I am Legend

Robert Neville is a brilliant scientist, but even he could not contain the terrible virus that was unstoppable, incurable, fast spreading...and manmade. Somehow immune to the virus, Neville is now the last human survivor in what is left of New York City...and maybe the rest of the world. But he is not alone. He is surrounded by "the Infected" victims of the plague who have mutated into carnivorous beings who can only live through in the dark and who will devour or infect anyone or anything in their path. Sounds like a very enticing plot isn't it?

“I am Legend” stars Will Smith as the last man on Earth — well, except for the vampires or mutated humans that is — and is directed by Francis Lawrence. It opens December 14th, 2007.

I Am Legend is an upcoming 2007 post-apocalyptic science fiction horror film starring Will Smith. The film is based on Richard Matheson's 1954 novel of the same name. Somehow immune to it all, Robert Neville (Will Smith), a brilliant scientist, is now the last human survivor in what is left of New York City and maybe the world. For three years, Neville has faithfully sent out daily radio messages, desperate to find any other survivors who might be out there. But he is not alone. The Infected, mutant victims of the plague, are watching him.

Something is wrong with the ending of Will Smith’s upcoming “I am Legend”, the latest movie adaptation of Richard Matheson’s novel of the same name. Or at least, something is “wrong” according to the studio that produced the movie, because they have just finished reshoots on the film. Of course, no one knows if the reshoots had anything to do with the ending at all. It’s widely known, and I think you can figure it out from the trailers, that the 2007 version of “I am Legend” is barely faithful to Matheson’s book, so one would expect the ending would also be different. The book’s ending was very, shall we say, non-audience friendly, and what kind of a Big Budget Will Smith movie would this be if the ending was non-audience friendly?

I have confirmed that there were reshoots on the movie as late as last week. What’s not confirmed is what has been reshot. My source tells me that the ending was redone, as the studio wasn’t happy with the finale that director Francis Lawrence had. Since I know that Lawrence’s ending was already unfaithful to Richard Matheson’s original story, I can only imagine that the new ending is more action packed and even more upbeat than before.

Okay, here’s where I’m going to depart a bit, and tell you that I kinda don’t want the original ending ala Matheson’s book. I’m sorry, but this is a Big Budget, Special Effects-driven Event film, and I just don’t want to sit through all the eye candy only to have a downbeat as hell ending.

So sue me, but I hope they change the ending to something more upbeat so I can enjoy the film even more.

I'm Not There

The Film "I'm Not there" is by far the most important, exhilarating, profound, and exciting film of the year, if not the decade for me in my own opinion. A biopic that captures the essence of an equally important, exhilarating and profound man by showing the different personas throughout his life through seven different fictionalized characters. Todd Haynes has crafted the quintessential biopic, a vision of a musician, a storyteller, and a prophet, applauded and ousted throughout his lifetime by the public and the media.

If there was ever any question of Haynes being a true film director, he has solidified his title as director and also as one of the most talented American filmmakers today. "I'm no there" isn't the type of film that will appeal to the mass audience thats the sad part. It's an artistic vision, and will find the most interest with the indie crowd and Bob Dylan fans and a few fanatics here and there.

None of the fictional characters have the name Bob Dylan; "Bob Dylan" isn't mentioned once in the film but you will know it's talking about him. The film is basically seven different short films intertwined, each one representing a different phase of Dylan's life.

Richard Gere plays Billy the Kid, showing an older Bob Dylan, the Dylan of today and he did very well. This segment is set against the backdrop of the American West. The papers report that Pat Garrett shot and killed Billy the Kid. However he's still alive. The myth, and the press and public's perception, is wrong. This is used as a metaphor for Dylan's entire life.

In the Cate Blanchett sequence, we continually see the theme of how the public has certain perceptions of Dylan. A reporter continually shows up questioning these perceptions, and drilling Dylan on whether he still cares, if his changing music is still addressing the issues "it used to." This is a sad notion of Dylan's life.

