Kienzle

This was easily the best film that I have seen i the last six months, though I only recomend it to certain people. LaBute succeds in picking up right where "In The Company of Men" let off and enering a whole new level of painful reality. This film is about all the worst things inside the young dating populace, and yet it nevcer seems to have to dig very far to find its subject matter, which is in the end the entire point. All the horrible truths about human beings that the charecters reveal about each other are lurking just below the surface and are brought out with minimal amounts of provocation. Were this a hollywood film one would be tricked into feeling bad for many of the main charecters in the end, but LaBute refuses to appoligise for the true reasons for their downfall, leaving the audience with the uncomfortable task of evaluating what has realy happened and who is truely to blame. A true accomplishment and a flim that can not be ignored, still "The Shape of Things" will prove to simply be too much for most people to handle. That being said if you have the gumption you really shouldn't miss this film (note: DO NOT BRING A DATE), though it make take some time for you to decide what grade you would have given.

The original Halloween is amongst the greatest horror films of all time. That being said, it may best to seperate horror films into two categories: the originals and the sequels. The horror sequel is often so removed from the original work on which it was based that these films deserve to be considered a seperate genre altogether. The examples are endless, but in all cases there is a marked difference from the first film in a series and the ones that follow it, both in quality and structure. Think Jaws vs. Jaws 2-4 (or is it 5?) But every once in a while a sequel comes along that may not necessarily be as good as the original but which is a good horror film none the less. Halloween 4 is perhaps the best film ever to be produced by a horror "franchise". The movie is evenly paced, structured well, and Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasance both turn in very impressive performances. Particularly Harris who manages to be a very engaging victim, while never loosing the slightly creepy air of her charecter. The film relies on all the things that made the original so intreaguing. There is no real effort made to explain Michael's motivation as a murderer, he is simply "evil on two legs". (though I do find it interesting that he seems to express remorse when confronted with a picture of Jamie Lee Curtis). The charecters around the main cast are adequately developed though stereotypical (I am a particular fan of the drunken mob who accidently kill Ted Hollister.) And though the film often succumbs to the stereotypes of 80's slasher movies (the big breasted blonde slut, promiscuous teens, chaecters who break there legs but hobble and fight on, etc.) just like the original there is a genuine sense of morbid horror atmosphere in much of the film, and it manages to avoid all the major pitfalls of the horror sequel, plus it has a great ending. As I said earlier horror sequels are a unique animal, generaly they rely on what worked in the original and try to make it bigger and better just like any sequel, but often they screw things up by adding gimicks or rediculous plot twists, Halloween 4 succeds in keeping this to a minimum, and builds a solid movie on the same foundation as Carpenter did in the original- there is a killer lose in a neighborhood that looks just like yours killing people who look like you and your neighbors. Why and who isn't as important as keeping suspense high and showing how. Halloween 4 is the best horror sequel ever made, one of the top three horror films made in the eighties, and a must see for any fan of this genre of film.

This masterpiece is Bunuel at his best. It draws from the confrontational and revolutionary fire present in his Mexican films like "Il Brute", the intelligent and informed humor of his earlier religious farce, "Simon of The Desert", and I believe serves as a living picture of the transition his work seemed to under go between the more vivid and shocking Dali inspired surrealism of his early carrer (the obvious example being "Un Chien Andalou") and the more subtle and organic magical-realist influenced surrealism of "That Obscure Object of Desire". This film is certainly not light however. While there are no razor blindings or ant infested ears, the pope does fall victim to a firing squad of radicals. In fact I believe Bunuel succeds in leaving the viewer much more disgusted and upset by confronting him with the stark realities of the Catholic faith, and after all isn't that what surrealism is all about? It must be said that in order to understand and appreciate this film one must have a very good understanding of a variety of religious thinkers and of the history/practices of the catholic church. If you don't have such a background but are still lucky enough to get a chance to view this film, by all means take it, more likely than not it will inspire you to investigate the matter further and Bunuel conveniently mentions the names of all most all the writers he references in the film so take that list to a library, read up and watch it again, you won't be disappointed.