mrdjx

I've been watching Better Call Saul for the last week starting with the first season of the show. Of the 7 Episodes that I've watched so far, this one is the best and could easily compete with 'The Fly' and 'Ozymandias' as being one of the best episodes of the entire Breaking Bad franchise and it has an intriguing setup.

The episode starts with a flashback scene- Mike is visiting his daughter- in-law Stacey and her daughter Kaylee. They discuss the recent death of Mike's son, Matty. Stacey recalls that Matty was acting out of character during his last conversation with Mike and was murdered in an ambush shortly afterwards inn which two of his fellow officers survived. Because of this, she suspects that Mike may have played a part in his sons death, which Mike flatly denies.

Flashing forward to the present and following on from the last episodes cliffhanger, Mike is being interrogated by two detectives who were colleagues from his Philadelphia Police Unit- the officers who were with Matty on the night of the ambush were murdered under similar circumstances nearly six months later and Mike is on their list of suspects. Jimmy McGill sits in on the interrogation on Mike's behalf and helps him to gain access to the detectives notes via a cup of coffee.

Let it be known here that I've only described the first twenty minutes of the episode. It is the next 20 minutes, where Mike reveals his version of the events of what happened in both ambushes that is really spectacular. What I saw in this episode is that Mike really means it when he says 'No Half Measures'.

In the previous episodes Better Call Saul, ties itself a little too closely to Breaking Bad in terms of fan service with Tuco Salamanca getting an over glorified cameo appearance. But true to Breaking Bad's spirit, when things escalate in Better Call Saul- they really escalate. With this episode, Better Call Saul drops its 'We're in the same universe as BB' schtick and gives a dark noir western thriller.

Mike has always been one of the most interesting characters in Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad, whether it be when he's working as a private investigator or giving a monologue about his experiences in the police force. This is the first episode where he is the lead character, with Jimmy only in a short appearance for the interrogation scene. Let's hope we see more of him in the future.

"No more half measures",

Indeed.

In the post Roger Ebert era where proper film criticism is few and far between, Half in the Bag is one of the funniest and most insightful film review shows on Youtube. A comedic spin on the traditional film review format, Half In the Bag blurs the lines between sitcom, satire and film discussion. The setup is thus, Mike and Jay are employees/owners of a business called Lightning Fast VCR Repair. Seemingly their only client is Harry S. Plinkett, a blind, aging, senile old man, who is somewhat oblivious to their inability to do their jobs productively and competently. Mike and Jay take advantage of Plinkett, by using their time to bum around and discuss films.

The fictional narrative that is wrapped around the reviews gives the presenters leeway to satirize the films they are reviewing. One of the most notorious examples of this is their review of the film Movie 43 where they describe various jaw droppingly disgusting scenes while hailing the film as a masterwork of comedy. Upon closer inspection it is clear the reviewers are deliberately making these scenes up with scenarios that are more horrifying than funny.

Perhaps their most infamous and best moment then is their review of Jack and Jill. The review is a breathtakingly monumental takedown of Adam Sandler's film career covering everything from the non existent humor to the outright disturbing level of product placement. Mike then assesses that the film seems to have been made soley as a front for embezzlement between Sony and its associates. Jay -citing the minimum level of effort in the production- then questions whether it should even be called a film.

Half in the Bag is written and produced by Red Letter Media, a production company that is most well known for the highly acclaimed and terrifyingly well informed Star Wars Prequel reviews which collectively make up one of the finest reviews ever assembled on the Internet. In Half in the Bag, Red Letter Media finds a worthy successor and provides proof that quality film criticism will survive the demise of the publishing industry, and the onslaught of studio funded reviews.

Thats what I have to say about the Gilmore Girls, having just watched the series melancholic finale -'Bon Voyage' last night on Netflix. For the next half hour I couldn't help but cry. My journey with Gilmore Girls began on July 2nd 2016, the day after its global release on Netflix, and for the most part, I could not stop watching.

The primary plot of the show is centered around Lorelai Gilmore (a wise cracking Lauren Graham) and her daughter Rory (an angelic Alexis Bledel). In the shows early episodes many characters mistake Lorelai for an older sister. These aren't lost on Lorelai or Rory- Lorelai was 16 when Rory was born.

SPOILERS AHEAD Lorelai herself is something of a wonderkind among the ever growing list of standby-your-man TV mums. An only child to her wealthy parents, the placid Richard (a pleasant turn by the great now late Edward Hermann) and the self-absorbed Emily Gilmore (played with fantastic snark by Kelly Bishop). Lorelai has rejected their ideas as to how Rory should be brought up and has since relocated from their Hartford home. This is the primary source of conflict in the series. The Gilmores -being socialites- expected Lorelai to follow the family tradition of being an Ivy League student. Lorelai -a fierce independent- isn't cut for their world of order. Thus her pregnancy with Rory and Rory's birth provide an escape.

In the shows present time, Lorelai and Rory are living in Stars Hollow- A storybook town in Connecticut populated by a wide range of lovable eccentrics who treat Rory as the towns daughter. There Lorelai has found a job working at the independence inn, starting as a maid and working her way up to executive manager. She also starts a sometimes or maybe relationship with Luke, the quiet but always dependable owner of the town diner.

At the start of the show, Rory is a well-read academic now approaching the age of sixteen. This in Lorelai's eyes is truly a lifetime, one that Lorelai hopes won't be ridden with the same mistakes that she made. Lorelai manages to file a successful application for Rory at the Chilton Academy- a school that will definitely take Rory to the Ivy Leagues. The price though is steep and Lorelai reluctantly returns to her estranged parents for financial support. An agreement is reached, Richard and Emily will fund Rory's education on the basis that all four will share a family dinner on Friday night.

END OF SPOILERS

There is a lot to like about the Gilmore Girls- especially the dialogue (written in Seasons 1-6 by Amy Sherman-Palladino) between the two lead characters. The two lead characters -both cult fim junkies- can reference obscure films with the best of them. In Season 2, Lorelai warns Rory that someone might whack them with a cannoli. "Whack you with a cannoli?" asks Rory, then immediately realising she has been had, "Oh, because he left the gun and took the cannoli". Exchanges like this supply the shows humor.

Even with the humor coming left right and centre. The show still carries an undercurrent of sadness and pain. On a trip to Harvard, Lorelai sees a picture of a graduate, and quietly regrets not taking that path. There is a moment in Season one where Rory takes Emily to the garden shed where Lorelai had raised her- only for Emily to find herself questioning how her daughter forfeited a life of comfort and opportunity for one of poverty and hardship.

I'm writing this now the world eagerly anticipates the release of the followup series Gilmore Girls:A Year in the Life in approximately two days. Lets hope that the new series is every bit as good as the original.

In this Golden Age of Television, we are constantly seeing networks trying to create their own variations of "The Sopranos", "Breaking Bad", "Mad Men" or "Game Of Thrones" in desperate attempts to create the next "Best TV Show of All Time". But few or even none have ever dared to accept the challenge proposed by David Simon's "The Wire". Clocking in at Sixty and a half hours. At first glance, it appears to be yet another cop show in a market dominated by the all too common Law & Orders and CSI's, but rest assured "The Wire" has far more scope than that. It is an audacious and brutal attack on American politics over the course of 5 Seasons that tackles each of the major institutions that make up an American City. Starting the Drug trade in season 1, The Wire works its way up to the seaports, politics, education and the media. All while showing how the choices made in each institution create a ripple effect through out the city. Speaking of which, unlike the Soprano's or Breaking Bad, The Wire does not present the audience with a central character, rather it gives us the city of Baltimore and the people who live in it.

There are however characters who stick around the series run: most memorably Omar Little- a streetwise thief who is trapped in the social economic low-end of the city by his criminal history. Non- the-less, he maintains a strict moral code and will only harm those who have wronged him. In the one of the shows most unforgettable scenes, Omar is asked to go to court and take the witness stand. When the defendent's lawyer asks him why the jury should trust the testimony of a twice convicted criminal. This then becomes the basis for the following exchange:

Maurice 'Maury' Levy: You are amoral, are you not? You are feeding off the violence and the despair of the drug trade. You are stealing from those who themselves are stealing the lifeblood from our city. You are a parasite who leeches off... Omar: Just like you, man. Maurice 'Maury' Levy: ...the culture of drugs. Excuse me? What? Omar: I got the shotgun, you got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right?

