challenging piece. This is one of those films not necessarily designed to entertain, but to teach us about humanity, and the depth and fragility of human emotion and mentality as well as a bit of history.

My friend lent me the first 4 a year and a half ago, because I had inaccurate pre-conceptions of what the first film was like. I figured it was going to be a shallow, plot-less, maniac killer, killing for no reason. I was shocked when I saw the first one, at the level of depth it actually had - Maybe it's because I had low expectations, or maybe because somebody with a pen actually THOUGHT about what they were writing.

I got up to 4, thinking about how ridiculous it was but how much I was still enjoying it. And after just seeing 5 yesterday, it's strange; the formula is so obvious...You know what structures to expect, and the acting is horrible. The only thing that's captivating is the cinematography and the special effects.

I mean; WOW, the script just feels like a dirty dish rag being strained of it's last little drops of moisture. But, still - I greatly enjoyed the film and am more than likely going to watch 6 and 7 and whatever the hell number they can milk it out to.

I guarantee, if you enjoyed the first one and give the second a chance - You won't escape the wrath of Saw. It's the most bizarre thing I've experienced, because I'm not even a fan of Western horror!

OK...So this film happened to be on Prime-Time TV on a Friday night. We weren't really in film mode - But as we are friends with one of the actors we decided to watch it, mostly for him.

Now lets see; I'll start from the beginning - I mean, the opening was great for the money, it was inventive and looked pretty captivating. After this it starts to fall apart bit by bit.

I started losing interest. There were only 3 good performances, count em, 3. They were; Jerry Lloyd, Phil Randoy and Rodrigo DeMedeiros. The rest felt like overacting and the rest just bad acting...Tom Doty looked right for the character he was playing, but his performance was often quite shallow and unconvincing. The story was quite convoluted, it felt as if there was too much going on and I couldn't really grasp what the characters were doing. All I managed to comprehend by the end of the film was Cash's vendetta for Hector, and why. But I didn't understand why Pablo screwed Cash over, Abe Shanks intentions towards the crime syndicate mish-mash, or why Hector did what he did to create Cash's vendetta towards him.

This is where I lost interest, I got confused - Why did I get confused? I didn't understand at all, if I was supposed to take this film seriously or not and I spent more time working that out then concentrating on the story. The violence was ridiculously over the top and often times quite funny, in no way realistic, but funny. Though because of the opening being so great it left me in an awkward position and it confused hell out of me.

I'll use 'Sin City' as a comparison here, because it's a similar genre. 'Sin City' had a perfect balance between the silly and the serious, you can identify immediately that the film is not taking itself seriously yet is balanced out by good acting and good writing. So you can watch it seriously and respect it for what it is. 'Bullets Blood, & a Fistful of Ca$h' was a horrid mess of silly and serious, it's almost as if you're laughing one moment and then wondering if you were supposed to the next...This sucked out any humour in dialogue that was intended to be funny.

Some of the cinematography wasn't too bad, there were some nice angles, and though the violence seemed silly; it was pretty impressive for the budget.

There were too many main characters, and only a handful were properly introduced. The rest popped up randomly claiming to have some involvement in the main plot, this takes you out of the story from what you've seen so far for you to practically go back to the beginning to learn something new...It shifts to much to concentrate on.

The editing process clearly had very little patience behind it, there were some horrible cuts and a lot of the audio was poorly inserted.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head - I'd take notes if I watched it again, but I don't really want to.

It was a nice effort with the budget, and I commend the people involved taking a stab at this - But it just didn't come together very well. Overall the film was pretty messy, and I think it would only be passable to fans of these genre of films. More time needed to be spent on the script so that it flowed well and made sense. It should also be decided from the off if you're going to want people to take the film seriously or if it's intended to be some form of parody. If you want to attempt both in one, some serious thought processes need to go into where you want the humorous performances to go to avoid some mess.

I don't really recommend this film...To anyone, to be perfectly honest. But I still commend the efforts and congratulate the makers for getting it on TV at such a perfect time slot. Better luck next time, but this one is probably something to bury.

I saw this at the cinema with my parents when it was released in the UK. I had heard some reviews about it, rating it to be quite good - on top of this the concept intrigued me. So I went with my parents to see this film at the cinema, so it started off OK, and I was remaining open minded about it because it wasn't far into it. But as it went on, I found my self getting quite bored and losing interest despite still being able to follow the storyline. The film has a fairly slow pace which is not for all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a film I like has to be a really punchy, no stops thrill ride or anything - There is just a limit to how slow a pace I can handle.

So basically, there are a set of individual stories, and everybody is tied to a Japanese man giving a gun to his Moroccan hunter friend. So with the main story we see how this transaction affects several people across the world. There is a large portion (well, seemingly larger than the rest) of the film which seems to focus on the Japanese man's daughter, Cheiko, she is a deaf, nymphomaniac teenager and her mother has committed suicide. We see how she struggles in life, fine, but she is indirectly affected by the actions of her father. The other characters in the film are all affected by the gun in a direct way. The only link to Cheiko is that the person who gave the gun away is her father, she is in no way affected by how the gun was used to affect several people across the world.

Cheiko didn't fit in, and in my opinion was a lame excuse to show some unnecessary full frontal nudity. Cheiko to me was like the last piece from a different puzzle you slam into place because it's a bit misshapen. People may think Cheiko's story was the most interesting or whatever, which is fine, on it's own I won't dispute that to some it might be a great story. But try and fit it into place with the flow of the main storyline and she's attached very loosely.

The film was like seeing a bunch of consequences to an action we know very vaguely about, (and I'm talking about the transaction of giving the gun away to those who think the action was firing the gun off the cliff). Chieko's father is the cause, and we learn nothing about him. We don't learn for certain his reasons behind giving the gun away, and we don't learn anything about his character.

If Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett weren't in this film, this movie would not have made it to cinema - It would have been straight to video, bargain bin.

As I said, it has a fantastic concept, being a sort of chaos theory. How one small action affects people across the world. The theme of communication, how each of the affected people have trouble talking to certain people in their lives was also interesting. On paper it sounds like a great film, but in reality it's a bit of a bore.

If you have a higher tolerance of slow paces, don't get bored easily, or don't care about the flow of a story then by all means - This film is probably for you. Overall I think this movie doesn't have particularly strong characters, and the story wasn't carried through very well making this film not very enjoyable. I wouldn't want to see it again.