Reviews by The Cinephile

Frank Mccloud, an ex-soldier, stops by the Largo hotel, where he encounters a gangster set on holding the entire hotel captive. All the while, a rabid storm is brewing outside.

Humphrey Bogart is Frank McCloud, a former soldier in the World War, now looking to settle down and enjoy post-combat life. While on the way to a hotel called “Largo”, located in the Key’s, Florida; one of the few spots with similar titles in that specific area, his traveling bus is stopped by local police looking for two escaped convicts. The convicts are Mexicans, accused of murder, and just so happen to be running muck in Frank’s general area. Shortly thereafter, Frank arrives at his destination, where he plans on meeting a man, in Mr. Temple. (Lionel Barrymore) He and Temple’s son fought on the frontlines together, so Frank knows a lot about his late friend, and collaborates with Mr. Temple and Temple’s daughter about their experience together. The scene in which Bogart and Barrymore deeply reminisce about their own personal memories, is one that I found quite heart-breaking, whilst at the same time very powerful and perfectly acted. The deeply emotional, nearly teary-eyed look on Barrymore’s face really moved me. One of those on-screen moments I’ll never forget, as the interplay between the two is purely classic, not to be overlooked. I’m sure it won’t be included on any “most memorable” lists, but to me it’s good enough to be. Humphrey Bogart’s performance in this film is pretty spectacular, though definitely not as eccentric as some of his other roles. (Sierra Madre) It’s a very calm role however, as he stays relaxed for nearly the entire duration, not having to put forth a whole lot of emotion. He was a class act, one of Hollywood’s true legends. If not for him, Key Largo wouldn’t have nearly the same value as it currently does. I can’t say I’ve seen any other Barrymore films, but from what I’ve witnessed, he as well was a class act. The cast couldn’t have been hand-picked better, as each and every one of them nail their roles. Especially Edward Robinson as the ruthless gangster, Rocco.

After settling into the hotel for awhile, Frank is introduced to a few other hotel guests, including Rocco’s men, and Mr. Temple’s daughter, played wonderfully by Lauren Bacall. The three innocent bystanders are then held at gun-point by Rocco and his crew, all the while a heavy storm is brewing outdoors. The only man who possesses the courage and will power to stand up to these ruthless people, is Frank, as the rest of them just cower away in fear, with the exception of Mr. Temple, who attempts to attack the criminals, but to no avail, as he’s wheelchair bound. I’m always interested in films that are shot in just one location throughout, as it really boosts the tension and suspense for me. “Saw”, and “Identity” are a couple films in which were done that way, and really impressed me. With “Key Largo”, the tension isn’t too high, nor are the thugs really that intimidating whatsoever. But the multi-faceted situation they are all faced with: the storm, and the being held captive situation really come into affect here, and boost up the movie’s level, gelling it into one very captivating and enthralling experience.

The courage shown from Bogart’s character, and how powerful his performance is, mixed in with an extremely interesting, well thought out narrative, make for a very good viewing experience, though maybe not as memorable as others.

7.4/10

If there’s ever been a film that had a disturbing impact on me, Cannibal Holocaust is undoubtedly the one. While I’ve seen plenty of borderline torture porn’s filled with a plethora of grotesque scenes, Holocaust brings that to the table, but does NOT hold back, showing things even a killer himself wouldn’t be able to handle. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but see if for yourself to gain the full affect of what I’m talking about.

Before even becoming available to the public, Cannibal Holocaust took much criticism, and was banned from many countries and states. Director Ruggero Deodato was accused of actually killing his actors, due to how realistic the brutal deaths were portrayed. He was eventually arrested and put in jail for a minor ten days, and was further suspended of his filmmaking privileges, but not too long afterwards created more pictures. His footage was proven to be only just a movie, not real slaughters, as he went to court to prove his innocence. However, a lot of people around the world still aren’t exactly happy with this man, finding his film to be plain disrespectful and inappropriate. Having said that, some of the scenes in Holocaust actually are authentic, including the few animal killings they shot. The crew was able to get away with it due to the lack of law authority in that area, and the director just said “what the heck, let’s make this look real”, and went forward with the scenes. I couldn’t stand the actual murders of native animals, including the giant turtle, in which was the most brutal, gut-wrenching thing to watch throughout the duration of the movie, as the documentary crew dragged it out of the river, cutting it open down to it’s complete insides……and eating every bit of it. There are many other disturbing things throughout the movie, but that one really got to me.

Surprisingly, the story in Cannibal Holocaust is somewhat deep, and much larger than first appearing. Going into it I was thinking it would be some people simply roaming into the jungle, running into some cannibalistic natives, who eventually would kill and eat them. While that may be true, Holocaust actually features three main storylines. The documentary crew, that travels to a jungle, with the goal of creating another controversial movie. And then you have the office of film distribution, including the man who recovered the crew’s lost footage, and the group who went deep into the jungle to find out what in the heck was going on. Each of the three are pretty equally split up, and that makes Holocaust seem less like a “snuff” film. Towards the middle of the film I was questioning myself about who was in the wrong. Are the cannibals the ones who really deserve so much criticism, or the horrible, idiotic people who antagonized the natives, rummaging through their homes, killing their meals (animals), and completely ruining their culture? It’s a tough decision, and had me thinking.

I sort of regret saying this, but I highly enjoyed Cannibal Holocaust. Yes, the whole premise is unbelievably wrong, disturbing and massively disrespectful, but I love horror films, and I found this one a notch smarter than a lot of the films out right now. Once you get past the grotesque visuals, you’ll realize that it actually has more to it, including somewhat of a history lesson. I most definitely wouldn’t recommend this flick, as most who see it will undoubtedly be immediately turned away, and I don’t blame them, because it truly is a SICK film beyond words, and most will be shocked. “The most controversial movie ever made” actually turned out to be good, from my perspective. I’ll probably get trashed for liking this, but I don’t mind.

7.5/10

Zip your hole!

Date Night is ripe full of potential. Steve Carell is one of the funniest, wittiest actors living today, and that drew me right into this flick. Tina Fey has never really been on my radar until just recently, so I wasn't even thinking about her role in the film. She'd been on "30 Rock" and I'd seen a couple episodes of it, but didn't find it intriguing. Everyone knows Steve Carell's hilarious, dumb-witted character from "The Office", as Micheal Scott, and a good majority of his fame came from that show alone. On paper, "Date Night" is comic gold, a cult comedy hit for years to come. They could've taken many different directions, and only a few missteps prevented it from being memorable.

The story follows a married couple, in Carell and Fey, as they go through each day doing the same repetitive things over and over, realizing they're falling apart as a happy duo. You can see signs of a worn down marriage throughout the film's duration. They often argue about silly stuff, have trouble with their two kids, and don't often feel like having inter-course any longer. They seem tired and fed up, whilst at the same time they try to mask their real emotions towards each other. They plan a weekly night out with just the two of them, where they can unwind without kids, and just live life a little. The story doesn't take long to figure out, and moves at a rapid pace. It throws you right into their comedic adventure, making "Date Night" very easy-going, not requiring much thought. They reserve a spot at a fancy restaurant where only V.I.P members are allowed. They manage to get a table, just not a "Special" one. They have a long, somewhat hilarious conversation about numerous things, including the customers sitting around them. The first section of this movie is really good. It sets everything up perfectly, and the whole premise was structured with some thought put into it. The story then proceeds with the couple pretending to be a different couple named the "Triplehorns", feeling like they aren't getting enough fun out of life. That is absolutely a ridiculous, unrealistic element, but it's easily overshadowed by the fun characters.

Unfortunately, most of half number 2 consists of overused, rather lazy plot devices, idiotic/cliched characters, and a predictable outcome. The couple are confronted by two gangsters, hired by a mob boss to gather something from the Triplehorns. Comedy ensues right there in that alley, pitting Carell and Fey against two criminals, and trying to explain the real story. That scene has some value, and had me laughing. They continue their quest in finding out who the real Triplehorns are, stopping by many places, including one of Fey's close friends, played by Mark Wahlberg, and he actually puts up a good performance.