The title has a lot to say about the man. After awhile, anyone in the public eye is no longer there; they're only the perception of what people have of them.

This is a true masterpiece, and a big credit goes to Co-writer/Director Todd Haynes, and his longtime producer Christine Vachon, who continually produces noteworthy films.

The Chrismast

I'm not a big moviegoer and I watched a few films in my arsenal, but I do know that this movie was too full of drama to be reasonably resolved within a 2-hour viewing. Maybe it would have made a better novel, I don't know??? The only plot that seemed to actually play through was the husband-wife scenario, but even that was rushed (though it was resolved with great humor) and kinda hasten. The movie also didn't "warm my heart" in the traditional sense of a holiday movie and the feeling good feeling wasn't there. I was left wondering what the true message was supposed to be??? I thought this was a movie for the teens or kids or even maybe to the kids at heart but I was disappointed. I knew it was rated PG-13, but I'm convinced now more than ever that the range of PG-13 is far too wide and kids may find themselves wondering what's going on the screen.

The movie trailers made it look like this would be a family movie. Well, it was ABOUT family - but it definitely not FOR the entire family. Specifically, I was disappointed in the way the family "ideal" was portrayed. In the words of my grandmother, there was too much "shackin' up" in this movie - in fact (the viewer learns in the first few minutes of the movie), the wise, God-fearing matriarch has a live-in boyfriend who happens to be a deacon in the church.

Needless to say, two of the matriarchs apples don't fall far from the tree. And since when to do one-night-stands lead to true love??? I know that this movie was not marketed as a moral movie per se, but the matriarch and live-in patriarch sure did talk a LOT of Christian talk to be living with each other and leanin' on the Lord for deliverance from their family problems.

I realize that this is life - people do what they want to do. I'm just saying: don't try to do the Tyler Perry thing (add a spiritual connection) at the same time you're trying to do the Zane thing (everybody-get-their-freak-on). Just let it be one or the other, and don't sell us out with a teen-magnet like Chris brown if you're going the Zane route (and DON'T try to hide it under the "holiday film" radar)! I do hope that the film-makers remember: when you put Chris Brown into a film, you're going to attract a lot of young, impressionable girls. Be mindful of the message you're sending. I do try to support films that portray African-American families positively and I know how important that first weekend is for a new film. But, next time, I'll have to wait and see what a few of my friends say before viewing similar movies.

The Mist

I have long observed when it comes to adapting written works of Stephen King to the big screen nobody has enjoyed greater success than Frank Darabont. In 1994 he parlayed King's The Shawshank Redemption into a score of Oscar nominations, and repeated the feat with 1999's The Green Mile. Stephen King has even gone so far as to anoint Frank Darabont as the filmmaker he trusts most to faithfully render his work into movies. As such it should come as no surprise that his visioning of King's 1980 novella The Mist is about as faithful as a movie can be to the source material, but in this case that's not always a good thing.

The Mist is a thrilling film about a town swept over by, well, a mist... and the movie focuses on a supermarket that has roughly a hundred trapped local citizens, along with a few out-of-towners who came along for the ride. Everyone is confused about what is going on, but a few people stick out as they try to pressure their ideas onto others with some authority. Some are petrified of the mist while others believe it's the work of God trying to warn them.

This movie was extremely entertaining. It kept my attention through the entire 2 hours of film. First, there's no "dilly-dallying" and side tracking; the movie starts off right with a storm. The mist slowly forms over the lake by the horizon once the storm settles. The locals run to the supermarket for supplies, but soon upon arrival, the mist swarms to the store and traps them inside. Some try to escape early but are torn away like mice to mice traps. The mist evolves as the movie goes on to these vial creatures that take over everything outside. As days pass, the people become desperate and that's when they try new plans, only leading to more danger and more desperation.

