Reviews by Happy Vader

Viktor Navorski, a contract worker from the fictional Krakhozia is stuck at the JFK Airport because his country is at war and the government has fallen, thus making Viktor a "man without a country".

If you were to take this in a Dante-esque manner, then Viktor is stuck in a Limbo, with Dixon playing the role of the Devil and Amelia as a Saint, his Beatrice even. New York, to Viktor is Heaven, his Krakhozia is Hell, if just for 9 months, and the JFK Airport is Purgatory, with Mulroy, Gupta and Enrique being the unfortunate souls, as well as his Guides.

So, with that said, The Terminal is, as of yet, Spielberg's last great directed film, although his upcoming Lincoln looks very promising and is likely to break his bad-luck chain. Anyway, since Tom Hanks had previously worked with Spielberg before on Saving Private Ryan, the chemistry and comfortability between the two was obvious. Both understood each other and maxed out their talents. However, I do have one qualm: Viktor never does at any time act like a stranger in a strange land. If he does, then only in the first 20-or-so minutes. Basically Viktor is more of a above-age, foreign version of Forrest Gump, or at least that's how it felt to me. Had he been an escapee or retard of some sort, his character would've been more believable. Then we have Amelia Warren, a wrong character stumbled in the wrong film. Amelia was so out of tune from the movie, totally detached to everything around her and nothing the character said, or did, was convincing.

I mean, the story is simple, the ending is very heart-warming and few scenes require repeated rewinds, (alliterative sentences are one of my specialties) but the method of execution of the film wasn't up to mark. It was like they had the right cemetery, but were digging the wrong grave.

Anyway, from the performances, Tom Hanks, as ever, was brilliant and A+ in his role as Viktor Navorski. A standing ovation to his tackling of the character. Stanley Tucci is one of those actors that you see less, but what you see may, or may not, leave an impression on you - good or OK, but never bad. He also handled his character Dixon in an impressive manner, although more screen-time could've been better. The supporting were also good, but most have done better roles like Zoe Saldana and Catherine Zeta Jones. The minor cast were just OK, nothing exceptional.

In all, The Terminal is a good movie but may not play to your expectations.

6.5/10

At a distinguished party in a handsome manor, Ben-Hur presents itself as a rich & important member. Finely detailed in an aquiline manner and topped with an impressive personality, many members think he must be some important official. What they don't know is that he is the owner of the manor himself, the one who invited them all to the party! I've always imagined Ben-Hur in that sense. An outstanding film that turns heads of many people but receives recognition from a certain few. Not to say Ben-Hur is under-rated, far from that. I just wish that more of the young generation of the now would see this film and not get repelled by its 3+ hour screen-time and movie content. It is such a classy, masterfully made film that it should be of no wonder when someone ranks it no. 1 in their list, like I have. Prior Ben-Hur I had seen countless of films and most were eligible for the number 1 position, but when I saw this film, it became immediately clear that it would hold the spot for a very, very long time. Why? Because it has a certain charm, a certain element that no other film quite has. I can't explain what that is but it is always present whenever I see this film, something I did not feel in other movies, believe me.

To the modern eye the film may seem kinda clunky and offish but if you take a closer look you will come to realize that every scene is very professional and thoughtfully made and every cast member seems alive, involved, energetic in every sense. Every detail has rich value, every major cast member acts as if it's their final movie, giving unmatched performances, and the music could very well be written by Apollo himself, a legendary achievement. How can a film like this ever be disliked or ranked lower than the others? It is filled with energy and has a really awesome cinematography that literally makes you one of the cast members because of its mastery.

The movie starts off showing the birth of Christ. Then we see two old friends, Messala and Judah Ben-Hur, re-uniting. The loyalty towards each other as well as tension and frustration is not lost to the audience. The different personalities and view points are brilliantly showcased in a small time frame. One thing leads to another and Messala condemns Ben-Hur, as well as his mother and sister. Ben-Hur finds himself below the deck as a rower, all dignity lost. Now, if you compare the galley sequence to modern day sequences, it seems very dog-tired and repetitive. But like I said before, everything seems convincing, realistic to the point you can actually feel the whip that comes down on them, the aching in their arms while they row, and all that. May sound cheesy but it is not. Every single person, major to extra, played their part brilliantly, most importantly Jack Hawkins, who introduces himself in a very memorable monologue (You have the spirit to fight back...) Then, after 10 things here & 10 things there, Ben-Hur finds himself in a chariot race, arguably the finest use of chariots, mass audience, music and entertainment. It is also one of the most violent moments in cinematic history, even if it doesn't seem much. The reason why the 9-minute chariot race is so well loved is not only because of the significance it holds in the film and to the character (the chariot race was to Ben-Hur what the arrows were to Odysseus), but also because of its one shocking scene where Charlton Heston almost broke his neck due to a timing error. But the brave Heston carried on, giving us one of the damn greatest 2-second moment in cinematic history. After when everything is said and all is done, Judah Ben-Hur witnesses the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and reunites with his family and his loved one. Such a brilliant end to a bona-fide film.

