IN: Review: Here's a gritty, get-the-bad guys revenge story starring a relentless and rough Denzel Washington. He's three personalities here: a down-and-out-low-key-now drunk- former mercenary, then a loving father-type person to a little girl and then a brutal maniac on the loose seeking answers and revenge.

The story is about Washington hired to be a bodyguard for a little American girl living in Mexico, where kidnappings of children occur regularly (at least according to the movie.) He becomes attached to the kid, played winningly by THE child actress of our day, Dakota Fanning. When Fanning is kidnapped in front of him, Washington goes after the men responsible and spares no one. Beware: this film is not for the squeamish.

This is stylish film-making, which is good and bad. I liked it, but a number of people found it too frenetic for their tastes as the camera-work is one that could give you a headache. I thought it fit the tense storyline and was fascinating to view, but it's (the shaky camera) not for all tastes.

Besides the two stars, there is the always-interesting Christopher Walken, in an uncharacteristically low-key role, and a number of other fine actors.

The film panders to the base emotions in all of us, but it works.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Nothing's more enjoyable for me than a who-dun-it or suspense tale that keeps you guessing throughout as to how the whole thing will end. And that's precisely what happens in DEATHTRAP, based on a chilling play by Ira Levin ("Rosemary's Baby").

And in it, MICHAEL CAINE and CHRISTOPHER REEVE get to do the kind of stunt that Caine and Laurence Olivier pulled off in SLEUTH--with just about as much skill and as many puzzles as ever existed in that extraordinarily clever play.

But because it's meant to scare you, surprise you, and keep you guessing as to the outcome, it's difficult to write a review about the plot. Let's just say that what we know in the beginning is all you have to know about the film for the present. MICHAEL CAINE is an insanely jealous playwright whose latest play has failed miserably. When a young aspiring writer CHRISTOPHER REEVE sends him the manuscript of his play, Caine realizes that passing it off as his own would solve all his problems and get his reputation back.

From that point on, it's a matter of fun and games for the audience as Ira Levin's story unwinds, managing to trump Agatha Christie for the number of twists.

Caine and Reeve play off each other brilliantly, each bringing a certain dynamic tension to the tale as well as some humorous touches that come from a script that laces drama with humor.

Summing up: Well worth seeing--but not everyone is pleased with the ending.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.

The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.

Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.

Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.

despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: "The Kennel Murder Case" starts off at a run and doesn't stop until the very end. Everybody had reason to kill the victim, and several people tried. William Powell is terrific as Philo Vance, gentleman detective. Mary Astor is refreshing as the put-upon niece who only wants to marry her Scottish gentleman and enjoy her inheritance. This movie comes paired with "Nancy Drew, Reporter" on DVD, which is also fun. If you have to rent the disc (or check it out from your local library), do it. It's pure entertainment!
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive