• Opening Sequence
• Character
• Setting
• Storyline
• Structuring of Time
• Cause and Effect
• Point of View (From Which the Narrative is Presented)
• Closure or Closing Sequence

Production Elements

• Camera and Film:

1. Camera Angle
2. Eye-level
3. High Angle
4. Low Angle
5. Birds Eye
6. Unusual

• Camera Movement:

1. Panning
2. Zooming
3. Tilting
4. Camera Shot
5. Close-up
6. Extreme Close-up
7. Mid Shot
8. Long Shot
9. Extreme Long Shot
10. Point of View / Subjective
11. Reaction Shot

• Lighting:

1. Soft Lighting
2. Hard Lighting
3. High Key lighting
4. Low Key Lighting

• Visual Composition (mise-en-scene)
• Acting
• Editing
• Sound:

1. Diegectic
2. Non-Diegectic
3. Dialogue
4. Music / Score
5. Sound Effects
6. Voice Over

~ Story Elements ~

Opening Sequence

The opening of a film introduces the audience to the world of time and space in which the narrative takes place. Opening sequences provide a platform from which the narrative is launched and are often called ‘set ups’.

During the opening sequence the filmmaker introduces the characters and begins to develop these characters for the audience who is also orientated into both the physical settings and the historical settings.

Character

Character development is the relation to the audience of a character’s personality, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses and emotions. We are normally introduced to the main protagonist at the start of the narrative. From this point onwards, we learn more about who they really are.

Character development can be done through various narrative devices. The simplest is the traditional ‘Once upon a time…’ fairytale format, which we are immediately introduce to the main character and then told their story.

Another technique is to look back on the character’s life or part of it.

Setting

The setting of a fictional film narrative refers to the location and the historical period in which the story takes place.

Location refers to the physical geography of the story.

The setting of a narrative helps to tell the story because the audience already has an understanding of settings and their context within film genres.

In genres such as western, film noir, comedy, romantic comedy, science fiction and fantasy, the audience also understands the codes and conventions that apply to specific genres.

Storyline

Story lines, including

• Central and concurrent story lines and the motivations, conflicts or narrative issues raised in them.
• Ways in which story lines comment upon, contrast or interrelate with other story lines in the text.

Structuring of Time

Film narratives operate within codes and conventions, and as the audience we view them with an understanding of these conventions. The structuring of time within a narrative is an example of these conventions. Film uses convention top help the audiences overcome the limitations of real time. Occasionally, a film narrative presents the story in real time, in other words, screen time and story time are the same.

Audiences accept the convention that films compress time so that the events of a character’s lifetime can occur for us within 2 hours we have set aside to watch the film.

Time can also be manipulated in a film narrative though such devices as time-lapse photography, slow motion, fast motion, flashback and flash forward.

Cause and Effect

Cause and effect is a narrative function. Everything that happens in a story must happen for a reason. There must be a cause for there to be an effect. The cause and effect chain is a foundation of story telling.

Point of View (From Which the Narrative is Presented)

In presenting the narrative, the filmmaker decides from whose point of view the story will be told. In a conventionally plotted narrative, the point of view that one or two main protagonists. Point of view does not need to be limited to only one character.

Point of View in which the narrative is presented, including

• Character, or other viewpoint
• Story information given or withheld at different points of the narrative

Closure or Closing Sequence

The closing sequence brings the plot of climax both in a story and emotional sense; it is the point at where the audience reaches an understanding about unanswered questions relating to the story and characters.

~ Production Elements ~

Camera/Film:

Camera is the most obvious of the production elements. Camera techniques develop the plot, narrative possibilities and characters. The camera angle affects how viewers will perceive that subject. Angles can establish relationships, create moods and develop story lines. Camera movement can also be used to create emotion or draw the audience’s attention to a subject. Camera shots are used in context to a situation in the film.

There are 5 basic camera angles:

• Eye-level
• High Angle
• Low Angle
• Birds Eye
• Unusual

There are 3 basic camera movements:

• Panning
• Zooming
• Tilting

There are 7 basic camera shots:

• Close-up
• Extreme Close-up
• Medium Shot
• Long Shot
• Extreme Long Shot
• Point of View or Subjective
• Reaction Shot

Additionally the film format will affect the mood and look of a film. Some format options available are black and white, colour film, digital video and animation.

