Synopsis:

A six year old child is institutionalized after murdering his sister but escapes fifteen years later. He returns to the scene of the crime where he systematically sets his sights on murdering a group of teenagers who happen to live in the area.

Review:

‘Halloween’ does not intend to disgust, nor does it aim to sicken. What it does instead is to truly frighten the audience like a good old fashioned horror film should. The film is ingenious in its attempt to create a mood through its impeccable restraint in pacing. The film does not rush into violence. It merely waits and waits, causing an unheard of apprehension within the audience, until it finds the right note and then strikes with a vengeance.

‘Halloween’ has been credited by many critics as a film that influenced the slasher film craze that bombarded theatres in the 1980s and 1990s.  Though not the first of its kind, this film did help to usher in an era of cinema that soon became monotonous and obvious. Films such as ‘Friday the 13^th’ (1980), ‘Terror Train’ (1980), ‘Prom Night’ (1980), and ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ (1984) (as well as many others) all owe a tremendous amount of credit to ‘Halloween’. These films are mere exploitations of the success garnered by this film.

Some would say that there would never have been a ‘Halloween’ if it were not for ‘Psycho’ (1960). This is very true. ‘Psycho’ did set the standard of the modern day slasher film, but what ‘Halloween’ was able to do eighteen years later was to reshape and remold the genre into a viable, economically safe entity (‘Halloween’ was made for $325,000, and went on to make $47 million at the box office). The film arrived at a time when the film industry was looking for an easy and cheap way to make a profit. The slasher film provided this opportunity through its relatively unknown casts, cheap generic sets, and low production values. Nobody cared about the acting because it was all about a young beautiful cast being systematically eliminated/slaughtered by a ferocious beast.

As was noted earlier, ‘Halloween’ does not intend to disgust. The film is very deliberate in its pacing, which creates an aura of suspense and dread. Through every death scene we encounter, there is no rush to the finish line. From the first sequence of the film where we move around and about the house, our eyes being the lens of the camera dictated through a P.O.V. shot, we come to understand that this film is in no hurry to achieve an answer to the problems it is creating. During the first scene, the camera (situated outside) focuses on a young woman and a young man becoming intimate on the couch. They soon head upstairs to the bedroom. The camera turns and heads to the backdoor. The camera/character walks into the house and into the kitchen. The camera then pauses and looks at a drawer. A small, child like hand reaches down and pulls out a knife. As the camera/character makes its way to the stairs, it pauses and hides in the living room as the young male exits the house after his illicit affair. The camera then slowly makes its way upstairs and pauses, as we once again see a small hand reach out and pick up a small clown mask. The clown mask is then placed upon the camera and we enter a bedroom where the young, naked girl is combing her hair. As the camera moves closer, the girl becomes aware of the presence and turns. But it is too late. The character pulls out the knife and begins to assault her with it. This is a truly terrifying and unnerving beginning to a film. It is only when the character has exited the house and his mask is removed (this is where the P.O.V. perspective ends) that the audience discovers that it is a young boy in a clown costume. The use of music, lighting, and camera shots all add tension to an already disturbing sequence.

The film is very simple in its structure. A killer is sent away only to escape and return home to continue his onslaught. The theme has become a staple of the horror genre because of its relatively simple explanation as to why there is a killer on the loose. If the technique worked once and made the film a tremendous amount of money, then why not exploit it for future use.

John Carpenter directed this film, and though I do not care for many of his movies (‘Ghosts of Mars’ (2001) anyone?), Carpenter perfectly balances suspense with the mundane. As characters speak, they do so in relatively normal, boring teenage banter. However, Carpenter never allows the audience to forget about this unknown presence that has infiltrated the normality of this city. Carpenter’s framing and camera angles (his use of the foreground and background in many scenes are amazing in their structure, and have been clearly lifted by countless others intending to recreate the same effect for their horror films), are wonderfully exploited, and he achieves a tremendous amount of detail from them. For instance, in one scene where Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) is walking away from the camera down the street, Carpenter positions the camera perfectly to capture the shoulder of the killer (Michael Myers) enter the foreground of the frame and watch her as she walks away. Laurie is unaware of her dangerous predicament, but the audience is now fully alerted to this unknown, unseen presence. We pray that she will just turn around.