What Omar asserts here is America's failure as a society. Instead of America being the land of the free as often touted, its become a place where the rich drowns the poor and the only way to survive it is to play the game. We of this theme early in Season 1 when drug dealers are learning how to play chess and very quickly they discover that the king will do anything to survive, even if it means sacrificing all his pawns.

Moments like these show where the Wire towers over its contemporaries. Its not a show that can simply be watched once. It needs to be watched, then rewatched, and then once you're done with the commentaries and podcasts- rewatched again. After watching 60 episodes, I am forever in awe of what David Simon and his team have achieved.

David Simon, I salute you.

10/10

All things considered, 1999 was indeed one of the best years for film in recent memory. The Matrix shot into the vocabulary of pop culture like a bullet. M Nyt Shamalon's The Sixth Sense delivered one of the most famous endings in history. David Finch's Fight Club quickly obtained cult status. American beauty went on to sweep the Academy, and the sorely missed Stanley Kuberick delivered his final work with Eyes Wide Shut.

In hindsight, it can be seen that all of the goodwill for movie-making on display that year was undone by a film, considered so disappointing that it permanently turned one of the most powerful men in the world into a publichate figure.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, is one of those films that really showed a lot of promise in the years leading up to its release. All three films in the Original Trilogy (A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return of The Jedi) were landmark films that forever changed the filmmaking landscape when it came to blending storytelling and special effects. Between ROTJ and TPM, were monumental leaps in CGI, courtesey of films like Toy Story, Jurassic Park, and Terminator 2. With CGI rapidly advancing, taking it back to the series that rapidly spearheaded the development of special effects- seemed like a natural idea. In the years following TPM, fans have constantly argued about its racist characterisations, the ever-so annoying jar jar binks and the ruining of the Force with scientific explanations.

But few have ever been able to look at it through a filmmakers eye, and that is where the beauty of Mr Plinkett's The Phantom Menace review begins. Mr Plinkett is actually a character written and portrayed by Mike Stoklasa who was a film school graduate and boy does it show. Right off the bat when you watch the reviews opening segment when Plinkett describes just how disappointing The Phantom Menace is , you'll know you're in for something special.

Let it be reiterated here that Stoklasa is from film school, and uses the character of Plinkett to voice his expertise on filmmaking with horrifying spades of dark humor. During the first 10 minute segment, Plinkett deals swift blows to the films narrative structure, revealing the Phantom Menace's lack of relatable characters, and more importantly the lack of a protagonist who can act as a bridge between the audience and the films political plot. This is only the beginning of the review which lasts for 70 minutes in length. Combined with Plinket's reviews for Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, makes for a 4 hour undertaking. Rest assured though, not a minute is wasted. Ever wanted to know what was wrong with the films plot. Plinket quickly points out that it is never revealed to the audience why The Trade Federation is following Palpatines orders. More to the point though, he argues that Palpatines entire plan constantly foils itself- to the point where his eventual success in overthrowing the republic is just one gigantic fluke made out of flukes- not his own cleverness.

Perhaps the bizarre aspect of this review is how Stoklasa creates a narrative within Plinket's reviews and ever so cleverly, Plinket's development reflects his own critiques on TPM's narrative. I now know its possible to have more sympathy for a schizophrenic murderer then any of the characters in the Star Wars prequels. Plinket himself is a joke on the length of the reviews. To analyse and understand Star Wars enough to do three feature length videos of film criticism, you must be a psychopath. One Star wars fan missed the joke and sadly wrote a 108 page rebuttal over the course of six months, defending the films internal logic but completely ignoring its narrative problems.

When Plinket discusses the film's climatic sequence wherein Qui Gon Jinn and Obi Wan Kenobi fight off Darth Maul, he shows just how forgettable the fight is, and compares it against the iconic duels featured in the Original Star Wars trilogy. This is actually a very moving moment, when you realise that the best fights in films are not about the fighting but the internalisation of the characters. ITs points like that make Plinkets reviews special, they absolutely transcend being reviews of the Star Wars prequels and make for an eye opening lesson in film criticism and movie making.