"Date Night" is definitely a fun film. I enjoyed it for what it was, but found the by-the-numbers direction quite frustrating. I laughed a good chunk of times, while at the same time found a lot of the dialogue very unnecessary, and they could've easily implemented something more original. As for the characters; most were your stereotypical dummies, and could've been something special, especially James Franco and Mila Kunis. I wouldn't call Date Night bad, as a lot of people will like it. I just really couldn't stand certain things about it, with the exception of Steve Carell who managed to take this movie all the way. The depth isn't there, nor are any original elements involved, but "Date Night" will appeal to a lot of audiences due to the innocent humor between Carell and Fey.

5.7/10

With the wildly acclaimed, classic and amazing Halloween made back in 1978, It isn't exactly fitting to say that I wanted this remake to happen, as I was already pleased enough. tons of sequels were made thereafter as well. Some were great, but most were just the same old thing, and didn't come close to capturing the magic that was held in John Carpenter's classic. The original still stands as my favorite horror film of all-time, no question. So, booting up the franchise in the 21st century seemed rather disrespectful to me, especially considering Rob Zombie was at the helm; the man known for his grotesque, over-the-top, blood filled scenes, portrayed in his other projects.

This remake doesn't exactly bring to life any of the classic's elements. Though that shouldn't be a huge surprise, considering the way horror's are nowadays. Zombie seems to be programmed on one tone; continuous violence, and he probably always will be. After seeing House of 1000 Corpses, and The Devil's Rejects, I prepared myself for what was to come, waiting anxiously on how Rob was going to handle it this time around. Sufficed to say, he stuck with his favorite sadistic and bloodthirsty theme, turning this remake into something completely separate from any of the previous installments. I'm no longer considering this a remake, but instead a completely new franchise for the new era. For if I was to judge this film by it's predecessors, It would've completely fallen flat. Once I got the notion of what Rob Zombie was doing, I just sat back and enjoyed it for what it is; a mindless blood-crazy extravaganza.

The story is along the same lines as the original, but focusing more on what Micheal did before his incarceration, in his home, and why he became a maniac. The 1978 version's majority was about what Myers did after he'd escaped the mental institution, showing just about 10-15 minutes of his childhood. They are completely different chronicles, and I really liked them both. However, The Classic will never be surpassed. It depends on preference, really. If your a teenager you'll probably prefer the remake, as it's mainly just a lot of very entertaining kills. More mature audiences who are big fans of the original, may enjoy this, but only for a guilty pleasure flick to watch when you don't care to think too much. I'm in the latter category, because I really liked this movie, just not for the same reasons as the original. I have fun every time I see this, mainly because I sometimes do enjoy mindless bloodshed.

Having said all that, the remake isn't that straight forward. In fact, the story isn't bad, and occasionally pays homage to the original, which was nice on Zombie's part. Most of the deaths are very well done, albeit sometimes too over-the-top, but they somewhat resemble that of it's predecessors.

The Friday the 13th remake failed to distinguish itself from most other slashers, with the by-the-books directions it took, and rushed, unnecessary scenes. I'm also not a big fan of Jason Voorhees, so I found it to be a pretty bad film.

On the bright side, Rob Zombie's remake of the infamous slasher; Micheal Myers is a fresh and entertaining feast, full of some nostalgia, and much entertainment to be had. Just don't expect anything like John Carpenter's visionary masterpiece. Take it as a wholly different franchise, and you should have fun.

7.8/10

Big-budget, special effects nut; James Cameron’s most recent film, Avatar is just what the geeks asked for, and is pretty much exactly what I would’ve predicted it to be. Titanic was brilliant, and also featured a good chunk of over-the top extravaganzas showing beautiful CGI and the model of the Titanic Ship, which were beautiful through and through, no doubt. I loved every bit of that film. James Cameron was behind that? Hmmm, but it had a storyline, weird right? I thought so. Terminator was great too, and the storyline in that one impressed me. Other than those, plots are NOT this guy’s strength, to say the least.