John Carpenter also composed the music to this influential horror film, and no review would be complete without mentioning it. To say the least, the music is eerie and terrifying. The amount of emotional attachment the music connotes is remarkable in that it sets the mood of the film from the very beginning. The audience is fully aware that this is not going to be a happy story. It is going to strive to unnerve, disturb, and frighten. The music is highly representative of the power of this picture. Even today, the piece is still one of the most recognizable themes in film history.

For those who have not seen this film, do it. Certain scenes from the film were not discussed for the simple reason that it would alter the experience of witnessing them for the first time. This film has become highly influential, and the character of Michael Myers is now viewed as a truly iconic figure within the horror genre.

See it for many reasons but definitely see it for the pacing of the story and the construction of a truly frightening atmosphere. The use of lighting adds a sense of dreariness and bleakness to the overall understanding and reading of the film. However, the greatest achievement of this film is in it’s refusal to become a blood and gore fest. The film relishes in its role as a suspense picture. In many ways, the film is more of a thriller/suspense then an outright horror flick. It is one of the greatest suspense films ever created, and most likely one of the more important one’s of the past thirty-five years.

It has now been nineteen years since the third and (apparent) final installment of Indiana Jones hit theatres. In 1989, it appeared that Indiana had partaken in his final adventure (in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) as the whip-cracking hero. However, after numerous story ideas and a revolving door of screenwriters, the series has finally struck back with a vengeance in 2008.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the embodiment of what a summer movie should be. Action, adventure, comedy and preposterous plots help to define what a summer movie is, and these categories truly hold meaning for this film. Yet for all the action that is included, there is a limited use of computer generated imagery (CGI) present. In more ways then one, the film relies heavily on old school tactics (stunt man as opposed to computer effects) to not so much create a sense of realism, but as to create a sense of nostalgia.

The film truly embraces its past. Just because technology has advanced does not mean it needs to be exploited for the purpose of creating a greater sense of adventure. Indiana Jones works as a result of the audiences’ previous understanding of this character. He is not perfect and is constantly apprehended. He is an accidental hero improvising the steps. Yet, he is more real as a result, and that is what makes him so relatable.

This being said, the film is more then just mindless entertainment. Starring a now 65 year old Harrison Ford, and directed by veteran Steven Spielberg, the Indiana Jones series has become a reinvigorated and fresh adventure to be embraced by everyone.

The Plot of the Crystal Skull

Indiana Jones’ (Harrison Ford) newest adventure begins in the desert Southwest in 1957 — the height of the Cold War. Indy and his sidekick Mac (Ray Winstone) have barely escaped a close scrape with nefarious Soviet agents on a remote airfield. Now, Professor Jones has returned home toMarshallCollege– only to find things have gone from bad to worse. His close friend and dean of the college (Jim Broadbent) explains that Indy’s recent activities have made him the object of suspicion, and that the government has put pressure on the university to fire him.

On his way out of town, Indiana meets rebellious young Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), who carries both a grudge and a proposition for the adventurous archaeologist: If he’ll help Mutt on a mission with deeply personal stakes, Indy could very well make one of the most spectacular archaeological finds in history — the Crystal Skull of Akator, a legendary object of fascination, superstition and fear.

That is all that will be mentioned as it in the viewer’s best interest to discover the wonders of this film firsthand. With this being said, the film does magnificently capture the 1950s era through its focus on the threat of Communism, the Cold War, nuclear bombs, Harley Davidson’s and leather jackets, the emergence of rock n’ roll, greasers, and a new found fascination with U.F.O.’s.