From the performances, every single cast, from the major to the 2-second extra, was great. The one thing I appreciated was not showing the face of Christ and the actor who portrayed him, Claude Heater, was actually good in his role, despite the fact we only see his hands and backside. But his lithe hand movements were enough. Charlton Heston, as always, stole the show by his amazing portrayal of Judah Ben-Hur and it was of no surprise when he won the Oscar. Granted, it may not be one of the perfect performances I've seen, I have seen better, but it certainly shows what great acting is all about. A performance not to be missed at all! Then we have Hugh Griffith as the charismatic, never-failing Shiek Ildrim, a performance which rightly won him the Best Supporting Actor. He not only provides detailed comic-relief but a great addition to the epic, and is introduced at the best possible time. Even though he never got the world-wide fame as Heston, Jack Hawkins will still remain as one of the best actors of yesteryear. Not only he had his well-known role in check, he also managed to upstage virtually everyone, even challenging Heston face-to-face. He embodied the true persona of a Roman. Then we have Stephen Boyd as Messala, the main antagonist of the film. An equally memorable performance as the others. If he had been given a little more screen-time, he would've been a very good contender for Best Supporting Actor. His death-scene performance is arguably one of the best. From the rest, Sam Jaffe, Haya Harareet, Finlay Currie, Frank Thring and Martha Scott were also great and unresting in their respective characters, each providing a humble contribution to the film and made good use of their screen time. Like I said before, virtually every cast member was truly amazing in their role and all were alive in some manner.

In conclusion, Ben-Hur is cinematic perfection (I just love that sentence!) It is everything what a big-scale film should be and is a classic example of how Hollywood used to survive back in the day without the use of CGI and exaggeration. Ben-Hur is more than Hollywood. It defines it.

10/10

Before Christopher Nolan made himself synonymous with Batman, he directed this number 1 flick of its time, Memento, the modern example of mindf*** and neo-noir. Memento works like an intricate embroidered pattern, everything stitched perfectly with expert hands. Don't you just love the feeling that you just saw something that was beyond your thinking capability and something just out of your hand's reach? 80% of the fun watching a film like this lies in how much you understood of it. The remaining 20% is entertainment, which is not really important. I'm not gonna go in the obvious facts of the movie, you can understand that from other members' reviews or by watching it yourself. Anyway, it is such a well-made non-linear film that it very well could be the greatest non-linear film ever. Finally, a film that not only makes you rack up your brains but actually makes you wanna get deeper into the shown subject or take a 2-minute interest in it. Not a bad thing, I say. Since I take a rather morbid interest in these things, I kinda understood it on the very first try and I think I'm able to place the film in correct chronological order and come up with solutions to the loop-holes and the psychological level in all the major characters. I just need to see it one more time tomorrow to corroborate with what I understand, or think I understand. Mind you, it's not Donnie Darko, to which the answers are obvious, Memento is much deeper than that, more than just one person. It is about identity; lack of it, or several of it.

Anyway, Guy Pearce was Christopher Nolan's first Christian Bale. It's a wonder why Nolan never bought back Pearce in any of his other movies. The cast of Memento is undeniably the best cast Nolan has ever chosen for his film, no kidding. Everyone were convincing and perfect in their characters. Take Joe Pantoliano as Teddy for example: He will always remain the supporting actor, but a great one at that (check out The Matrix and The Fugitive). He managed to bring realism to his character. Then we have Carrie Anne Moss as Natalie. She is one of my favourite actresses and this is one of her best roles to date. She brings a level of mysteriousness to her character alongside realism. Now take Stephen Tobolowsky as Sammy Jankins. In his limited screen-time, Stephen manages to grab your attention and etches himself in your mind. Then of course we have Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, one of the damn best movie characters out there. The thing is that Nolan has a good eye for choosing the perfect actor / actress for a certain role. Guy Pearce looks both an ordinary citizen and someone who you wouldn't see walking down the street everyday, an important VIP, a secret agent maybe. The interesting combination provided by Pearce made Leonard Shelby more than just a movie character, more than just a person, a person we hold in our back of our minds and he embodied it masterfully. Nolan should cast him again in a film of his.

