downwest

This film is about what made Episodes IV, V, and VI into what they are all about. In the end we realize that after six installments, Star Wars is about the tragedy and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Ultimately I think we're supposed to realize that Anakin Skywalker is a demi-god, and a failed demi-god at that, of the Force, born of the Force, and led to the dark side by an essence of pure evil and becomes Sith lord Darth Vader. He in the end achieves his redemption and is reborn through his offspring, and as the prophecy fortold, Anakin Skywalker, The Chosen One, brings balance to the Force. This particular film is about the tragedy of Anakin's fall into darkness, which leads to the rise of a dictatorship and the defeat of democracy. Overall I think it was visually and musically well-done, as much as people like to rag on the performances and all that.

Now that many years have passed since the first release of Episode IV, George Lucas was finally able to get his vision of the beginning of Star Wars on film. In many ways I'd say it's just as fully realized for George Lucas as the very first film people fell in love with. Technologically, it's quite a feast, from visuals to sound, particularly the podrace scenes. The problem with something like Star Wars is that people expect to be blown away just as much by (or more than) this one as they were with Episode IV. I think if people took Lucas' whole vision into context they'd come to appreciate each installment more.

Some don't like what was done with this film, but in the context of all six installments I think it was a decent conclusion. I also want to highlight this episode has one of the greatest cinematographic moments in the six installments, when Darth Vader decides to test Luke Skywalker's faith and use of the Force, to lure him to the dark side.

Ah yes, I'll never forget when I first saw the name Star Wars flying directly away from me followed by the scrolling text driven by John Williams' rousing score, throwing us right into the high-speed chase in space. For its time A New Hope was the greatest accomplishment in science fiction and a masterwork of George Lucas' depiction of his rich vision. Of late, some have been dissatisfied with Lucas' attempt to go back and add to the film he made 30 years ago from the date of this review. I personally haven't. In my opinion, Lucas as the artist has every right to go back and make his vision more complete. That's why in filmmaking (though more short-term) you have periods called "principal photography" and "pick-ups". For those who aren't familiar with those, principal photography almost always involves the bulk of the actual filming. Pick-ups are designed to add anything that might have been missed during principal photography, and after the footage has been edited to a rough cut. In hindsight, I think we have to re-examine this film in the context of Lucas' complete vision of the ENTIRE story. When only this film was out, people enjoyed it because it's one of those blockbusters with characters we cared about, identified with. After all of the installments we have to go back and say this is just one piece to a puzzle that when finally placed together contributes to one of the greatest tales of tragedy and redemption in modern fiction.

A beautifully epic installment to one of the greatest tales ever written. Everyone that made the preceding installment great made this one great in its own right, along with a few new additions to the cast.

In many ways it seemed very different from its predecessor Yojimbo, but reminiscent of it at the same time. I saw this a while ago, along with Yojimbo, so I'll have to watch both of them again to further analyze them.

A film thematically identical to that of the play, making it the best possible adaptation of Macbeth. When it lost the language, it lost the obligation to recreate the linguistic essence of Shakespeare on film. With that, the filmmakers and actors were allowed to let loose in a way they would feel comfortable. Kurosawa, with his mastery over black and white contrast, composes one of his darkest films and probably the darkest play adaptation ever.

A powerhouse of masterful filmmaking, with its main strengths lying in its screenplay and performances, visually bolstered by well-polished and high contrast cinematography. I wouldn't say it's a classic, but it is certainly a well-made film at that.

Paul Greengrass directs his meditative masterpiece about the events surrounding the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. This stands alone as an artistic masterpiece, everything from cinematographic differentiation between the different locations to camera framing to directing to screenplay. Greegrass' in-the-moment camera work could not have been used more fully and beautifully as it tells the story in real time right from the terrorists waking up in the morning and getting ready to a most powerful and inspiring end. The scene in which the passengers aboard United 93 try to take back the plane made me feel proud to be an American, to be quite honest. Ultimately, in reflecting on this film I think we must remember those who died that fateful day, and to live by their example, that we can't afford to give in to those who want to destroy us.

Another excellent installment to the trilogy. In hindsight I appreciated this film just as much, because it was ultimately about Bourne coming to grips with the consequences of his past actions as an agent for Treadstone. The atmospherism toward the end helped with that. It wasn't like the first one, which was more about creating a variety of conflicts that we want Jason to pull through in the end. A brilliant sequel.

Clint Eastwood beautifully delivers a story that everyone should hear. Fine performances from all of the cast, considering how large it really was. Brilliant script and direction highlight this epic story of men who answered their country's call to arms out of duty to emperor, country, homeland, and family. In every bit epic as it is personal and touching, America can finally see the Battle of Iwo Jima through the eyes of those who were once our enemies.

This one is a masterpiece compared to the recent remake. It's message about the human mind I think carries more significance, considering the way it was made, than it's "Iraqi" counterpart. Very well performed and edited.

One of the deepest war movies I've seen. De Niro, Walkens, and Streep were exceptional members of this large cast. In its full scope, The Deer Hunter is a high art amongst all of the war films made. This is one of the few war films that actually affected me emotionally. What war does to people, by it's very nature, like Russian Roulette, is truly, truly tragic. Shows that some are naturally capable of handling the burdens of combat, and some aren't, and for the ones that can't handle it, well...

Terrence Malick's work is sadly not-oft appreciated, as he's only made four feature films. The Thin Red Line definitely goes down as one of the greatest films of 1998, possibly one of the best of the 1990s.

Where Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan don't spend much time exploring, The Thin Red Line goes right into it, everything from God to finding courage. Sure Malick can direct some pretty awesome action sequences, but he can also explore these topics in between those enthralling sequences of chaos. Thematically, this is probably the best war film since The Deer Hunter. I should mention the score by Hans Zimmer is also worth noting.

I'll also mention that one shouldn't expect a single outstanding performance or a single character to get to know real well. Everyone really takes a back seat to Malick's ethereal style of direction, filled with visual thoughts and imaginings combined with serene shots of nature, in between some finely directed firefights, of course.

What really caught my attention was the reason for the name of the film itself. Watch for The Thin Red Line that appears on a blade of grass when someone gets shot or The Thin Red Line that flows down from the wound in a soldier's cheek.

This wasn't particularly outstanding, but the performances were decent.

Though heavily untrue to the book in terms of plot, it proved to be quite the blockbuster flick, capturing the awesome nature of the dinosaurs, with a little help from John Williams. It would have been even better if it explored the philosophies of the book.

Scott's direction was the only reason why I chose to watch this film. The performances were both good, but had this been made by any other filmmakers would this have done as well?