Here are the strong points of this movie. You don't know what is in the mist for a good part of the movie, which lets your imagination take over and let's you wonder more and more. In my opinion, that is much scarier. Another thing is that the mood is set very well: police cars speeding across the supermarket, the bull horn, the rolling of the mist towards the supermarket; the director did a remarkable job in convincing us audiences. The last thing was the psychological warfare amongst the people at the market. A quote from the movie was a reply to someone who asked why drastic measures needed to be taken, and he said "People are civilized, but when you take their possessions and put them into the dark, they will listen to anyone who says they have an answer". This movie isn't just about the mist, it is a metaphor for how trouble or error will only be acknowledged when it occurs in real life. We can be civilized today when everything is normal, but once something happens we are lost and in turmoil. We turn to whomever gives advice or a solution because we are so wrapped up in misery that we will try almost anything to get it back. The Mist is a perfect scenario for this occurrence.

The hitman

Don't ask me how, but I was lucky enough for the opportunity to see Hit-man in advance and that's me and my connections. When I first heard about this movie being made based on the game character, I was optimistic to say the least and I have heard that vin Diesel will produce and play the part. However, after seeing the movie, I can be the first to say, I was pleasantly surprised not in a negative way but somehow in light. The action is non stop and creative, all the scenes were shot okay. You fall in love and are in awe by the, well, AWESOMESS of 47, he's one hell of a bad ass. The story is above average but not superb and times predictable. However, good acting and great action makes but well for this. Anyways, see this movie, you will love it, especially if you are a fan of the game. And if you do know the game well, you will notice very precise details that are true to the game in the movie, it's just like playing the real thing inside the cinema.

So, everything I've seen so far - trailers, clips, posters, etc - look unbelievably close to scenes in the games. I'm a huge fan of the games and this looks to be a really good adaptation of the series. I'm actually surprised they've taken scenes directly out of the games and, and going so far as to have the game appear in the movie as well as what sounds like the same voice of Diana. And, even though I don't think Olyphant is quite right (he just doesn't quite have the right face for me or, more importantly, the voice of 47), I really think this is shaping up to be a good adaptation of the game and I am excited how well this movie do in the box office. Anyone agree?

p2

Been awaiting for the release of P2 for quite while now. As a horror fanatic I needed to see this. It was great to hear Alexandre Aja involved. I'm not a fan of High Tension, but think he did a great job on The Hills Have Eyes remake. 2007, in my opinion, has been a great year for Horror - but P2 certainly stands out in the crowd. Suspenseful, Thrilling, Realistic and a lot more...you don't want to miss out on P2.

One of the best thrillers out there, P2 is exciting, entertaining and very, very well done. It's talk about a business woman who is stalked by a psychopath killer after she gets stuck in a parking garage, and she must fight many challenges through the night for survive. This movie is very enjoyable, it's keep you on the edge of your sofa, from the beginning to the end.

Rachel Nichols plays Angela, a dedicated worker who is heading home to her family on Christmas Eve. However, when she gets in the parking garage - her car refuses to start. Pacing up and down the parking levels, she meets a friendly security guard named Thomas (Wes Bentley) who offers kind help. But before Angela knows it, she is knocked unconscious and awakens in Thomas' office, who appears to be fascinated with her and is, in short - mental and psychopath. Angela realizes she has to survive his psychotic ways, his vicious dog and being trapped.

Firstly, the cast do great. There's a small cast and they all do their jobs very well. Rachel Nichols and Wes Bentley both stand out and shine in their performances. Rachel Nichols is great and Wes Bentley's too, they are both very talented and Rachel is very sexy. Wes doing a villain has very real reactions and Rachel (i think) for the first time in a lead role is very charismatic. The script is very good but has it mistakes (of course), it is far from the perfect film, but is not close from the worst. I'm particularly impressed with Nichols as she truly does a great job. It's also great to be seeing Wes take on a role he hasn't done before, which is of the "psycho" in the movie. He does it really well. The characters and their characterization are done really well too. We focus on both characters and get to know them both. Angela is the hard worker who just wants to get home to the family and please everybody, whereas Thomas is this lonely man with a dog in need of some company. You actually feel sorry for him at times.

