daveyboy-7

Clive Barker, the writer and director, has not made one regrettable step in his career. Lord of Illusions is a phenominal film unlike anything ever seen. Barker is, without fail, the only truely original and visionary man working in an otherwise lackluster industry. His films are bold, original, breathtaking and oddly quite beautiful. Lord of Illusions does not disappoint. The slithering plot is engaging, dramatic, frightening and indeed morbid spinning a tale of a detective who has a lingering tie to the darkside. This is an adult nightmare and is not intended for younger audiances at all. It is intelligent, opulant, impressive and twisted. Georgeous and repulsive at the same time. Though Hellraiser and Nightbreed are wonderful in and of themselves, it is Lord of Illusions that is Clive's masterwork... that is until Tortured Souls comes out.

Since her amazing turn in Evita, fans awaited something else that would frame her unappreciated talent. The Next best Thing is something she can be very proud of (regardless of what film critics say). I loved this film, and though I like Madonna's 'lesser' efforts as well (Shanghai Surprise and Who's That Girl) this is her second best film. She'd have to do something truelly spectacular to outdo Evita.

Nonetheless, The Next Best Thing is a captivating, engrossing film that was sadly lost at the boxoffice amid a flurry of bigger budget, more advertized films and the hypocritical meanderings of so-called film critics. I say judge for yourself, when Ebert says that something like "Kingpin" is a great film but trash this one, you know he is out of his mind! Don't listen to "professional" critics, they have a financial steak in what they say be it good or bad. One critic even put it this way "they should have gone with the obvious choice of showing the comical rearing of a baby." And had it done so, he still wouldn't have liked it because he would have called it "too predictable." Most critics don't like Madonna, and they will find fault with whatever she does, whether it's justified or not. Take it from me, the negative comments about this film are NOT justified.

Madonna plays Abby, a lonely woman who can't seem to find Mr. Right. Rupert Everett plays her best friend, who of course happens to be gay. In what can only be called a moment of inebriated bliss, the two get together. The result is a bouncing baby boy! And that is when the fun, humor, heart and soul of the film kicks in.

I loved this movie.

There has never been a film so utterly intense as this, so amazing, so phenomenal as Dancer In The Dark. Raw and realistic to the gritty extreme, Bjork quite captivatingly gives the GREATEST performance of the last decade, hands down and period! Not since the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (the Oscars) horrendous and non-justifiable oversight in NOT recognizing Madonna's brilliant performance in Evita (not to mention ignoring the whole film, for which they should all be ashamed) have they displayed themselves as so utterly ignorant! How dare they NOT nominate Bjork for her stupendous portrait and performance?! Julia Roberts should be ashamed of herself, that statue belongs to Bjork!!! When such over-hyped and lame films as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The English Patient, the throw-away Cast Away and any host of Hollywood drool films get nominated and films like Dancer In The Dark are ignored, you know the Oscars are not based on merit, they are based on something akin to high school popularity contests. See Dancer in the Dark, and then see if you can actually say Julia Roberts deserved that award without laughing out loud at the utter lunacy of the comment. It pulls all the correct emotional strings (without, thankfully falling into the milking shallowness of Spielberg) to deliver an impacting film like no other. You MUST see Dancer In The Dark it is without any doubt in my mind truely one of the greatest films of all time!