Lighting:

Lighting allows objects and characters to be seen by the audience. This can be the most creative elements of film making. It can also help with character development. Characters can be made to look friendly or evil through the use of lighting. The background of a shot is lit up to create a broad depth of field. Additionally lighting can describe a relationship or set a mood.

Lighting can be described in four categories: Soft, Hard, High-key and Low-key.

• Soft Lighting: wraps around an object, casting shadows with soft edges. This creates a soft, warm feeling.
• Hard Lighting: Consists of bright whites and dark blacks and creates harder edged shadows. This creates a cruel, cold feeling.
• High-key Lighting: Creates little shadow. Set tends to be flooded with light. This is often used to create a normal “Happy” scene. The use of strong key lights mean that only parts of the set are lit other parts remain in shadow. This can create a very dramatic effect with only some object being high-lighted.
• Low-key Lighting: If key lights are set at a Low point very strong shadows are thrown on surfaces. This can create an eerie effect.

Lighting also helps convey the point of view of a character.

Visual Composition (Mise – en – Scene):

Visual composition refers to everything within the frame. It determines how the shot develops the characters and storyline. It can also incite responses and emotions within the audience.

Questions that need to be considered for visual composition are:

• How will the shot be lit?
• How will the shot be arranged?
• Where will the actors be placed?
• What props will be placed in the shot?

In the movie Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock left nothing to chance with the visual composition of his movie. Three examples of this are:

Acting:

This refers to the work of an actor or actress who tells the story by portraying a character. Through the use of body language, tone of voice, posture and delivery of lines develops the character and creates a relationship between the character and audience. In some cases the qualities of the character are due to the reputation of the character.

Editing:

Editing is the process of placing images and sound in an order to tell a story and create emotion. Editing is the process of looking at the footage shot and selecting the most appropriate shots which then are assembled in a sequence that conveys a narrative to the audience. It can establish setting, develop character, restructure time and express point of view.

Editing serves three major purposes:

• Narrative: allows the audience to follow the character throughout the narrative and can also express a character’s thoughts.
• Emotional: the way in which a film is cut can produce an emotional response from the audience.
• Intellectual Editing: the director is able to plant a thought or concept in the audience’s mind.

Additionally editors often combine visual images and sounds to develop narratives.

Sound:

Sound can be divided into two categories:

• Diegetic
• Non – Diegetic

Diegetic sound is where the narrator tells the story. The narrator presents the actions and thoughts of the character. Also the sound of glass breaking as a character smashes a mirror is referred to as diegetic sound.

Non – Diegetic sound comes from the outside world of the story. This can include the sound of a characters heart beat as a character runs or music playing in the background of a scene.

Other types of sound include:

• Dialogue
• Music/Score
• Sound-effects
• Voice over

Al Pacino may be Patrick Henry reincarnated in terms of oratorical ability. Even at nearly 69 years old, I'll put him up against Obama any day. Which is why it was so disappointing to watch "88 minutes," and how Al basically slept walked through the whole cliche-ridden piece of tripe, tantalizing us with sneak ppeks only of the glory that was "Dog Day Afternoon," and the grandeur that was "Godfather."

I haven't seen it but understand his latest "Righteous Kill," is also a mistake. How do you make a mistake with Pacino and DeNiro? Pandering/scripting to the lowest common denominator audience/market and you can't blame the actors really for just making another pay day. At least I wouldn't to their face. No, I'm not talkin' to you Bobby. Especially since the script selection they probably have to choose from has all the appeal of a 2-day old buffet. "Al, maybe we can do something with this piece of gorgonzola, it doesn't smell too bad yet."

Speaking of bad smells, need we say "Oceans 13"? Which is just to say the brightest stars eclipse themselves from time to time, but even in the most dismal efforts ("Simone"," Revolution"), their genuis is apparent, even in the seamiest of stories ("Insomnia","Sea of Love,") their ability to convey in the character the universal struggle for goodness comes through.

Finally, my favorite Pacino effort, "Serpico," may soon be eclipsed; or at least there is the chance that the actor has found, now in pre-production, his best role: Salvador Dali.