The plot of the movie is also great, and like I said before - one of the things that attracted me to see P2. I love the fact the movie takes place at Christmas, and it's even got me into the Christmas spirit early! I think the idea of being trapped, alone, in a parking garage is scary enough. But to be trapped with a psychotic man is even scarier, as well as his menacing dog. This movie has tons of thrills and suspenseful chase scenes to keep the viewer on the edge of their seats, and it's entertaining from start to finish. The movie also has some bloody, cringe-worthy scenes which are quite brutal.

I don't have any complaints about the movie, as it's what I expected it to be and more. You know, I'm already hearing bad things said about this film, and it's a shame. I don't know why people are bad mouthing it, as to me - it seems people are just hard to please. Maybe people saw this and expected a gore-fest? I don't know, but I do advise you watch this movie for yourself as it is amazing and one of the best horrors I've seen in 2007.

SouthLand tales

Having just read the lengthy review of this instantly forgettable movie, one would think "Southland "Tales" is the greatest movie never seen or it seems to be there in the greatest of all time list. Believe me, it's not even close. Far from it, this film probably spends most of its life on the shelf at your local video store, removed sporadically for viewing by some soon-to-be-disappointed film nut, checking it out for to discover what all the hoopla isn't about only to discover that this is no "Donnie Darko". The Failure of a film it is.

The blame for this dismal failure falls on writer-director, Richard Kelly, whose flawed myriad of confusing back stories completely undermines some mildly interesting stuff that he had going on before tanking it. Kelly's ill-conceived story renders "Southland Tales" as nothing more than a disappointing and lengthy "wannabe" of "Donnie Darko" except this is a story that lost me somewhere in the middle. But, unlike "Donnie Darko, "Southland Tales" fails dismally because in the end, one feeling completely cheated, if not, in my case, disgusted.

You can't fault the investors who shelled out hard cash for this project cuz they probably thought Kelly would come through with another gem like "Darko". The fault is Kelly's alone. He really botched this one.

What a waste of time and money. The most mixed up, confusing story that led absolutely nowhere is a good description to save it. It's hard to understand what the producers were thinking when they made this film. I mean, they had to have read the script before investing millions into this project, wouldn't ya think? I read somewhere that there was so much money put into developing this film that they almost had to finish it or lose millions. Well, in my opinion, it was good money after bad. Or maybe bad money after bad. In the end they still came out losing.

On top of everything else, the story was too long. The best word I can use to describe this film is confusing. The actors couldn't possibly have done a good job when they didn't even have a good script to begin with. Richard Kelly who, as good as a job as he did with "Donnie Darko" did just the opposite on this film. This film was about as much fun as a root canal. So, if you're thinking of watching this one, instead, just call your dentist. You'll have a better time. Trust me on that one, you'll have benefits too.

This isn't a movie for most audiences. You won't relate to any characters, and you won't follow or really care about the preposterous plot. It is dark and cynical. And despite it's heavy-handed political story, there is no deep, introspective meaning behind anything whatsoever. This is why many people won't get it, and thus will hate it. It's a dark film with a dash of comedy and a heavy dose of LSD. But there are enough funny moments to save it from feeling like a depressing, bad trip.

No Country for Old Men

“No Country for Old Men,” adapted by Joel and Ethan Coen from Cormac McCarthy’s novel, is bleak, scary and relentlessly violent. At its center is a figure of evil so calm, so extreme, so implacable that to hear his voice is to feel the temperature in the theater drop.

But while that chilly sensation is a sign of terror, it may equally be a symptom of delight. The specter of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a deadpan sociopath with a funny haircut, will feed many a nightmare, but the most lasting impression left by this film is likely to be the deep satisfaction that comes from witnessing the nearly perfect execution of a difficult task. “No Country for Old Men” is purgatory for the squeamish and the easily spooked. For formalists — those moviegoers sent into raptures by tight editing, nimble camera work and faultless sound design — it’s pure heaven.

So before I go any further, allow me my moment of bliss at the sheer brilliance of the Coens’ technique. And it is mostly theirs. The editor, Roderick Jaynes, is their longstanding pseudonym. The cinematographer, Roger Deakins, and the composer, Carter Burwell, are collaborators of such long standing that they surely count as part of the nonbiological Coen fraternity. At their best, and for that matter at their less than best, Joel and Ethan Coen, who share writing and directing credit here, combine virtuosic dexterity with mischievous high spirits, as if they were playing Franz Liszt’s most treacherous compositions on dueling banjos. Sometimes their appetite for pastiche overwhelms their more sober storytelling instincts, so it is something of a relief to find nothing especially showy or gimmicky in “No Country.” In the Coen canon it belongs with “Blood Simple,” “Miller’s Crossing” and “Fargo” as a densely woven crime story made more effective by a certain controlled stylistic perversity.

The script follows Mr. McCarthy’s novel almost scene for scene, and what the camera discloses is pretty much what the book describes: a parched, empty landscape; pickup trucks and taciturn men; and lots of killing. But the pacing, the mood and the attention to detail are breathtaking, sometimes literally.

In one scene a man sits in a dark hotel room as his pursuer walks down the corridor outside. You hear the creak of floorboards and the beeping of a transponder, and see the shadows of the hunter’s feet in the sliver of light under the door. The footsteps move away, and the next sound is the faint squeak of the light bulb in the hall being unscrewed. The silence and the slowness awaken your senses and quiet your breathing, as by the simplest cinematic means — Look! Listen! Hush! — your attention is completely and ecstatically absorbed. You won’t believe what happens next, even though you know it’s coming.

By the time this moment arrives, though, you have already been pulled into a seamlessly imagined and self-sufficient reality. The Coens have always used familiar elements of American pop culture and features of particular American landscapes to create elaborate and hermetic worlds. Mr. McCarthy, especially in the western phase of his career, has frequently done the same. The surprise of “No Country for Old Men,” the first literary adaptation these filmmakers have attempted, is how well matched their methods turn out to be with the novelist’s.

Mr. McCarthy’s book, for all its usual high-literary trappings (many philosophical digressions, no quotation marks), is one of his pulpier efforts, as well as one of his funniest. The Coens, seizing on the novel’s genre elements, lower the metaphysical temperature and amplify the material’s dark, rueful humor. It helps that the three lead actors — Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin along with Mr. Bardem — are adept at displaying their natural wit even when their characters find themselves in serious trouble.

The three are locked in a swerving, round-robin chase that takes them through the empty ranges and lonely motels of the West Texas border country in 1980. The three men occupy the screen one at a time, almost never appearing in the frame together, even as their fates become ever more intimately entwined.

Thing is, there's nothing simple about Joel and Ethan Coen's ultraviolent, wise and funny meditation on, like, nature, morality and man. Every shot's loaded with tension and beauty, every line is a great line, every performance is just exactly right. Brolin's regular joe on the run gives the plot plenty of action-picture momentum, while Jones takes his sweet time as a heartbreakingly pure lawman, feeling that he's "outmatched" in this desolate space on the border.

But the movie's soul belongs to Bardem, the most frightening movie villain since Hannibal Lecter, or even old-school Michael Myers. Is he simply a well-armed psychopath out to get his two million dollars back, or is he a ghost, or an angel, or the very force of nature taken human form for the convenience of story and metaphor?

Fred Claus

Vince Vaughn stars as Santa's unknown, unappreciated brother in what's supposed to be a blend of heartwarming fun with cynical humor. But it's more like a holiday fruitcake: a lot of different chunks of stuff—some bitter, some sweet, some awful—half-baked and sent to people low on the Christmas list.