A must watch for any film fan.

Before I begin, let me tell you that I like to watch so-bad-good-movies. I've sat through Battlefield Earth, Plan 9 From Outer Space, The Room and even got a few kicks out of watching scenes from Manos: Hands of Fate. The aforementioned movies are famous for being dubbed, "Worst movie ever." Chicken Park is worse than all of these films. In fact should never be put on a worst of list, unless the authors responsible put a disclaimer reading "Do not watch this movie if you value your existence!"

Chicken Park is so bad that after 40 minutes, it was physically impossible for me to sit through it without vomiting. This is a spoof film that is worse then any of the spoof movies made by Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg. My brother unwittingly stumbled across this in a DVD rental store and hired it. Due to psychologically repressed memories, I have difficulty recalling all the details of my forty minutes in the closest circles of hell with this...this ungodly mess. I seem to recall a scene featuring a giant chicken raping a man. I don't know if that was actually in the film, or if it became a figment of my imagination as a consequence for attempting to watch it.

Luckily the film is only available in Australia. But if you do find a copy, it is your duty to take it and take whatever measures are required to destroy it, so we can live knowing that there will be a future when no one can see Chicken Park.

The Black knight is a painfully unfunny film, that hangs on the most obvious joke that a time travel movie can make. That is that the hero from our present time, will travel to the past and impress the locals by introducing them to modern pop culture. In the Black knight, the title role is Jamal Skywalker (Martin Lawrence) who after taking a knock to the head, wakes up to find himself in England of the year 1328 and be caught up with rogues who want to overthrow the King and restore the throne to the former Queen. Jamal is mistaken by the King as being a representative of Normandy, and thus finds acceptance among the locals. That is until he accidentally deflowers the kings daughter. Jamal finds help along the way , in the form of a disgraced knight named Knolte (Tom Wilkinson) who despite being a drunken present, is quite capable of returning to his former glory.

The problem with the Black Knight is that the jokes are too obvious. In an attempt to stop an execution from happening, Jamal decides to terrify the witnesses by proving he is a fire generating sorcerer. How? By showing them his lighter of course! Worse there's a recurring joke where Knolte survives death 3 times! Hey,if its not funny the first time, keep repeating it until the audiences laughs as a way to pray that their torture may end. Those stuck in the predicament of having suffer through this trash will at least learn the following things:

That any producers for a comedy film should write the name Martin Lawrence on a blacklist. That time travel fish out of water comedies like this and Encino Man are old, stupid unoriginal, and horrifically unfunny, and that the best time travel comedy, Back to the Future, was funny because its protagonist found himself in sticky and awkward situations that had hilarious implications.

Black Knight seems to think that audiences will laugh in the opening when Jamal pulls out a nose hair. If the same had been done to the films writers, I might actually have a chuckle or two.

3/10

Absolutely disgusting

It's hard not to like James Cameron, after all he's a director who exploded onto the cinema scene in the 1980s when he directed the Terminator, on a cheap budget of 7 million dollars and made it one hell of a ride. Since then he's gone onto direct blockbusters such as Aliens, the Abyss, Terminator 2 and the record breaking Titanic. Each one of these films landmarks in the development of CGI. This is because Cameron is the kind of director who follows the rule that CGI should be used as a tool to support the story, not as a gimmick like so many other blockbuster films.

After Titanic was released in 1997, Cameron dropped out of the public eye to begin developing the technology for his new film Avatar. Cameron made it clear that he wanted to make the nearly 90% of the film CGI with motion capture performances in CGI environments. Last but not least, he wanted the film to be filmed in 3D Stereoscopic film. The hype was flying. Could it really be? The king of special effects (and the world) was now touching a struggling technology? Would Avatar be the landmark film for 3D? So after 12 years of work, Avatar is finally here and the question is, is it any good? Not really.