For anyone who has seen an Indiana Jones film, the structure of the plot will not deviate from past experiences. There are chases sequences, vile enemies, disgusting creatures, over-the-top wild action and so on. The film follows the previous three films construction to a tee, but yet stands on its own as a wonderful piece of escapism. One truly gets a sense of wonderment as the action and plot unfolds onscreen.

The Characters of Indiana Jones

Whereas most summer films displace characterization with action, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has an intent focus on building character relations in association with creating nail-biting tension. As a result, the characters are wonderfully brought to life through a wide arrange of award winning actors (such as John Hurt).

However, it is Cate Blanchett as Irina Spalko that truly mesmerizes the eyes. She is cold and calculating and dominates every frame she is in. She is perhaps one of the strongest female characters in recent memory on the big screen. Blanchett’s acting range can hardly be compared to anyone else at the present moment, and her turn as a truly vindictive villainous adds yet more range to her already impressive resume.

However the film would not survive ten minutes if it were not for Harrison Ford. Ford is not the greatest or most compelling actor ever, but he is extremely charismatic. He magnetically holds the glance of the audience. Not just because he is Indiana Jones, but rather because of his nonchalant approach to playing this now iconic character. He was born for the role.

It would have been a tremendous shame if the film had not lived up to expectations (though it is not a perfect film). Threatening the iconic status of the series with one final showing may have contaminated what had previously come before it. However, the film is extremely entertaining and, though it may not live up to Raiders of the lost Ark (1981), is still a relevant piece of escapist fare. It deserves to be mentioned alongside the previous trilogy as a worthy ally.

Synopsis:

The new owner of the Cleveland Indians purposely assembles a baseball team consisting of untalented misfits. Her goal; if they are bad enough then she will be allowed to relocate the team toMiami. However, things do not go as expected.

Review:

To put it simply, Major League is a predictable and cliché ridden underdog story. There is nothing truly innovative about the structure of the plot. The characters are not very dimensional, and appear to have been cut out from another movie and pasted into this one. As well, the film fits the formulaic blue print of aHollywoodproduction to a tee. So why review a film that does not have the fortitude to stand out on its own?  Well, for one reason, I like the film.

Major League follows the story of a group of (un)talented, uncoordinated baseball players who somehow manage to bring it all together (through numerous differences with one another) and become an actual team driven by passion and heart. One player practices voodoo, while another just shows up to Spring Training without so much as an invitation. Then there’s the guy who uses snot on the ball to help him pitch, while another who refuses to dive for a baseball because it might jeopardize his face if it hits him. It’s like ‘The Bad News Bears’ of the older generation.

We have seen it all before but yet this is a film with sincere intentions. It has a desire to please and for the most part it succeeds. Let’s face it. The ‘Rocky’ story (if done correctly) should work all the time. We want to see this group of individuals (who have already been pre-judged) to overcome the obstacles placed in their way.

Hollywoodunderstands the formula to deliver a mainstream film (heck, they created the formula). Their goal is to simply entertain, and usually I am more then willing to contradict the actions of the Hollywood institution. But, in this case, I have made an exception. I don’t know why I like this film so much. Perhaps it is because I grew up with it as a child. Maybe it is because I played baseball for over fifteen years and I loved anything to do with the sport.

Usually as one gets older, their tastes change. There are a tremendous amount of films I loved growing up, but as I try to watch them now I find that I can no longer endure a mere five minutes of their running time. Sometimes I ponder, ‘what was I thinking’? As one grows, one is supposed to mature (I think). Isn’t that the way life is? Perhaps I haven’t reached that stage yet or maybe, as much as I try to deny it, I am still a fan ofHollywoodentertainment, no matter how simplistic it may be at times.

‘Major League’ was a major hit at the box office back in 1989, and eventually led to the creation of two horrendous sequels attempting to capitalize on its success. However sequels rarely can capture the heart and soul of an original. This is especially true with this series.