What’s shown on screen for two and a half hours will undoubtedly impress and bedazzle shallow moviegoers, or people who enjoy films with NOTHING but amazing CGI and action packed scenes that seem very redundant. I’m not disrespecting those who loved this movie. I just look for more than robust explosions and cool looking creatures. The whole plot was clearly lazily written, and obviously the people behind the film were relying on the imagery and CGI to impress, and score big at the box office. Well, it succeeded in both areas, at least for the majority of the people who saw it. These days, character development, acting and a storyline don’t suffice as a good movie. There are those who enjoy real films, opposed to Hollywood money-grubbers, including me, but they’re few and far between. I highly respect them; actually, I admire them, as about seventy percent of the viewers are thirteen year olds or potheads, who’d have absolutely no clue what a good film was if it they had one put directly in front of them.

Having said that, Avatar isn’t a bad film necessarily. It isn’t even “average” on my scale, but it has its moments. The first 30 or 40 minutes are very entertaining, developing the main character; Sam Worthington relatively well. I liked the premise at first, and it seemed really cool. It then descends into a general “unknown planet" romp with every formulaic element you can think of, including a love story that forms between one of the avatars and a human. I’m also not a fan of Weaver, so that surely did not help. Now, I enjoy all genres of films, but this was just silly. I will admit, the visuals are AMAZING, however that’s the only real positive thing about this movie. I give tons of credit to Cameron for implementing gorgeous visuals. But, he forgot two of the most important parts of a picture, a real plot and interesting characters.

Bottomline: I don’t understand the positive reviews, the hype, or the amazing things people claimed to have seen. This is easily one of the most overrated, overhyped and over discussed films I’ve ever seen.

4.5/10

Lately, I’ve been trying to avoid mainstream horror films, and instead go for the obscure and unknown. The longer Hollywood continues to produce the same old formulaic material, filled with washed up, overused devices, the more I’ll make attempts to stray away from them. I have given many of last decade’s films chances, and some surprised me to the extent of actually crowning them as a personal favorite. Those are few and far between, however, and I just can’t wait until the day when original becomes a factor in the horror department again. You all know the clichés, the predictable scares, and the pure stupidity that are implemented in almost all of them, so complaining about that would just become tiresome, in fact it’s already grown very old after seeing it so often, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to know what I’m talking about.

“Baghead” is a film in which I don’t think anyone’s ever heard of, with the exception of those who search out such obscure flicks obsessively, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, especially when you happen to run into something that’s actually worthwhile. I found “Baghead” recommended on a website when looking around the web for films similar to “Funny Games”. I’m a lover of the naturally thrilling films, opposed to the supernatural. I really enjoyed the re-make of Funny Games made in 2007, so I decided to check out some other “Killer’s on the hunt” type of films, especially those involving a desolate house, or a groups of friends running into chaos with unhappy residents in an unknown town. An example of a well executed film like that would be “The Hills Have Eyes”. When I saw that Baghead wasn’t rated too poorly on IMDb, (5.9) I decided “Oh, what the heck” and gave it a whirl.

The beginning of the film shows an audience viewing a homemade movie made for a film festival. The director’s name is Jett Garner, played by an actor I’ve never seen before. He graciously walks to center stage, takes some questions about his work, and then the four main characters are shown glazing up at him. Two of the aforementioned actors I had seen in films prior to this one, but mainly the cast is completely unknown, which just happens to be a good thing, for me. They’re all close friends, three of them in which have been in a love triangle for quite some time. That leaves one outcasted guy attempting to have a good time whilst being the only person with no love interest. He is also crushing on one of the girls throughout the film. After the flick concludes, the group of friends attempt to enter a V.I.P type of party packed with “important” people, including one Jett Garner. Needles to say, they aren’t omitted in. They decide to have some drinks at a local restaurant, and begin discussing a script to write for a low budget film. They head up to an isolated cabin with a few rooms and start brainstorming.