Avatar tells the story of Jack Sully, a paralyzed marine who is hired by a corporation working on the planet Pandora to participate in the Avatar program. The Avatar program is designed to help humans survive Pandora's environment and communicate with the locals of a tribe called the Na'vi. The program works by hooking the human mind up to an artificially grown Na'vi body created from the humans DNA, allowing the Na'vi to spring to life while its human counterpart sleeps in a chamber. Jake's brother participated in the program until he was killed and Jake is the only person with matching DNA.

Naturally Jake accepts this as an opportunity to regain his ability to walk. He is given instructions by his superiors who are using the planet to mine for "unobtainium" to report them any information on where they might find it. He must also inform the Na'vi of upcoming mining operations.

*SPOILERS* Soon enough, Jake begins to meet and mingle with the locals who deride the humans for destroying much of their land and its spirits. Though Jake is initially met with hostility by the locals, he soon achieves acceptance and begins to appreciate Na'vi culture. Ultimately he is forced to making the Hollywood decision of choosing between the humans side or the Na'vi's, ultimately leading to an epic battle of nature vs man made.

If you think the plot sounds very familiar, its because you've either seen Pocahontas or Dances With Wolves. Both films were about Americans who are sent to deal with indigenous people who end up accepting him before he ultimately has to face the choice of betraying his culture or the indigenous tribes. Avatar basically just retells those stories with CGI and a different setting. But where as those films were brave enough to directly address the conflict between Americans and Native Americans, Avatar wimps out.

Even worse is the flat character development. None of the characters have any real depth and mostly stick to the bare bones archetypes like the American who appreciates adopting a new culture, the concerned Scientist who is always right but ignored by superiors, the skeptical tribe leader, the doomed love interest and the outright evil greedy humans. What exactly happened to the script in the 12 years this movie was being produced? Did Cameron even bother to at least write some character profiles? When making a film that's nearly three hours long, you need interesting characters to fill in the running time.

Much has been made about the films use of 3D and CGI, and as a first time 3D goer I can say that it was an interesting experience seeing things pop out of the screen. Some reviewers here said that the 3D here wasn't noticeable. I think this was Cameron's intention as to make it seem much more natural. Even in the 2D Blur Ray version, Cameron's understanding of how to use 3D a camera transcends across to 2D screens beautifully.However for 3D to enhance the Cinema experience it needs to be used in films, that tell good stories. Film makers need to remember that when making a 3D film, you still need a great story to support the experience.

While the story falters heavily, the films productions reigns supreme in every element of the art design and the language of the Na'vi. The world of Pandora does come alive, its just a shame that there isn't any interesting characters or narrative to accompany it.

When I left the cinema, I really wanted to like Avatar for its special effects and production values but as I thought more about it overtime, the more I felt bothered by the overly clichéd archetypes. Its ironic to say that a 3D film like this can't manage to have characters with more than one dimension. This is a shame because for all the effort that has clearly gone into the production, there is no story here to make Avatar worthwhile.

Avatar is a letdown from Cameron's previous exploits. But if Cameron uses the experience, he gained from its production, to make a film with a deep storyline and true flesh and blood characters. I'd let him reclaim his throne and become the "King of the world" again.

Last night, I engaged in a long conversation with my brothers girlfriend. Although my memory is unclear due to the hammering effects of drinking three cocktails, there is one thing I still remember. She declared Legally Blonde as "the worst movie ever."Having seen LegalIy Blonde, I challenged her by reminding her that she had not seen The Room, although she had endured the Nostalgia Critics infamous review of it. While both films are bad, there is a distinguishing difference between a bad film like Legally Blonde and a bad film like The Room. You see, Legally Blonde is bad because like many mainstream films, it has shallow characters. The Room is bad because it fails on every conceivable level that a film can fail which is why it has been dubbed by some academics and as "the Citizen Kane of bad movies". Because Citizen Kane is often cited as "the greatest movie ever made", The Room is therefore "the worst movie ever made" even if the title that has long been held by Plan 9 From Outer Space for well over thirty years. However as bad as The Room is, it delivers unintentional laughs in bucket loads. Go onto Youtube and look up "Hi doggy/Flower shop scene." If you aren't amused by the obvious scripting and editing errors, not to mention the downright bizarre mis en scene, then clearly there must be something wrong with you.