Set in the 1920's Roy Walker (Lee Pace from Pushing Daisies, and nothing to do with Catchphrase) is in a hospital on the outskirts of Los Angeles. Roy while filming on his latest movie took place in a stunt that has now landed him in a hospital run by the church, incapable of feelings from the waist down. At that same hospital is Alexandria (Catinca Untaru)a very young girl suffering with a broken arm; one day while walking through the hospital her path crosses Roy's who tells her an amazing fact about Alexander The Great. Overwhelmed by his tale, Alexandria agrees to return the following day when Roy will tell her of a story set in a faraway place, but one that has a suspiciously familiar ring about it. For Alexandria this is a friendship with a man who could be a substitute father, for Roy his reason for striking up this relationship is far less innocent, he has an agenda and Alexandria is a pawn in his game.

I should begin by saying there is nothing of a sexual nature to Roy's intentions to Alexandria, this is very far from his mind. As you watch the movie you slowly get to understand what he wants from Alexandria, while being fairly innocent it is tragic, you can see that clearly Alexandria needs a father and as most of the movie is set in images from her head, you soon realise that Roy is the only man that can fill that role.

While the real world that the story is anchored in is set in normal surroundings, it's what happens when Roy and Alexandria when they start imagining the story Roy tells that sets this movie alight. Tarsem Singh (known in credits simply as Tarsem) is an Indian director best associated with the world of commercial and music video work. Tarsem should have come to the attention of the world back in 2005 when he was the original Director assigned to make the movie Constantine, Warner recruited him for his incredible eye for detail. But when Sony Pictures approached Tarsem with The Fall, it was something that the director could not resist, dropping (rather wisely in my opinion) the weaker Constantine for The Fall. Tarsem does indeed have an eye for beauty and wonder, and nothing would tell you otherwise when watching The Fall. If you are not blown away by the sheer majesty of this movie then sadly you had better get on to the hospital because you do not have a pulse.

I really cannot put into words how wonderful this movie looks; it looks so fantastic and in a world where computer generated effects are used in pretty much every movie you cannot believe that none were used here. From the colours, to locations that literally look out of this world; everything visually about this movie is just breathtaking. From the magnificent structures that have sat for thousands of years, to gloriously designed hedgerows. Tarsem uses some of the worlds man made wonders and completely reinvents them. A race across the top of The Great Wall Of China, which you would only know was the Great Wall if you swotted up on it. But it's not just the sights that are familiar and re-imagined, it's also the sights you have never seen that really create the icing on this movies cake; you would indeed need to be a world traveller to identify many of the sights seen in this movie. But it's not just the locations that are striking, it's the costumes, the make-up, and the unique cast that make this an experience like nothing you have ever seen before.

While visually you have not seen anything like The Fall, the story as not quite as satisfying. The story which for the most part is told from the mouth of Roy and imagined in the head of Alexandria follows the trails of movies like The Neverending Story. But don't go getting excited that this might be another great family movie; because while the movie seems like a fairly standard piece of family viewing, suddenly 30 minutes before the movies end things suddenly get much more adult, and brutally so. As is the case with all great adventure movies along the way there are casualties, and as Roy's alter ego The Bandit in the second story leads his motley crew of geniuses, explosives experts, shaman, and warriors through a sprawling landscape some must die.

Rather than allowing the time honoured tradition of killing one or two per quarter of the movie, the deaths occur as the movie draws to a conclusion, and these deaths are borderline horrific. One of The Bandit's crew is butchered to death with axes, while birds fly from his mouth; you suddenly are teleported from beauty to horror at the movie takes a stark transition becoming more like Alejandro Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain. And then as quickly as the horror raises its head it movies back do to innocent adventure style story telling. It's very hard to understand where The Falls target audience is, and this makes the story a touch disjointed, movie the film away from the mainstream to something more along the lines of Cult. In fairness, the storyline regardless of confusion, is a little bit lacking and for most of it I never really knew what was going on completely, but it hardly matters the biggest story is in the visual feast before you.

The movies warriors, a group of masked soldiers that make noises that cross between a dog and a crying child provide one of the most unpleasant bad armies of all time in my opinion. Ruthless in their assaults they have no time for hostages, cut off their heads and ask questions later. Their systematic execution of The Bandits men towards the end literally highlights this.

