Reviews by Kyle Ellis

When this movie was released. The popular joke was. I went to see The Deer Hunter in the cinemas, three hours in and nothing happened. There was still another four hours left!

When you find yourself watching a movie where Christopher Walken is playing the most normal character at the start, you know you will be heading to some difficult places.

It is obvious that Director Michael Cimino was obsessed with The Godfather. The Deer Hunter has a long segment featuring a wedding at the start of the movie. The characters are of Russian heritage instead of Italian. Two of the main cast were in The Godfather films.

The wedding scene is used to establish the Pennsylvania steel mill community and the three friends. Mike Vronsky (Robert De Niro) is a bit of a loner and a hot head. Steven Pushkov (John Savage) is the young man who is getting married. Nick Chevotarevich (Christopher Walken) is the warm hearted one that everyone likes. He is going out with Linda (Meryl Streep) a woman that Mike also has his eye on.

All three men are due to go to Vietnam. When they get there, all three will be captured by the Vietcong and face traumas that will change their lives.

Surprisingly the Vietnam combat scenes are brief. There is the famous shot of De Niro with a flamethrower. More infamous is Cimino portraying the Vietcong as savages. One soldier throws a grenade in a bunker with women and children inside.

The film was controversial at the time due to the Russian roulette scenes. It is apparent that this is a metaphor for the madness of war and the mental damage of the characters.

Cimino wanted to make a modern epic and he succeeded. The film won the best picture Oscar. The authorship of the movie was mired in contention. It has four credited writers and this contributed to the choppiness in the story when the film moves to Vietnam and onwards from there.

Like Apocalypse Now which would be released a year later. The Deer Hunter is not strongly anti war even though the characters are damaged by their time in Vietnam. This could be due to the fact the Vietnam war only ended four years earlier. It was still a raw wound. It was not until Oliver Stone's Platoon when the Vietnam war was shown in a more critical light and only because Stone fought in the war.

The treatment of the Vietnamese is racism on the level of native American tribes in many of those old westerns where they were stock villains. The accusation of racism followed Cimino when he made Year of the Dragon in 1985.

There were some flaws in the story. It was never clear why the three joined up especially as Mike and Nick are older characters.

How did Nick know that Steven was in a veteran hospital when Mike had difficulties finding this out. This looks like a flaw further compounded when Mike next sees Nick. By this time Nick has totally metamorphosised who does even acknowledge Mike.

I watched The Deer Hunter as a teenager, I managed to rent it on video when I was not yet old enough for an 18 rated film. I should not had bothered, it premiered on television two months later. I watched it again over 30 years later with a cleaned up print.

It does stands up well. There was a lot of detail in the Pennsylvania scenes, the extensive use of location shooting. Actors hungry for a meaty script. What a difference in De Niro from here to Dirty Grandpa.

One of the weak link was the shallow use of female characters, two of them are literal punchbags. Dare I say it, maybe another actor could had played Stan. I noticed in my first viewing John Cazale looked gaunt and slightly different from the Godfather films. Now watching him in the knowledge that he died before the film was released, he just does not look well and was also too old to be in the main characters close circle of friends.

Warning: Spoilers
Much has been said/written about the underlying tones in this picture. The fascist regime on the one hand, the dream(?) world on the other hand. Del Toro leaves it up to you, so everyone can decide what they make of it ...

That also can be said about the fantasy world. Does it really exist or is it all in the imagination of Ofelia? I only watched the movie once, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it ... but my first guess would be that it all was a dream or an escape reality Ofelia had. I'm sure some psychologist would/could use that to analyse me ... ;o) But that doesn't matter after all, you have a really good fairy tale for adults here. Some might find it a little bit too offensive or too bloody. One thing is for sure, it's not for children.

A few minor things bothered me, while I was watching the movie. Nothing of importance, but here are two examples ... When Ofelia escaped from the monster that had his eyes in his palms, she left a piece of chalk behind ... Now why didn't the "monster" use this to come into the real world? (a logical explanation would be, my believe that it's all a dream) ... or why did the faun forgive Ofelia, that she did eat at the table? Just because she is a child? Two of the "fairys" were killed because of that (although in the end they seem to be back again ... if that's them) ... That also could be explained, if it was all a dream ...

Anyway, I might have thought too much about it. It still is a good picture, with some explicit scenes of violence!

Warning: Spoilers
The title is a metaphor to describe the relationship between the rich and the poor. It is a social statement. We are first introduced to the poor Kim family who is street smart. They steal wi-fi and put together pizza boxes. Kevin (Woo-sik Choi ) is introduced to the rich gullible Kim family as an English tutor. He manages through lies to get the rest of his family hired on as the old servants are dismissed. We discover poor people have a disgusting smell to them. They smell like the subway (urine?) The film climaxes ar a birthday party.