"Baghead" is filmed in a similar fashion to that of "Cloverfield" or "Rec." Handheld, rapidly moving around and at times difficult to keep track of. A lot of viewers don't like that, I happen to think it adds more realism and tension. The plot devices aren't completely original. I mean, a desolate cabin? but from there it really gets smart, and starts to unravel as a more sophisticated film than your run-of-the-mill stuff. Each and every character is completely real, smart, and almost frighteningly believable. Low-budget flicks usually lack that, so it came as a positive surprise. Eventually, they decide to create a picture about a psychotic killer disguised with a bag over his face, hence the title. At first, this is a horror film. The director's at the helm; The Duplass brothers, really do a great job at portraying that, as if it really is just a straight-forward horror. I gained a lot of respect for them as the film progressed, because they manage to keep the audience enthralled even when not a lot is happening, then completely throw us off with what happens thereafter. I'd say about thirty percent of the viewers will turn this movie off after the first 20 minutes, due to the fact that it takes time to build up. More experienced viewers will enjoy the quirky, fun-loving characters that just happen to drive this film home. I'll admit that I jumped a few times during this, as there are a decent amount of scares.

Those of you looking for a cliched, by the books slasher shouldn't even consider seeing this. "Baghead" is a notch smarter than most, and should come as a surprise to those who give it a chance.

7.4/10

Criss Angel is without a doubt one of the coolest and most talented guys I've ever seen on T.V, or anywhere for that matter. His persona is known worldwide, and I'm not shocked, as he earns every stripe with the utmost effort. David Blaine comes to mind when recollecting current "Magicians". (I call them illusionists) That makes sense, but he doesn't have any of the tools that Angel is equipped with. I watched Blaine for awhile, until I realized there was someone around who was basically a god in the magic world. Obviously I'm talking about Criss. A lot of people, including me, are hailing Criss Angel as the next Harry Houdini. I have mixed feelings about that particular subject. One: I feel as if Houdini actually was authentic, not an illusionist. I've seen some clips of his tricks. Not many, but the few I managed to view appeared very real. I believe the technology had something to do with it, as back in those days they were limited on "trickery" equipment. Case in point, Houdini wasn't all about being famous and making it big, but rather doing what he loved, at least from my perspective. His last stunt attempt resulted in his death. Either he really was attempting to escape an underground death trap authentically, and failed. Or, the people involved who were supposed to have it all planned out, ultimately had a mishap, resulting in tragedy. I've also heard rumors about other theories regarding Houdini's demise. However, those are all just stories and opinions, and either way, these guys are AMAZING.

I don't have any real definitive opinion on the subject, other then being mesmerized by the trickery of both men. If you haven't seen "Criss Angel Mindfreak", your missing out big time. It's one of those shows that requires watching, no exceptions. I had recently figured out that Criss indeed is an illusionist, just perfect at portraying his tricks as if they are real. I was disappointed, but I can't say I didn't have the notion of such things going on. He's a very inspirational person, as he started pulling off ridiculous magic tricks when he was just a young teenager, pursuing his passion all the way up to his mid-40's, and he isn't finished yet. The one "illusion" I am beginning to think is real, happens to be the most dangerous of all: the buried alive escape. He's attempted in a few times, and was successful each go through. Who knows? I don't care whether he's a hoax or real, as long as he provides great "WTF?" entertainment, and he does so brilliantly.

9.5/10

A private investigator played by Nicolas Cage, is hired by a rich man to figure out whether a snuff film is real or not.

Right from the get-go, 8mm shows the audience what they're in for, as Tom (Cage) makes his way over to a secluded mansion, to investigate who is responsible for the making of a "snuff" film, and whether it's authentic. For those not familiar with the word "snuff"; it's basically a real life videotaping of someone being killed. I have heard of such a thing being thrown around the web, for some reason it's something people want to see, but I steer clear. At first he immediately turns the offer down, stating it isn't really in his realm of duty, not his cup of tea. Soon after, he is offered a large sum of money as a reward, and changes his mind, albeit reluctantly.

This film is beautifully shot to say the least. It's dark nearly the whole time, and the film-makers really did a great job implementing the appropriate locations for the theme. Many viewers may be turned away to it's graphic nature, and believe me you, it has it's fair share of that. However, it's warranted, and deemed necessary for the film to work. I would consider it a crime-noir, but it's really a combination of multiple genres including thriller and horror. "Chinatown" comes to mind when comparing the two. I myself love weird, brutal crime stories, so I greatly enjoyed this one.

The first half of the film is a great start-up, and builds suspense very well, drawing me right into the cryptic and eerie story, like that out of a Stephen King Novel. The first and second half's are very different, but the second holds plenty of terrifying visuals. Not "Poop-your-pants scary", but it had me going for awhile. The first half is brilliant in it's own right. After Tom accepts the proposition, and visits many places, including a porn shop, with some snuff films also located there. He really wants to get to the bottom of this mystery, making it his top priority. Joaquin Phoenix has a small role, playing an odd character by the name of Max California. He's an employee at one of the two video stores Tom stops by. Max seems to know something, so the two form somewhat of an alliance as they progress into cracking the case. Max then takes Tom to the shop mentioned above, with all the snuff and porn tapes, and such, where a clue is found, pushing Tom into one heck of a crazy situation. He then encounters many obstacles, including a conspiracy regarding the snuff film and the guy who hired him.

Nicolas Cage most definitely does not disappoint here, as his acting range is shown to a great extent. He can be funny, off-beat or serious, and "8MM" shows that. It's one of his best films. This is one journey you do not want to miss, filled with brutal imagery, violence and plot twists, that all lead up to a truly gripping climax, not to be overlooked.

8.3/10

-"What did she say?"

-"I don't know, I don't speak Spanish"

Oh, thy hated "Observe and Report". I know just two people who thought positively of this one, not including myself. That actually shocks me, even as a pretty strict film critic. Bottomline, I'm in the COMPLETE minority here, and I seem to enjoy this flick more and more each time I see people trashing it. Sometimes, being the odd man out feels good, and this is one of those times. I am who I am, and I think this film is hysterical.

"Observe" is about as raunchy, inappropriate, rude and crude as a movie can possibly be, and it's filled with all of the above for about 90 minutes. Seth Rogen you just know will be, well Seth Rogen. He's a man-child, and takes pride in it very much so, starring in projects such as Knocked up, Superbad, and Zack and Miri just to name a few. Not one of those pictures is mature, appropriate, or for the easily offended. You know that going in, at least if your a Judd Apatow fan, like myself. If you aren't interested in Rogen-ized humor, just steer clear. Having said that, Observe and Report is STUPID, yes it's extremely dumb, I am aware of that aspect. However, I am one who enjoys stupid things on occasion, where I can just sit back and feel like an idiot for a couple hours. I love all genres, and look at each one individually for what they're trying to accomplish. The director; Jody Hill was clearly just having a good time. He didn't want to make a masterpiece, but more so a fun film that can be laughed at for multiple reasons. He knew it, and was probably laughing at the content during production. That's THE POINT.

Observe and Report provides the innocent fun that I mentioned above, making it a joy to watch, pure and simple. I could just as easily critiqued this film with the utmost maturity, but once it started, my mood changed, the tone seemed different, so I just went with the flow. Critics absolutely HATE this movie, and why not? I mean it's absolutely atrocious in terms of screenplay, thought-provoking ideas, and direction. It's very cliched, and not much new is presented. So, I don't mind seeing it get hated on, because the majority of those who do so, are probably just too uptight. Admittedly, I'm uptight about tons of films, but when Seth Rogen is present, everything changes, something strikes me. He's just a hysterical dude. Very few "bad" films will interest me, but "Observe" does so with ease.

The plot is basically synonymous to that of "Paul Blart: Mall Cop", where an idiot mall security guard gets himself into a bonkers situation, then decides to take matters into his own hands, then it progressively results in a happy ending. Kids: stay away from this one, and just stick to "Paul Blart", it's much more children and family friendly. I actually found the main premise hilarious: A flasher running around the parking lot showing off his private parts. Yes, it's ridiculous, but for some reason or another, it just struck me as comical.

Overall, don't go into this expecting really anything, except some normal Seth Rogen characteristics and over-the top, raunchy dialogue. Nothing special, but hey, if your into this type of film then by all means go for it. I did, and have a blast watching it each and every viewing.