I have always been a big fan of Tom Berenger, and he is quite likable in this light hearted (yet vulgar) piece of mindless entertainment. It truly does anger me, though, that he does not receive more quality roles nowadays. In the 80’s, he was a bona fide superstar appearing in many good films. Trying to find him in a decent film nowadays is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I always vowed that if I were a director, I would try to hire him for my movie in an attempt to resuscitate his career (a la Tarantino). I feel he deserves it.

Charlie Sheen is also fun to watch in his role as Ricky Vaughn, an ex-con pitcher who can’t hit the strike zone because of his inability to see the plate. His talent for comedy is truly on stage here. Of note, it is certainly interesting to watch Berenger and Sheen interact with one another during the course of the film. They are good friends in this film, but it is definitely difficult to forget the onscreen tension that they had for one another only three years prior in Oliver Stone’s ‘Platoon’.

The director, David S. Ward, does an adequate job of telling a story but does not attempt anything special. He simply allows the film to unfold in a manner that compliments itself. Though, he does provide a relatively entertaining last twenty minutes. What I mean is that he does not jump the gun with dispelling the suspense. He allows it to slowly unveil itself (not every pitch is a hit-there are pauses in the delivery so to speak) as a real baseball game would. As a result, the film concludes with a predictable but yet heartwarming finale.

So my advice to those who haven’t seen the film is that in all likely-hood, you have seen something like it before. There is nothing new to be delivered, and many may be turned off by its lack of originality. However, the film truly has a feel good quality underlying its surface, and for this reason may be why I have not shut it off after five minutes.

Synopsis:

David Mann (Dennis Weaver), on his way to a business appointment, pulls out of his garage, leaves his city, and heads out onto the unfamiliar desert highways. As he slowly moves away from civilization, David Mann passes a slow moving oil tanker truck, and becomes its unwilling prey. The truck is relentless in its pursuit, and David must summon the courage and strength to escape alive while struggling to maintain a firm grasp on his psyche.

Review:

‘Duel’ is a simple story. A man encounters an unknown threat and must learn to defeat it. A simple story but yet it is a film that is so well paced and shot, that it creates an energy which carries the film to its satisfying conclusion.

Steven Spielberg was merely 25 when he made this film. Originally a television movie, it became such a spectacular ratings winner that it was released theatrically overseas with an additional 16 minutes of footage. This was the film, not ‘Jaws’ (1975), which helped to put Spielberg on the map in Hollywood.

This film grabs the viewer immediately from the opening segment through its use of a P.O.V. perspective. The first shot that the audience witnesses is from David Mann’s eyes as he exits from his garage. Immediately, the audience has identified with the person that will guide us on this journey.

In only a few moments, Spielberg provides a tremendous amount of information that will be crucial in understanding the character of David Mann. As the opening credits role, the viewer sees David Mann leaving the familiarity of his street, his downtown, and his city all within a few shots. One other important fact is conveyed as well. People slowly disappear. Where there were many in the city, there are less and less as David makes his way out of the confines of his familiar land and into the unknown desert landscape. The audience understands that David is now out of his element because he is unaware of his surroundings. Not one word is spoken by Mann, but yet the audience already knows a tremendous amount about him, which will be significant when he is tested later on in the film.

As was noted earlier, this is a film that involves a simple story. As David Mann proceeds on his journey farther into the desert, he encounters a big and slow moving oil tanker truck. The tanker is a disgusting monstrosity, and it is quite apparent that it has been involved in numerous battles, whether it be with the road or other drivers. The truck is shot in such a way as if to convey that this piece of machinery is a living entity. It is menacing, loud, and very overwhelming to Mann, considering Mann is driving a 1970 Plymouth family car. When the audience first encounters this truck, Spielberg voyeuristically surveys the entire body of the vehicle. As the camera pans from the back to the front of the behemoth truck, the audience is granted a glimpse at the beast that will be the cause of David Mann’s troubles from hereon out.  As the camera reaches the front, the audience also views many license plates (perhaps souvenirs from his victims). However, the audience is not allowed to see the face of the driver. He is the unknown stalking the unknown in a foreign land.