Anyway, Memento is a thinking film and not for lazy couch potatoes. If you can't understand the film, try to.

9.0/10

Man, what a silly film this was. It is best for people whose minds haven't become hardened by years of movie watching or who are still young, say, 8-9 years old, or even less. Frankly speaking, nothing in the movie reminded me of the movie; it reminded me of other things. The Turtles, especially Raphael, reminded me of 50 Cent, Elias Koteas as Casey Jones reminded me of Breckin Meyer in Clueless and Jay Patterson, who plays Charles Pennington, reminded me of Stephen Tobolowsky. These details were very distracting!

Apart from that, the emotional, or expression, value in this film was that of a matchbox. Nothing made sense. Also, the Turtles weren't realistic enough, something they become in the sequel, the only installment in the dreadful franchise that I actually quite-enjoyed. This film doesn't know when to draw a line, and doesn't even bother, one of the reasons why I had mixed feelings in the first try. My 9 year old sister kinda enjoyed and that's what counts, since I had downloaded it for her.

Anyway, the only performance I actually enjoyed was by Elias Koteas as Casey Jones. He belongs to a "genre" of actors known as "Cool actors who can never become big but still entertain us", to which Peter Greene, Kim Coates, Sean Bean, Denis Leary and others are members of. Seriously, he is the only one who makes sense in the film. All the others were just OK.

In conclusion, not a worst movie, just a silly one aimed for kids with a few inappropriate scenes in-between. Nothing more!

5.5/10

Since I'm writing a short story and since the story's main villain falls under the horror-of-personality sub-genre and since this film came highly recommended with it, I decided to download it and watch it, not expecting much I must say. 20 minutes into the film and it proves itself worthy against most of Hitchcock movies and more than 95% of the movies released from the 80's till now. The thing that fuels the engines of the movies are the performances by the two main leads: Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. They are so flawless in their respective roles and the chemistry towards each other is so impeccable that they play less as just two actresses and more as real-life sisters. I think the film, in a way, embodies the celebrity culture of the now. The way Baby Jane acts and behaves throughout the film, generally and towards her sister, reminds me of the models and celebrities of the now and how they dish out on each other. *gasp* how did they know?

Anyway, the art of story-telling is brilliant. It's was akin to a very demented ritual in progress. The suspense is at the right time and knocks you by its devastating punches. There is nothing in this film that can be said as boring or wasteful. From the scary opening (OK, the jack-in-the-box was scary to me, if not to you) to the dead rat and bird in the tray, this film has all the best touches.

More than 85% of the film's high status comes from the performances. It's not a world-wide known fact, just something from me, something I observed. What exactly made the film memorable has to be the legendary performance by Bette Davis, as Baby Jane Hudson, the villain of the film, and one of the greatest of all time. She was so chillingly effective and so into her role that it was hard to see Bette Davis anywhere. That's talent beyond the average limit. She pushed the envelope further than probably anyone ever did or has done ever since. Should there be a movie performances hall of fame, then Bette Davis gets my nomination for her role in this film. But of course, she is not alone, for she has Joan Crawford by her side as Blanche Hudson, her much abused sister. Crawford was equally superior in role as Davis was. While the latter was trying to put on an impressive, meant-to-shock performance, the former settled down for natural. She was so unearthly natural in her role that me thinks she didn't know the camera was ON half the time. All the others were just fine. If Davis provided both the shoulders for the film, then Crawford provided the backbone. Both were impressive and masterful in their respective characters and truly bought life and value to them.

In conclusion, What Ever... exceeded my expectations, a rarity I must admit. It full of shocking moments filled with two of the arguably perfect performances I've ever seen in my life. Horror fan or not, this is a must-watch!

