mostlygreek

Denzel washington gives an great performance as creasy, an alcoholic with a military background who is hired to protect a young girl(played by dakota fanning). The story is set in Mexico city where kidnappers target wealthy families to make huge amounts of money from their ransom.

Tony scott directs a fine cast that includes christopher walken and mickey rourke. The whole film is a blur of various shooting techniques and a vivid soundtrack that suits the mood of a very threatening and alien Mexico city backdrop.

Dakota fanning is excellent as the young girl who creasy must protect, and washington himself is quietly convincing as a man with a past he isn't proud of and a future he knows is empty. But its his friendship with the girl that becomes the heart of the movie. As they bond after an uneasy start, we can see just where tony scott is taking us..so when things do take a turn for the worst, we are fully prepared for it. In fact, we are just waiting for for it to happen. And thats when the pace of the film begins to pick up. Scotts direction revels in showing us the mindset of each character, and soon the plot becomes a by the numbers trail of revenge and information gathering.

However, man on fires strength is the emotional weight that these scenes carry. Scotts investment in his character's relationships almost justifies the violence. And as an audience we are made to feel that creasy's dark side is completely reasonable, no matter how grisly his actions. That might disturb some audiences, but in todays society, it seems that an eye for an eye attitude is not so terrible an idea- at least in scotts vision of society.

If this film has a fault, it isn't the plot, the script or its execution. Its the wealth of good actors that are neither used or developed nearly as much as they could have been. But as in scotts earlier movies (true romance being a prime example), the cast,even if under-used, add a rich quality to the proceedings and audiences will feel in good hands throughout.

Strong story, strong cast, and confident direction make this one of the most interesting releases this year. And if you don't mind your action with a spoonful of sentimentality then you'll enjoy the fact that this film chooses to fade away instead of burning out at the end.

I have read many reviews that seemed to think Gothika was a waste of time. Let me just say, it is not a waste of time. in fact, the film was very enjoyable. it was shot well and the special effects were sophisticated and well handled. The cast was full of surprises such as Bernard Hill(great actor but a strange role). The story was interesting and there was genuine tension throughout.

Berry's character is a doctor in a mental institute. she wakes up to find herself an inmate in the very place she works. Her colleague and friend played by robert downy jnr tells her that she has committed a horrific crime and nobody knows why. so the plot begins to wind its way towards a shadowy truth. However, without giving anything away, the key scenes where important truths are revealed to the audience are simply too clumsy. information is just handed over visually on a plate and leaves little to the imagination. some of the tension built up in

the first half of the film is lost. and the truth isn't quite as gripping and terrifying as we would have hoped(although thats not to

say it is pleasant).

Robert Zemeckis was one of the producers and i think it shows..there is some great camera work and some really interesting ideas but gothika doesn't have some of the subtle touches that What Lies Beneath had, but its easy to see some of the parallels between the two films.

Even though halle berry wears the same look of shocked disbelief throughout the film, she plays it with conviction. and a supporting role from penelope cruz certainly doesn't take anything away from berry.

all in all, gothika provides a good story, an average screen play and enough innovative ideas to keep its audience. but i would have been disappointed if i had paid to watch it at the cinema.

Hulk is a great film made by a great director. But Hulk has two huge problems. Firstly, its audience. And secondly, its release date.

Hulk is a very insightful film about the true nature of heroism and also of identity. Its rare to see a film about a super hero that actually deals with one of the most important aspects of heroism- the fact that most super heroes would rather not have the power(s) they possess. Of course the incredible Hulk is not a typical spandex- wearing hero, and in this movie version we see Eric Bana's character struggle with his new identity. However, audiences that have been used to watching such releases as x men, spiderman, and even daredevil, are not tuned to Ang Lee's vision of Hulk. Quite the opposite is true. So the fact that Hulk tries to flesh out its characters and provide enough emotional weight to its scenes is completely irrelevant to a young and action-thirsty audience.

The special fx are awesome. The integration of cg and live action is great, and the hulk himself looks amazing when bullets are rippling on his skin and when he is bounding from place to place.

Sam Elliot plays Betty's father and gives a convincing performance as a general forced to protect his country and his daughter. Jennifer Connelly is perfect as Betty and even Bana manages to stay believable at some of the most unbelievable moments. Its just a shame that Hulk was released at a time when super hero movies are two a penny. Is Ang Lee the only film maker who realises that real comic book fans aren't kids anymore? Has Hulks box office takings doomed us to flimsy scripts and trailer-worthy visuals? Lets hope not, because i don't think i could sit through anymore spiderman films.

So the next time you hear someone telling you how bored they were during Hulk, tell them to go watch Xmen 2...then go watch Hulk with dts- a real hero film with a great story, terrific cast, and beautiful visuals(even when things aren't being blown up!) It ain't for kids!