The film was mildly amusing and clever. It wasn't as funny or entertaining as say, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood." While good, I would say the Oscar as "best picture" was a gift.

Guide: F-word. groping. no nudity.

Young Carl idolised explorer Charles Muntz (who somehow looks a lot like Kirk Douglas) and his discovery of Paradise Falls somewhere in South America. Others regarded him as a quack and a fake, so Muntz disappeared.

Carl wanted to be an adventurer, he met young Ellie who was even more adventurous but real life got in the way. Now Ellie has passed and Carl is a grumpy old man living alone, hounded by property developers who are bull dozing the neighbourhood and want to see him in a retirement home.

Carl has tied his house with loads of helium balloons to float to Paradise Falls. He manages to take with him, an unwitting boy scout Russell who was just helping out an elderly person for a badge.

Both find adventures including a rare bird, talking dogs and a fallen hero. More importantly Carl finds a yearning for life as he hangs out with young Russell who himself is freindless.

I ended up viewing this film as my wife took our kids to the cinema to watch this and upon her return she told me that I would end being like Carl went I am older. I guess it is a roundabout way of telling me that I am a grouch!

The film starts with a segment of Carl and Ellie from childhood to old age. It is the junior Carl who is shy, slightly awkward, a pace or two behind the frenetic and energetic Ellie. As life goes on, they could not have children and it is Ellie who slows down as they get older and she passes on, leaving Carl on his own.

It is all about Carl rediscovering that zest for life and having that adventure he and Ellie dreamt about all those years ago. This is a fun and imaginative film, slightly surreal and off beat. For a film called UP it actually keeps its feet on the ground in terms of story and emotion.

Warning: Spoilers
Certainly it deserves five out of five stars, and certainly it is probably the most popular film from BAFTA winning, and Oscar and Golden Globe nominated director Martin Scorsese. Based on a true story, Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) admits (with narration) he always wanted to be a gangster ever since he could remember, so he started hanging out with the crime family gangsters in his Italian neighbourhood to try and get somewhere. Soon enough the boss Paul 'Paulie' Cicero, based on Lucchese mobster Paul Cicero (Paul Sorvino) lets him help his close associate James 'Jimmy' Conway (Robert De Niro) along with young Tommy DeVito (Oscar winning Joe Pesci). As they get older they have become the most well known and ruthless gangsters with billions of dollars of cargo passing through the airport, and many heists. Because Henry and Jimmy are both Irish they cannot become a "made man", but Tommy can. Henry's friends become increasingly daring and dangerous, with Jimmy hijacking trucks, and Tommy with an explosive temper and psychotic violent nature. Henry in the story also meets, falls for and marries Karen (Lorraine Bracco). There are many other things I could mention in the whole story, but that'll take ages, so I'll just say that Henry and Jimmy are caught and imprisoned at one point, Tommy murders "made man" Stacks Edwards (a very brief Samuel L. Jackson), and when he is made one is quite quickly murdered, and in the end of the film Henry drops his gangster identity and becomes a normal "schmuck". Also starring Frank Sivero as Frankie Carbone, Tony Darrow as Sonny Bunz, Dumb and Dumber's Mike Starr as Frenchy, Frank Vincent as Billy Batts, Chuck Low as Morris 'Morrie' Kessler, Catherine Scorsese (Martin's real mother) as Tommy's Mother, Frank DiLeo as Tuddy Cicero, comedian Henny Youngman as himself, Gina Mastrogiacomo as Janice Rossi, Charles Scorsese (Martin's real father) as Vinnie, Suzanne Shepherd as Karen's Mother, Debi Mazar as Sandy and Michael Imperioli as Spider. Pesci is the perfect and deserved Oscar winner for his brutal, psychotics and very convincing role, De Niro and Liotta are also very good in their roles, a very good film (seeing it again)! It was nominated the Oscars for Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium and Best Picture, it won the BAFTA for Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film, and it was nominated for Best Cinematography, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Drama and Best Screenplay. Robert De Niro number 2 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was also number 50 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 5 (along with Al Pacino) on The World's Greatest Actor, the film was number 55 on The 100 Greatest Scary Moments for the brilliant scene where Pesci seems to be getting madder at Liotta saying "How am I funny? (it's scary because you don't know where it's going, till Liotta realises it's a joke of course), and it was number 10 on The 100 Greatest Films. Very good!