9.0/10

This Fred Zinnemann classic has the courage to call itself a Western, but doesn't really have the heart to display it, which is a compliment from me because it is a unique film. Unlike the other Westerns, it is too nicey-nice, with very little shooting and absolutely no bloodshed whatsoever. The reason why High Noon is such an awesome film is because of its simplicity. No trains, no chase sequences, none of the usual characteristics of the genre; instead, the main focus is on the main character Will Kane, arguably the greatest, and coolest, hero to hit the screen, and his attempt at bringing together a posse to defend the town from a notorious outlaw Frank Miller. The whole film, bar the last 5 minutes, show nothing but Will Kane going around the town trying to convince the people to help him. The heroic and likable nature of Will Kane not only makes him stand out like a sore thumb from the town's irrational, fear-driven folks, but also makes him the number one best Western film hero I've ever seen. The reasons are little, but they're enough, and I have already outlined them above.

The characters are realistic, their different natures and personalities are accurate to their character and the dialogues are natural. Like I said before, High Noon is a painfully simple film that will make you love the genre all over again - even if you already do. What I liked best is how they wrote Will Kane for the screen; He laughs, he smiles, he breakdowns, he fights, he considers leaving - all emotions perfectly displayed. The simple-to-the-point character is so well-written, it very well could be the greatest written character for the screen ever.

Changing tracks, even though Gary Cooper received the Oscar for his role as Will Kane, it was the second best performance. The first has to be Katy Jurado as Helen Ramirez, the hot flame of the film. You see, you see, the film belongs to Katy and her only. No-one else. She was amazing in her role. True, it may seem outdated to the modern eye but it certainly will win you over, of that I have no doubt. Her had movements, quite stiff I admit, were something I enjoyed the best. She breathed life into her words and a believable personality in her character. Great performance indeed. Now let's try to tackle Gary Cooper. The face of hero is either very handsome, rugged, stern, normal, or ugly et al. Cooper was a combination of all and then some. He may very well be the most realistic face of a sheriff ever. His performance was good, out-shadowed each & every one except Katy Jurado, a painful confession I must sheepishly admit. Hey, once you watch the film, and try to pay attention to her performance and not just her looks, I think you will come to agree with me!

In conclusion, High Noon is a classic film and probably the simplest in its genre. Awesome films like these don't come around nowadays, a shame really.

10/10

Pounding hooves, train's signal, music scores, gunshots; All the classic Western sounds are present here. Rough & tough men, fedoras, trenchcoats, trains, standoffs; All the strong points of Western are greatly detailed here. Oh, it also has Claudia Cardinale and Henry Fonda's stunning blue eyes thrown as a bonus. It is generally considered as the greatest western film ever made and subsequently, one of the greatest of all time. Now you see, I'm 50-50 with that comment. Sergio Leone was a great director, no doubt, but this film just did not have the fire, the intensity, the nail-biting atmosphere as his Dollars Trilogy had. This one had a more sombre, slow pace to it, something I both enjoyed and got irritated by it. I mean, I enjoyed it from A to Z but I was expecting a lot violence and epic standoffs, something this film offers little to none. Unlike the character-and-dialogue driven Dollars Trilogy, this film was more story driven. A stiff, hard on the edges story, more like. To tell you the truth, I liked the characters more than anything. They were greatly - and minimistically - written for the screen and superbly acted by the cast. There was a heavy sense of realism going around. No actor veered from their character and all stayed true to it till the very end; The mysterious remained the mysterious, the villain the villain and the greedy the greedy.

Moving forward, Sergio Leone is one of those directors that, when a group of people discuss and argue about his films, end up narrowing it down to just two: Once Upon a Time in the West and The Good, the Bad & the Ugly, widely considered to be his greatest achievements, and greatest works of cinema as a whole. The latter is the third chapter of the Dollars Trilogy I've mentioned above, while the former is original and has no connection to it. Both are at the top of the Western genre and are often ranked at the top. In my opinion, Once Upon..., mature and sensible it may look, is not better than The Good... It's like Need For Speed II: SE and Need For Speed Carbon. The no-laws-apply-here attitude of the former is much more enjoyable than the realistic approach of the latter. No matter how tuned-up and realistic the series become, many people still opt for the older, man-were-they-serious by-gone titles. I guess that's the case here.