7.7/10

A man must stand up to the powerful gangster who is influencing his son.

Robert De Niro is my favorite actor in the business, bar-none. His recent work is nothing but "O.K", some bordering bad. His age has clearly caught up to him, yet I'm still intrigued each and every time I hear he'll be starring in an upcoming film. He's known for gangster roles such as Goodfellas, Casino, and Mean Streets to name a few. De Niro was probably the the greatest back in his hey day.

Here, he plays an overprotective father forced to stand up to the powerful gangster influencing, and befriending his son. Shot back in 1993, GoodFellas had already been out for some time, and a lot of the story elements here are copied. That happens to be one of my only complaints. The film starts out with a narration by De Niro's son, going into detail about how he loves the New York Yankees, and the fact that he watches Sonny, the mafia head all day long on the streets of New York, mimicking him and someday hoping to be like him. So, the narration aspect is a clear cut copy. Yes, narrating is done in many films, so it technically isn't stealing, but the way it's performed makes all the difference. Like GoodFellas, Ray Liotta narrates the whole duration, including the introductions of the members in his gang. For example: "His name was Jimmy Two Times. They called him that because he liked to say everything twice". I found that interesting and quite original when I first saw it in that movie. Unfortunately, De Niro had to implement it in this film, which happens to be his directorial debut. It seemed he was trying to make this too much like his previous work, and easily could've left that part out. Despite that, "Bronx" is a fine effort.

The cast is pretty good, no doubt. Not many big names, albeit Bobby and Chazz, but star power isn't the name of the game in this particular situation. You are mostly shown low level actors playing the young kids associated with Sonny's crew. It works well, impeccably acted.

Sonny is played by a very fine actor in Chazz Palminteri. He milks his role for all it's got, portraying the dangerous gangster to near perfection. His Mafioso character is quite different from most, as he's actually very relaxed, rarely using any force or murder to send messages. If I didn't know better, I'd say he was a normal citizen working an 8 hour job. Lorenzo (De Niro) is a long time bus driver, and it seems he really never intends to quit. I loved his character. You can still see some of his Mafia blood thrown in once or twice, which was a nice refreshing sight. He's very overprotective, hard working, and looks down on those who don't do real work for a living. Which brings us to the clash of him, and Sonny. Lorenzo numerous times tells his kid not to go near the bar, which of course, as a young and curious kid, makes him want to explore it even more. The bar, of course is Sonny's main hot spot, where him and his crew like to plant themselves most the time. From there, Sonny and the kid form a bond, father-son relationship type of deal. (They meet for a specific reason, but I won't give anything away). At one point, I was second-guessing myself over whether I should be hating, or loving Sonny, because he seems like such a genuine guy, despite some violent and disrespectful behavior that had me thinking otherwise. Anyway, the two continue to hang out. Sonny gives the kid advise, takes him everywhere, like he is indeed his kin. Lorenzo wants no part of this, and immediately steps in to fix matters. Will he get his son back from the ruthless gangster? Watch this movie and you'll find out.

A Bronx Tale is indeed a gangster picture, of course. But at the same time it really isn't. It most definitely focuses heavily on character depth, and each character has some what of a back-story to make them that much more believable. It's a three character narrative, mainly, making it pretty easy to watch, not having to think much. You may be expecting tons of violence, due to De Niro's reputation, and the storyline presented. In a way that's true. But it's equally countered with a powerful message about family, friendship, and morals, molding this picture into somewhat more of a drama. It is very intense, and some racial slurs, beat-downs, so forth are present. By the way, each and every scene that's shot containing violence, are brilliantly entertaining. overall, A Bronx Tale is an emotionally driven character study, that just happens to be coinciding with the mean streets of New York.

I was left satisfied, with a sense of happiness afterwards. The kind of happiness you get after viewing something that was worth your time and attention. De Niro's directorial debut isn't perfect, and it definitely is not as entertaining as most of his other material, but it works, and it's a fun ride. Fans of the genre, or De Niro will not be displeased.

7.5/10