In Hollywood films, the desert has always been labeled as a survival of the fittest type of environment. Thus, there is a strong presence of masculine ideals existent within the outback (as is the case in many Australian films). How ideal that there is to be a battle of supremacy between a willing combatant and a man in desperate need to display some sort of masculinity for the audience.

The unknown has always been feared. In typical horror films, sensing and understanding that there is an evil presence is always much more terrifying then actually witnessing what the threat is. Your imagination is allowed to take over and create many disturbing and frightening visuals as a result. One of Spielberg’s key themes throughout his films is of the ordinary coming under attack from the extraordinary (think ‘Jaws’, ‘Jurassic Park’ (1993)). David Mann is an ordinary (perhaps ‘nerdy’) man, conveyed through his look, his car, and even his name. As he ventures into foreign land, he comes into contact with an extraordinary being, which is symbolized by the menacing presence of the truck.

After the initial introductions, it is time for the game to begin; and what a game it is. For the next 80 or so minutes, the audience becomes an unwilling voyeur in a sadistic game perpetrated by this relentless and menacing foe. Nothing will be spoiled for those who have not seen it, but it is definitely a ride to be experienced. This is a film that resembles the emerging creativity that Spielberg would quickly come to grasp and use towards all of his future films.

However, this film would not have been as great as it is if it were not for the truly remarkable performance provided by Dennis Weaver. He is basically the only character on screen, and thus he becomes our guiding point. The viewer identifies with him and, as a result, truly begins to understand him as a character. Fear, relief, paranoia, jubilation, and so on are all convincingly conveyed by Weaver. This is not an easy character to portray, but yet Weaver excels in his ability to create a character determined to survive.

This film is so simple but yet so intriguing and suspenseful. There are not enough words to describe the excitement this film helps to create. Though it was made in 1971, this film still packs quite a wallop. It is definitely a classic in every sense of the word.

Synopsis:

Mike Peters (perhaps the greatest character name ever for film), portrayed by Jon Favreau, is a wannabe actor who has moved out toLos AngelesfromNew York. He has recently broken up with his long time girlfriend, and is still devastated by it. Fearing the worst for his friend, Trent (Vince Vaughn), vows to do whatever it takes to get Mike back into the game, and proceeds to take him out to cocktail lounges, parties in the Hollywood Hills, and of course, Las Vegas to get his mind back on track.

Review:

‘Swingers’ is a film concerned with the heartbreak and torment of a love struck individual attempting to come to terms with who he is as a person.  From this vague description, one would assume that this film is about sorrow and loss. To tell you the truth, it is. But the films delivers it with such authentic sincerity that it becomes both humorous and humbling at the same time.

InHollywood, status is everything. Wealth, success, and geographical location are all crucial to this fundamental element of importance. In fact, a great representative of one’s own stature of significance inHollywoodis that the farther west one lives (from downtownLos Angeles), the more successful one appears to be. Mike desires success but has not yet achieved that status. As a result, he is relegated to inhabiting a dinky, unfurnished apartment in the heart of downtownLos Angeles. I guess he is east of success at this point. As a consequence, the films key thematic concern becomes firmly established. Mike is an outsider. He does not exist in this world. He is forced to quarantine himself within his apartment, and hide from this part of the world that has not yet accepted him.

In fact, Mike’s friend, Rob (Ron Livingston), is dealing with the same sort of upheavals.   Rob (having recently moved out toLos   Angeles) notes that back when he was inNew Yorktwo months ago, he was playing Hamlet in an Off-Broadway play. Now he is auditioning for the role of Goofy (to entertain customers around the theme park) for Walt Disney (in fact, later on, we discover that Rob fails to obtain this role because of his lack of theme park experience). During one crucial moment, however, Rob confesses that he only came out here because he was inspired by Mike to do so. To be honest, there are thousands of people each year who journey to Los Angeles in search of stardom, only to be cast away. As a result, these people become bitter and begin to question the dreams they had when they initially arrived in this ferocious town. These people feel alone and thus isolate themselves from one another.Hollywooddoes not care for the individual unless that individual can do something for them.

In a fit of despair, Mike weighs the option of heading back toNew York. He has all but given up.Los Angeleshas gotten the better of him. However, the character ofTrenthas not given up on him. He is determined to help Mike get back onto his feet and reestablish him as a member of society. Relentlessly, Trent proceeds to take Mike out to numerous establishments to show him that there is more to life then self-pity and self-loathing.

Trent, however, is not without his own flaws. He is a fun loving guy but he is all pizzazz and fizzle. His intentions are honorable but he has built himself up into something that is highly questionable. He believes that he has it all figured out when, in fact, he is as much an outsider as Mike is (Trentjust hides it better). This is greatly emphasized when Mike,Trentand three other friends head to a party in the Hollywood Hills. As they enter, everyone stares in bewilderment. They are not an accepted member of this status quo. It is a party for people who have made it. Not for people who desire to make it. Yes, Trent disguises himself as a member of this community and cleverly inserts himself within it (for a time being), but Mike is unable to do the same. Attempting to establish himself within this ‘important’ group, Mike proceeds to mingle with a female partygoer. The first thing she inquires about is the make of his car. When Mike confesses that he has a Cavalier, she turns away in disgust and ignores him. He cannot fake his way into this world because he is not yet fit to be a part of this world (not yet, anyways).

Given the serious tone of this review thus far, ‘Swingers’ is in fact one of the most hip and fun films of the past twenty years. The characterizations are realistically well drawn, and the vocabulary enunciated by this group of friends is fresh, intriguing and memorable. They discuss issues that are non-important to some, but relevant to others (Discussions about the tracking shot in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) and the slow-motion opening of ‘Reservoir Dogs’ (1992)-which are both reenacted in the film), and they have interesting modes of speech and communication (Vegas Baby, Vegas), (Baby, you are so money, and you don’t even know it!). In fact, the language can be characterized as normal typical banter spoken amongst any group of friends concerned with discussing the nature of popular culture (highly reminiscent of ‘Seinfeld’). These people could be any one of us and the film whole heartedly embraces this fact.

One of the key contributors to the overall effectiveness of this film is in its use of music. Many vintage crooners are nostalgically revisited here (like Dean Martin), while simultaneously incorporating swing music through the likes of the band, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy. Swing music is an important element for this film because it gives the film life. It helps to destroy the self-pity of Mike, and awakens him to the possibilities of hope (it plays an important part during the last twenty minutes of this film). The films somber subject matter is undermined by the up-beat nature of this vibrant genre of music.

Sincerely, ‘Swingers’ is not a film that attempts to sadden the viewer. It is here to rejuvenate the tortured soul, and to reestablish the battered human psyche. The important element here is the value of friends. No matter how down and out one may be; true friends will always remain by your side. In fact, Mike’s trust in his friends helps him to reemerge as a member of this alien society. Yes, there are many embarrassing modes of dialogue, and one extremely unsettling sequence with an answering machine for Mike (perhaps one of the most difficult scenes to watch in film history), but he is able to bounce back from his humiliation.

‘Swingers’ is an extremely low budget film ($250,000 to be exact), but it never lets its budget constraints prevent it from being what it truly wants to be. It is a film with heart and soul, and deserves to be categorized as one of the greater buddy films of all time.

Synopsis:

Two detectives, Mills (Pitt) and Somerset (Freeman), race against time to thwart the attempts of a serial killer, who chooses his victims according to the seven deadly sins.