Changing tracks, from the performances, I thoroughly enjoyed Jason Robards as Cheyenne. A character like Cheyenne might sound like a complicated character on paper, but Robards tackled him professionally and as uncomplicately as possible. An impressive performance, might win you over the first time. Being the sole female of the film, Claudia Cardinale handled the film on her shoulders amazingly. She was fun to watch. Granted, Charles Bronson never really was in my top 100, as I consider him to be an OK actor, his performance as Harmonica was also quite OK. I mean, he was perfect for the role, he just wasn't 100% into it, but still good if compared to today's standards. Now, the only guy who challenged Robards squarely in the eye has to be Henry Fonda as Frank, the antagonist of the film. Seeing him as a villain was disturbing, as he had by that time established himself as playing heroes. His hypnotizing stare and striking blue eyes made him a unique personality on-screen. I believe every weather-beaten, heartless villain should have these two characteristics, chop chop, as they are striking and dominating.

In all, Once Upon... is an impressive movie, and takes itself too seriously, which might repel some viewers. If you're not one of them, then it is for you! Try it!

8.5/10

In the 100+ history of cinema, two decades, to me, stand out as the greatest, in terms of visionary achievement and cinematic milestones: The 40's and the 70's. I know, I know, many of you would beg to differ but that's just how I see it. The 40's had a glorious, unique touch to it while the 70's was cluttered with iconic moments here and there. Casablanca, directed by Michael Curtiz, was released in 1942, thus giving us one of the reasons to love the 40's. The reason why the film is so thoroughly enjoyed is because everyone, and everything, was so damn good. Every performance lived up to the game, every dialogue was worth repeating, every scene had weight in them and every object that changed hands had either a mystery to it or significance. That, and more, is what makes Casablanca a perennial classic, which is still enjoyed today, no matter the time, day or audience. Even the poster is great!

It is also one of the rare few films that employs not only a great cast, but superb performances as well. Take Humphrey Bogart, for example. His performance as Rick Blaine, one of screen's best heroes, is a great example of amazing, dignified acting. He bought a human, understanding depth to his character and a realistic aura to him, a feat only few are capable of achieving, like, let's say, Daniel-Day Lewis. That was icon number one. Icon number two is Conrad Veidt as Heinrich Strasser, the primary antagonist of the film. Prior this film, he was, and will probably will be, best known in The Man Who Laughs. In both the films he played his character to the max. A performance that may not win you over the first time but after repeated viewings, you will come to love it all the same. Icon number 3 is Peter Lorre, who plays Ugarte. He is still best known for playing the serial killer in M. His brief apperance may put a smile on your face, as his performances have always been unnatural, uncanny. Icon number 4 is Claude Rains as Captain Renault, my favourite character from the film. After Bogart, his performance was the best. His flexibility and art of blending in and movement just won me over. Concur or not, but Casablanca wouldn't have reached its iconic status if it weren't for Claude Rains. Then we have Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo. Although I didn't enjoy it as much as the others, it really was quite-well acted. Now, in terms of beautiful, I've only found four actresses to be stunningly beautiful in the original meaning of the word: Helena Bonham-Carter, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich and Ingrid Bergman, who appears in this film as Ilsa Lund. There are other beautiful women, yes, but these four I will always rank them higher than anyone. I've always found Bergman to be stunningly beautiful, and probably the most beautiful woman ever to work in Hollywood, hands down. Her mere appearance was quite-distracting I must say. Many a-times I had to rewind back because I, er, forgot to pay attention what the other guy said. I really like her smile a-lot and... *ahem*, I should be getting on with her performance: Well, it certainly was good. Bergman made Lund a sort of a character that I would love to see in other movies. A positive performance.

So, that was it, and sorry for kinda doodling around. Anyway, although not in my top 10 (please, not in the face), it will forever remain as one of my personal favourites - even if I don't say it is. A must watch, a b/w classic!

9.5/10

Arguably one of the finest movies ever made, Planet of the Apes is also a legendary achievement in the history of Hollywood. I have nothing but praise for this film. This was the film that introduced me to Charlton Heston and the director Franklin J. Schaffner, whose another film, Patton, I also thoroughly enjoyed. Look, this was made before the high rise of technology and decades before CGI was born, so everything not only looks brilliant, but chillingly authentic. So real you can reach out and touch it. Such was the power of John Chambers who was the head of the monkey / ape / chimpanzee design. They look, feel and eat like real monkeys. Now that is something that the Hollywood of the now cannot re-create with CGI. Oh, and then there's the music by Jerry Goldsmith. Spine-chilling, hair-raising and bone-rattling, the music is the scariest element of the movie. This had to be the only time I ever feared the arrival of the music in the scene.
Look, PotA is one of those movies that everyone sees and everyone likes to remember, so I suggest you become one of them as quickly as you can. If someone says that this film is one of their personal favourites, it's not hard to see why. I'm one of those people. Not only it is a brlliantly executed film, it also shows us how awesome and memorable a film can get. PotA will forever remain in my top 10 and no, the sequels and remakes just don't compare to this original. The Tim Burton's remake is one of the worst movies I've seen and subsequently, his worst directed flick so far. The monkeys looked like very ugly caricatures and not realistic enough. Thank you and sorry, but I will stick to this film.