The Room is the story of Johnny (played by writer/ director, Tommy Wiseau), a banker who is about marry his longtime fiancé, Lisa (Juliette Danielle) . After an unnecessarily long and detailed love scene that is briefly interrupted by the perverted Denny who just likes to watch. Lisa figures she is bored of Johnny, and decides to invite his friend Mark (Greg Sestero) over so she can have a talk that involves having sex on a spiral staircase. Drama inevitably ensures, through several convoluted plot points that are instantly dropped before everything climaxes in true Shakespearean style.

One of the great features of The Room is how amazingly repetitive the dialogue is. Every time a character enters a set, they are always greeted with lines like "oh hi Mark", "oh hi Denny" , "oh hi doggy". The "oh hi" phrase is repeated so often, it's almost as if Tommy thought they were necessary to remind us that the scene has now changed. But that's not the only thing he reminds us about. Every time Lisa seduces Mark, he always declares "Johnny is my best friend". At several points in the film, Lisa's mother ,Claudette comes in to remind us that by cheating on her fiancé, Lisa is going to suffer deep financial troubles. If you want see what plot driven dialogue looks like in its most unsubtle, non character driven form, look no further.

The character interactions are also monotonous. In the films first half hour, we see three sex scenes that are ridiculously gratuitous to the point of nearly being soft core. The only way for Johnny to hang out with his friends is to play football. Johnny laughs even if friends tell him something that wasn't meant to be funny or ironic.

The limited character interactions are not helped by the acting either. Never before seeing the famous "I did NUHT" moment, had I ever seen acting that was so detached and void of any convincing emotion that replacing the actors with Hayden Christiansen or even the HAL 9000 computer could actually mark an improvement.

And yet, because of its sheer level of badness combined with Wiseau's love of film, The Room represents a rare feat in cinema. Its success is the kind that many would be directors have wished for. Yes it's a bad amateur film by a clueless first time director . But like many of the best films like Quentin Tarrantino's Pulp Fiction, or Monty Python and The Holy Grail, it delivers scene after unforgettable scene with schizophrenic writing that's hilarious enough to deliver the kind of joy that could finally give Super Mario an erection after twenty five years of sexless marriage.

The Room came out in 2003, the same year that gave us hits like The Matrix sequels, Bruce Almighty, Terminator 3 and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle which all made millions at the box office. But none of those films are likely to be quoted five years from now. By contrast The Room is much worse than those films and vanished into thin air upon release. It has since attracted an ever growing cult with some fans who were dedicated enough to faithfully adapt it into a video game.

Yes, the films I've listed are bad. But they do not have the passion that The Room has to reach for a high level artistic greatness. And because the film aims so high, it fails so hard. Because it fails so hard, it is without doubt the worst film ever made. But because the film often aims so high and fails so hard, it is without doubt one of the funniest and therefore greatest films ever made. Wiseau did not make the masterpiece he wanted to make, but he still made one. I think that's enough to satisfy any director.

For: • Extremely funny in the most unintentional ways.

Against •Technically speaking its horrendous.

Rating 10 out of 10

Reservoir Dogs is the debut film of director Quentin Tarrantino. While its not a masterpiece like his later effort Pulp Fiction. For a first time effort coming from a video store clerk who didn't go to film school, this is a remarkable achievement in the world of independent cinema.

The storyline is simple. Crime lord, Joe Cabot and his son "Nice Guy" Eddie have arranged a diamond heist. To cover their tracks, they hire several associates who don't know each other personally and thus can't give information out in case they get arrested. These associates are Mr White (played by Harvy Keitel), Mr Pink (played by Steve Buscemi), Mr Orange (Tim Roth), Mr Blonde (Michael Madson), Mr Brown (in a cameo by Quentin Tarrantino) and Mr Blue (played by real life former criminal Eddie Bunker). The heist immediately fails ending with a massacre that leaves Brown and Blue dead, Orange has been shot, leaving it to others to figure out who snitched them. What makes the plot interesting is not in the story itself but how it's told. When discussing mainstream cinema, Andy Warhol said that "All the interesting bits of a film are left in the cutting room floor". Reservoir Dogs is the anti thesis of Hollywood filmmaking. Yes, the heist happens but we don't see it. What we get however, is the events that happen before and after, feeding enough details to figure out what happened.

This is Tarrantino's skill as both story teller and director, he can make details or characters we don't even see seem significant. Part of this is easily attributed to the excellent script. This is where the dialogue deserves a special mention. In an ordinary film, the dialogue is typically used just to explain the plot to the audience. Tarrantino breaks this rule by letting his characters converse from Brown's graphic explanation of Madonna's "Like a Virgin" to the humorous interaction between Eddie and Blonde. By avoiding the usual traps that plague Hollywood films, Tarrantino manages to make a movie solely dedicated to its characters and their knee jerk reactions to the heist.

Raising the mark even further for the film is the carefully chosen ensemble cast. Harvey Keitel is superb as Mr White. His skills shine in the films early scenes where he shows his empathy with the dying Mr Orange. One might say that this portrayal is almost the exact opposite of the typical hardened criminal.

Michael Madson, whilst having a limited screen time delivers the films most infamous scene as Mr Blonde, a psychotic criminal who is both brutal and cool. His dry deadpan delivery sets up most of the films tension. Perhaps the most memorable performance however goes to Steve Buscemi as Mr Pink. Out of the entire cast or characters, Pink is the most interesting which is ironic given that he is the only character we know nothing about. Buscemi manic performance proves equal match for Pinks loyalty and concerns about what is "professional" in the crime world. It is the films finest and most articulated performance. Reservoir Dogs is still not perfect though and I wouldn't recommend it to all people. For starters, Tim Roth's performance as Mr Orange while strong suffers greatly from his constantly slipping vernacular. You won't be sure is he's Italian American Mafioso, a street wise kid or simply a whiny brat. Thankfully, his most of his dialogue is kept to minimum as he spends much of his screen time lying in a pool of blood. Secondly the level of violence in this movie is bloody and gratuitous, peaking at the torture scene which was reportedly disturbing enough to prompt several people to leave the theatre. Yes the film is violent, but in the stylized way of the Hong Kong films that inspired it. Thirdly, the film is full of enough profanity laden dialogue to fill a text book. I don't actually mind it though, as it makes sense given that these characters are p*ssed off at the failure of such a carefully planned heist. But if you cant stomach excessive bad language, then isn't the film for you. These arguments should not be seen as detractors to the film though. Would I recommend Reservoir Dogs? That depends. If you're a cinephile, a pop culture fanatic or just want to see a refreshing film, by all means do. If however you're a concerned parent who wants to see something with the children or someone who cant stand such graphic violence and language, then avoid it all costs. Make no mistake though, this is a fantastic film that paved the way for the way for the career of a talented director.

Of all the internet stars who have risen in the last 5 years. The Nostalgia Critic (played by Chicago comedian, Doug Walker) has claimed the highest ground by taking forgotten films from the eighties and nineties and critically slaughtering them for 20 minutes. As such, he deliberately picks films that are awful with many of them a good number of them including Batman & Robin, North, Alone in the dark, Battlefield Earth and The Room, all of which have dubious honor of being considered among the worst movies ever made. As bad as these films they provide a perfect foil for his comedic skills as he picks each one apart nearly scene for scene, making fun of just about anything in cinematic jargon.

The episode where he reviews The Room, will probably provide the best introduction to the Critic. The Room is a film that has become notorious for its atrocious z-grade acting,writing,camera-work and editing leading many to dub it as the worst movie ever made. In other words, its a comedic goldmine. Unfortunately that episode was taken down from NCs website within a week due to a "copyright notice" from the films production company. However the review can be found on youtube and blip.TV.

Ironically, NCs reviews have removed obscurity from these films, because the Internets memes he generates with them. I'll remind anyone who wishes to contest this theory that that "I WAS FROZEN TODAY".

Well thats all I can really say about The Nostalgia Critic. His reviews are consistently funny and use well chosen films. In fact his review of THE ROOM was funny enough that it inspired me and my friends to endure the film.On top of that, there are several top 11 episodes where NC looks at the saddest and scariest moments in film, films he considers to be the greatest ever, and the Coolest clichés. However none of these are quite as fresh as his reviews.