Warning: Spoilers
"The Green Mile" is an American movie from 1999, so this one will have its 20th anniversary 2 years from now when I write this review (2017). Let me start by saying that this film runs for over 3 hours, so if very long films aren't your preferred choice, then you can skip it. It's okay, but you are really missing out in that case. The film is based on a novel by Stephen King and the writer is Frank Darabont who launched his career with Stephen King's works and kept going with adaptations for quite a while. Another would obviously be "The Shawshank Redemption", the film he made before this one here. Today, Darabont is probably mostly known for his work on "The Walking Dead", which is truly ironic looking at how wonderful his works in the 1990s were. As for this one here, I am definitely a bit biased as the cast includes many actors I quite like. This applies not just to lead actor Tom Hanks, but also to Rockwell, Morse, Cromwell and Sinise, even if the latter only has a very brief appearance. And how can you not like Michael Jeter and Michael Clarke Duncan after their performances in here. May they rest in peace. MCD is the only one who scored an Oscar nomination from the cast and this is also his career/life-defining performance for sure. The movie itself was nominated for four Oscars, but did not win any sadly.

I think that it may be difficult at times to appreciate the fantasy aspects in this film and with that i am referring mostly to the healing scenes. The film otherwise relies on very dark, very gritty and realistic plot developments because after all the entire thing takes place at a Death Row prison. But maybe it is this contrast between evil and goodness that lets it work so well. There were honestly more than just a few scenes and moments when I felt that they will really struggle to make this work, but they did succeed every time. Another example would be the frame between start and ending that plays many decades after the events at the prison, but when the closing credits rolled in I was very touched. I would also like to say that the film despite its massive runtime never drags a bit. It is truly easy to care for the characters and wonder what is going to happen next to them and this includes the good ones as well as the bad ones and there are good and bad ones at both sides of the law in here. The prime example is of course Doug Hutchinson's character, who is a bit of a main antagonist next to Rockwell certainly. It's a bit of a shame that the former did not really manage a great career and that people instead talked about nothing but his personal relationships. He was so good in here.

I also do believe that another huge strength of the film is the location, namely the prison. There is always an aura of imprisonment and narrowness surrounding this film, also when it comes to the guards. And I personally felt that the film always got a bit weaker for a moment when the action moved outside the prison, like the scene with Clarkson's character or the big jump forward in time. But maybe that's just me. The location is truly special in terms of the overall plot in here. The most heartbreaking moments are the execution scenes, the one with MCD's character, but also the one with Jeter's character. That one was painfully good and you could not watch anywhere else, even if your heart was breaking during it. It was basically a longer more intense version of the rodent-killing scene from right before that. Or maybe I should say "killing". So yeah, for me this was an outstanding movie and I believe everybody needs to see it. Then again, looking at the number of ratings this film has here on IMDb, almost everybody has seen it and the few who have not really need to change that as soon as possible. This film is a masterpiece and a definite contender for best film from the year 2009 (the decade sure went out on a strong note) and also for Top10 of the 1990s. What are you waiting for? Don't be scared of the duration. Be grateful it is so long because it is good from start to finish. Also a contender for best film of Tom Hanks' career and that means quite something. (Re-)Watch it!

The fellowship has scattered. Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee, on their journey to Mordor, encounter a vile creature named Gollum. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are chasing the kidnappers of Merry and Pippin. Merry and Pippin manage to escape and befriend tree shepherd Ent Treebeard. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli encounter Gandalf reborn as Gandalf the White. They go to Rohan to find King Théoden under the control of evil Saruman.

The story and the characters get split up into basically three groups. That back and forth can scatter the tension a little bit. It's a small drawback. I would consider doing Frodo and Samwise in the first half leaving the others to the second half. That would keep continuity flowing. The CGI is world class and nothing is more impressive than Gollum. The movie is able to keep the story compelling in all aspects.

Although it may not be entirely faithful to the book, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy perfectly captures the essence of J.R.R. Tolkein's fantasy classic: it's magical, imaginative and completely unforgettable, but also extremely long and a little hard going at times. Those who stay the distance, however, seem to agree that a bit of perseverance is well worth it in the end.

The Fellowship of the Ring is perhaps the most laborious of the three films, what with the setting up of the plot, the introduction of a multitude of characters, and several talky scenes eating into the 171 minutes running time, but thankfully the film's impressive fantasy fighting action, breath-taking scenery, and amazing performances more than make up for the duller moments.

All in all, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to be an admirable start for this ambitious attempt at bringing Tolkein's complex fantasy epic to the screen.

This is a very good movie. Period. A "classic", I don't think so. This is a movie whose actual quality has been exceeded by its hype--though NOT because the producers or actors hyped it (like the typical overblown and over-hyped Hollywood film). In fact, when it was released it was not particularly successful (especially compared to other Frank Capra flicks).

No, instead it reached legendary status for TWO reasons alone. It was a public domain video (hence NO ROYALTIES REQUIRED FOR SHOWING IT) AND its setting for the movie's conclusion was the holiday season. These two factors worked together to BLITZ the American public from the 1980s to the late 90s (until its copyright status was restored). I remember these dark days, when It's A Wonderful Life was literally shown on half a dozen channels at the same time!! Not even GREAT movies should be shown that much! As a result, many began proclaiming it a classic while some others got awfully tired of seeing it--which is a shame because it's a very good film.