Now, the devilishly handsome Charlton Heston was one of the finest actors of yesteryear's cinema and his role as Taylor was one of his best. Granted, it was far from perfect but he was the perfect man for the job. From his eulogies to his laugh to his anger, Heston captured the emotions greatly. Even though he wasn't as believable in his role as, let's say, he was in Ben-Hur or Touch of Evil, he still managed to make it human and convincing, a man on the verge of becoming a monster. Abhuman, in a sort of a way. From the supporting, Kim Hunter had my undivided attention from the very start to her last dialogue. She plays Dr. Zira, the likable female ape, one of my favourite characters. Not nearly, not almost, but all "non-human" actors were simply the tops. Their little twitches, hand movements, facial movements (which they were told to constantly keep moving them for a realistic effect) is something that I thoroughly enjoyed. Never in my life have I ever had fun watching apes!

So, if you are a newbie or an oldie, Planet of the Apes is the one film I would urge you to watch. You have my permission!

9.0/10

The Shawshank Redemption has now become one of the only handful of films that no-one objects to when you rank it number one or somewhere in the top five or ahead of The Godfather. Go ahead, try it. Now, many directors have tackled Stephen King, and while many have had their arrows miss the target, others have hit the bullseye straight; And Frank Darabont is one of the latter, giving us the greatest silver-screen adaptation of a SK story. It is all things positive and the reason why it is such a great film because everyone involved were great. No actor was miscast, no dialogue was off the hook and no scene was pointless. It is so well a-made movie that it is a surprise it was an utter flop when it was released back in 1994. This is what's wrong with our people; too slow in appreciating a genius movie like Shawshank and a genius director like Darabont. The pace of the film was perfect. To me it felt like akin to talking a tour around your best friend's home, and then sitting back and witnessing the day-to-day life of his family, with your best friend being your personal narrator, bringing you the ins and outs and ups and downs of everything. Shawshank Redemption falls under the category which I've labeled it as unparalleled cinema which also includes films like Ben-Hur, Godfather, Nosferatu and the like. Also, it has my vote for the National Film Registry, which after all, is quite a big honor for the movie and everyone involved in it.

From the performances, everyone remembers Morgan Freeman as Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding, who is now considered by many to be the greatest black character in a film. Even though he was active for some time, it was this film that propelled Freeman to stardom and to an iconic status as we know him today. His rich narrative voice made him a favourite among directors, commercials and Oscar ceremonies. And who can blame them? Joining him by his side is Tim Robbins as Andy Dufrense, the main hero. Some say he was quite detached in his role but I say different. He had a mature and sensible aura to him that gave his character a unique understanding. Oh, and also his smile, don't forget that. Robbins was very believable in his character and I consider it to be his best role to date, tied alongside with Mystic River. Equalling them both was James Whitmore as Brooks, hands down the best performance from the film. I've always enjoyed his roles and this is one of his top 3 best ever. His nine-minute narration sequence is not only heart-breaking on a realistic level, but damn well acted and narrated. In all respects, the single most greatest narration sequence ever in a film. From the villains, Bob Gunton as the corrupt Warden Norton was simply the tops. Strictly professional and none of the clicking tongue bullshit. A performance like this is rarely seen in other movies. Joining him is William Sadler as Capt. Heywood, the corrupt's corrupt. Another brilliant performance, although not to the level of the above mentioned, but still brilliant.

In conclusion, The Shawshank Redemption is a rare film. A once-in-every-three-decades-film. It commands your attention and makes you cry unashamedly, wince in pain and howl with happiness. Yes sir, this film will make you squeal just like Ned Beatty did in Deliverance but it will still make you feel like a mountain of a man by the end.

9.5/10