Repo man Fred Claus (Vaughn) is in need of cash, so he pays a visit to his estranged brother Nick (Paul Giamatti, great even when trapped in a fat suit) at the North Pole. It's a particularly stressful time for Nick, aka Santa Claus, who's facing outsourcing and a snotty efficiency expert, played with delighted malice by Kevin Spacey.

This fairly neat twist on Christmas mythology is, sadly, failed by nearly every level of the execution, leaving us with an uncomfortable mashup of The Wedding Crashers and Miracle on 34th Street. The filmmakers never strike a balance between cold reality and the Magic of Christmas, and much of Fred Claus simply makes no sense: Why should Santa, who drives a magic sleigh, have to answer to a board of directors? How does Fred's girlfriend (Rachel Weisz, criminally wasted in a small role) accept that this regular guy is blood relatives with an immortal elf? And what's Elizabeth Banks doing as Santa's slutty little helper?

Much of the problem is Vince Vaughn himself, as he doesn't bother to play any character other than Vince Vaughn. And he's yet to perfect how to be likable and a jerk at the same time (see Bill Murray in Scrooged), so Fred ends up being a dick—just not too much of one. His repo man is working during the holidays, sure, but only takes stuff from rich people.

Despite a few funny scenes, this attempt to make a PG comedy for the whole family ends up only working sporadically, like tree lights on the fritz.

Lions for Lambs

Lions for Lambs begins after two determined students at a West Coast University, Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Pena), follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (Robert Redford), and attempt to do something important with their lives.

Hey, you know what we just don't get enough of these days? Long rants about war and politics. Thank God Robert Redford has stepped up with this triple take on the War on Terror. Good performances from Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise are wasted in what's basically a dorm-room debate with a couple of action scenes.

The Bigger Picture: A college professor (Redford) tries to make an apathetic student care about politics while, at that same instant, two of his former students (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) walk into a dangerous mess in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, a TV reporter (Streep) interviews the hotshot senator (Cruise) who created the plan that has put the two soldiers in harm's way.

Got all that? Doesn't matter. These three plotlines turn out to be nothing but high-speed delivery systems for speeches as subtle as a brick to the skull. Redford, Cruise and Streep give good efforts, sure, but these aren't characters—they're blogs.

The senator's plan goes pear-shaped, and Luke and Peña's characters are wounded and cut off from their unit. Cruise uses all his charm and teeth to convince Streep to sell his initiative—and his own shot at the White House—to the American people. Streep is torn, which we're shown, embarrassingly, by her singing lyrics from The Who to her boss. Seriously.

The movie's big dilemma, however, supposedly belongs to Redford's student (Andrew Garfield, not really tall enough for this ride). Redford challenges him to make a difference, and he bitches that he'd rather drink beer and get a sweet job, because the whole system kinda sucks anyway. Then we're asked to believe that this whiny little snot's choice of a major is just as important as the sacrifice of the soldiers.

"Rome is burning," Redford snaps at him. Maybe so, but this movie is barely a plastic bottle of Evian against the flames.

martian child

Having watch Martian Child, I must say Martian Child is a unique movie that you will not only find emotional but totally very true! The movie is intelligent, funny and loving with some of the finest acting from both John Cusack and Bobby Coleman. It is a mix between Big Daddy and K-Pax but without doubt has more intelligence and emotion than those two movies! Both Cusack and Coleman form a bond that is so strong and loving, you actually shed tears throughout the movie! With John Cusack, I have found great performances and amazing films, as well as movies that left a lot to be desired. This movie was perhaps one of his best films and most satisfying performances since "Say Anything..." in 1989. It is a great film and I am sure that when it is release it will do well at the box office like all of Cusacks movies! Its a feel good piece of art and one of the best of the year! The movie will make you want to hold your children and enjoy life, it has a Disney feel but is so intelligent that you admire the director and the actors.