Review:

Greed, sloth, envy, pride, wrath, gluttony, and lust are just some of the highlights the viewer will be exposed to in this bleak, unrelenting, neo-noir nightmare of a film. This film wallows in the excessive impurity of a world gone astray. It is not a happy film; in fact, there is not even a happy ending. Instead, for two hours, the viewer will be witness to the very atrocities and vile indecencies this world is capable of.

This film is dark; oh boy, is it ever. It is an unsettling depiction of a world that is out of control. In fact, at one point in the film, Somerset notes that he no longer understands this world, and later on when asked how long he has lived in the city, he wearily replies: “too long”. This world has gotten the better of Somerset. He is retiring in seven days, but that will not allow him to forget about the evils he has encountered during his time in this urban hell of a city (that is never named during the length of the film).

When the character of Mills arrives on the scene, Pitt plays him as idealistic and ambitious, but yet naïve. In fact, he comes across as cocky and rude in some instances. The two characters of Somerset and Mills are polar opposites of one another. One a father figure, in a sense, attempting to shield the other from the evils he has encountered. In fact, in one instance, Somerset mentions to the chief of police that he does not believe that this should be Mills’ first assignment. Mills sees it as an insult, whereas Somerset understands that Mills is not psychologically ready for what he is about to encounter. It is an old fashioned case of experience and weariness versus ambition and innocence.

This is not a violent film but yet it seldom lets the viewer off easy. Gruesome and graphic, the film can be read as a statement on modern day angst and loss of place and understanding in an ever changing world. People want to escape this city but yet no one seems willing enough to leave it. Is it because this film is attempting to state that no matter where one goes, one will always be subjected to this type of visual and mental anguish? In other words, everywhere in the world is reminiscent of this city. There is no escape.

David Fincher and his director of photography, Darius Khondji, paint a miraculous picture of a world darkened by the evil that lives within the realms of the human soul. Through low contrast lighting, silver colored rain during a rain storm, and the removal of any form of key lighting, they are able to achieve the idea that this city is dead. The city is devoid of any kind of primary color to help bring life to it. It is only in the last twenty minutes that the audience witnesses a sunny day, but that is viewed from outside of the city (on the way to the stunning and unbelievable climatic moment the film has been building towards throughout). The use of lighting is extremely atmospheric and, in a sense, helps to establish the city as another key character in the film. The city is alive, but yet is slowly decaying from within.

One cannot conclude the review without mentioning one of the most vile and despicable (yet intellectual) serial killers in film history. John Doe is methodical and patient. He does not kill on emotion, but rather feels that he is a messenger summoned to destroy the wicked. He is evil, but yet the great actor that portrays him (his name will not be mentioned in case anyone has not seen the film) creates a character that is just that, a true character. In others hands, John Doe would have come off as merely a one note serial killer. But yet, Doe is given tremendous depth and development. This is in large part due to the script (he is one of the better written killers in recent memory), but it is truly brought to life through the actions and mannerisms of this actor.

This film is not for the squeamish but yet if one wants to witness acting at its finest (actually, there is one key moment at the end involving Mills that just does not seem to work), a script that is taut and tense throughout, and assured direction, then one should do themselves the favor of watching this film. As was noted earlier, this is in no way a happy film, and there is very little action (it focuses more on the investigation side of it all), but yet it is never boring. The characters are smart and they act and speak in accordance to who they truly are as human beings. Everyone has a point and they are allowed to share that point within the film. They say what they feel in an honest manner. They believe in their words and actions, and that is what makes them reliable characters. The audience truly believes that these characters are who they say they are.

Fincher’s Se7en is a modern day masterpiece. It is dark and unrelenting but it whole heartedly embraces the darkness it presents. It is also a film that helped to regenerate  interest in the serial killer genre once again, and led to the release of other, less than satisfactory films (exploiting the success of Se7en), like Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider.

As has been said, this film is an unnerving adventure and strives to delve deep into the realms of one of the vilest criminals in film history. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to watch but yet it is impossible to turn away. That is the definition of brilliant filmmaking.