This film had perfect justification which is on the same standard as "Little Miss Sunshine." The movie hits you hard, makes you think, and just as it's about to make you cry--something outrageously funny happens and you are laughing too hard to even think of crying. Bobby Coleman is perfect in his role--quirky, poignant, and subtly portrays a character that many children would over-act, giving Dennis the credibility and relativity's that he deserves. His performance is reminiscent of Johnny Depp in "Benny and Joon," and this young boy will win just as many hearts. Both leading actors portray their characters perfectly and work so amazingly well together that their performances are seamless. This movie is one of the best I have seen in a long time. It is truly a work of universal mastery.

Director Menno Meyjes
Cast John Cusack
Amanda Peet
Joan Cusack
Sophie Okonedo
Oliver Platt
Bobby Coleman
Release Date November 02, 2007 Studio New Line Cinema

Awakeawake

Awake

2k7's most awaited psychological thriller

Thriller movies always captivate my attention. This genre has an element that somewhat makes me curious. I think guessing game enters the picture. I believe that thriller movies are one of the most unpredictable ones. Sometimes, I am left wondering what will be the next scene and its consequences that follow.

I think thriller movies really make me awake. Is it a matter of mind exercise or just for curiosity sake? I leave that to my fellow viewers. My take on the matter is that that thriller movies are made for both. I, as a curious person, would tend to use my intellect in perceiving the logical flow of the movie.

This year (2007) the movie Awake is one of the thriller movies released for the general movie viewers. Not only that, Awake is no ordinary thriller movie. Awake is in fact a psychological thriller. This would surely make your mind work, at the same time keep curiosity levels at a high rate.

Written and directed by Joby Harold, the movie stars Hayden Christensen as Clay and Jessica Alba as Sam. Other casts include Lena Olin, Terrence Howard, Christopher McDonald, Pooma Jagannathan, and Steve Hinkle among others. The movie is still in the production stage and the target release date would is between November and December of the aforementioned year.

Awake's plot focused on a young couple, Clay and Sam, that have to settle with future unforeseen problems. The couple's problem was a consequence of Clay's open heart surgery. Upon his operation, he suffered anesthesia awareness. This is the pain felt during any surgery done in the body due to the lacking intake of anesthesia or analgesic dosage.

The problem with anesthesia awareness is the consequences that it can bring to the person. As for the case of Clay, he suffered trauma. Indeed, his open heart surgery was a very depressing experience. Along the way, his wife Sam must make decisions which are life changing. This is a result of the combination of his husband's struggles with the trauma and her ability to handle the unprecented situation.

American Gangsteramerican gangster

American Gangster

Actually based on true events, Director Riddley Scott, producers Brian Grazer, Steven Zaillian and Oscar winning actors Russel Crowe and Denzel Washington all manage to create a truly dramatic, powerful, top-notched and compelling cop-based gangster movie.

Lot of folks out there think that “American Gangster” is a classic. "American Gangster" has already been compared to major gangster epics like "The Godfather" and "Goodfellas" and is starting to be considered a new American classic itself.

The two leading actors (both Oscar winners) clash like titans and deliver convincing and highly remarkable performances.

The screenplay is very sharp, entertaining, compelling and intelligent. It deals with corruption the way it should, not by making any exaggerated statement, but simply by beautifully telling the tale of Frank Lucas (real life gangster), who rose from the poor to become one of the biggest heroin dealers in USA.

Scott does an excellent job at recreating New York in the early 70's, with the help of great design and costumes, as well as a flawless cinematography and film editing.

A totally engrossing movie from beginning to end. Great performances from Washington and Crowe. I'm guessing it will get Best Picture and at least one, possibly two Oscars for the leading actors.

I've never seen Washington in a dud movie. Crowe, however, is a different story. In both this movie and 3-10 to Yuma his American accent just doesn't cut it.

He first came to light (to me) in Romper Stomper, which no doubt brings him to the attention of the likes of Ridley Scott when casting for similar movies.

I'd have no hesitation recommending this movie to anyone. Even with a length of 2.5 hours the time seemed to whiz by. The accuracy with which the director created the late 60's can't pass without comment. Fantastic !