The performances in the movie are pretty good, with the exception of Lee Pace and the odd familiar star most of the movies cast are complete unknowns, some never having acted before. Its Catincu Untaru who really shines here, this Romanian actress does not speak a word of English, yet she delivers her lines (in a language she did not understand) with a quirkiness that really endears the actress. As an inexperienced actress and naive to the way of movies she was allegedly mortified when she discovered that Pace was not actually a paraplegic.

In Rome a unique brand of killer has shown his hand, a gambler in his heart the Card Player has set himself up an internet gambling website where only he can play, well with the addition of one other. Contacting the police with his horror poker site, the Card Player introduces to them a British tourist holidaying in Italy’s capital. Here’s the deal, the police must play the Card Player at poker, for each round they lose he will dismember his hostage slightly, if they fail to win three hands of the game then she will surely day. With the game starting immediately and a distinct lack of poker knowledge, the kidnap victim is brutally murdered on webcam for all to see. For police woman Anna (Stefania Rocca) it’s a race against time knowing that the Card Player is scouring the streets looking for his next victim. Teaming up with Irish police officer John Brennan (Liam Cunningham), it’s an unlikely match but as hours and days go by it’s apparent that both have skeleton’s in their closets and more in common with each other than they realise, let alone the killer.

Always ahead of the game Argento took advantage of the rising poker gaming interest online for the movie, in fact it is only four years on now in 2008 that Argento’s prophecy has come true, with more and more interest in the game than ever before, new poker websites open each and every day as the worlds burgeoning poker playing population stagger to their computers in order to achieve the next big win. In an interesting twist of fate, after The Card Player was released in Italy their online poker playing population increased fourfold pretty much overnight, were they looking for their own piece of Argento horror?

For most of Argento’s movies of the 90’s he cast his daughter Asia in pivotal roles, however she is tragically missing here, her success in Vin Diesel movie XXX found her catapulted into a variety of big budget American movies all around the same time. Stephania Rocca is an unusually older looking signing for the leading lady here, and to be honest with you as a usually second fiddle actress I find her hard to accept here in the leading role, instead you have to focus on Liam Cunningham to lead the movie forward, because in fairness Rocca at that time did not have the range to pull off the role convincingly, this being said I guess the big thing with Argento movies is that due to dubbing of the dialogue most people encountering an Argento movie generally think the acting is of poor quality anyway, my advice to those people is to watch an Argento movie in its native tongue with subtitles that reflect your language, believe me you will see things far differently.

The Card Player is as I said earlier far more realistically grizzly, in previous Argento movies the gore is delivered with a certain amount of good but stodgy special effects, you see it it freaks you out but you know that it’s not real. With this offering however things are far more graphic, and real; Argento I suspect spend considerable time looking at bodies of the dead and puts this into the movie, with the exception of the teeth (strangely movies seem incapable of getting teeth of the dead correct), the bodies in this movie are scarily realistic. While Argento steers clear of his usual decapitation hallmarks, his gross out factor takes place when the bodies hit the morgue, and its time for further examination.

The speed of the movie is pretty fast, movie seamlessly from a graphic scene to a bizarre one the next, he blends his humour more subtly than ever before. In one specific scene while going to examine the body of the first victim at the morgue, the attendant first dances for our crime investigators, before singing them out as they exit. In between his unusual performance, Cunningham’s character probes at the dead body pulling assorted nastiness out of it.

I’m not as impressed with The Card Player as I was with his surrounding movies Sleepless (AKA Non Ho Sonno) and Do You Like Hitchcock? Because despite the great effort put into the movie Rocca does not have the convincing depth as a leading lady, I personally found her quite annoying and while I’m sure she could out act me, there is something that prevents you from gelling well with her. But in the overall scheme of things this is not a bad addition to Argento’s movies, and if you happen to like the aforementioned Messiah series and Prime Suspect then you are sure to enjoy this.

So, I guess what I'm saying is neither did a better job than the other but in this last Batman movie. It wasn't Heath Ledger playing The Joker. Heath Ledger WAS The Joker...

It is the second week now and theaters are just full not only at peak hours but all day long.

And how couldn't they be? Omar Sharif has returned to Egyptian cinema after years of absence.

Not only he returned to perform in an Egyptian movie but another major Egyptian actor is co-starring in the same movie, Mr. Adel Emam.

Adel Emam is known for his black comedy movies that state dramatic realities in comedy molds.

The movie is written by Yusuf Meaty, a famous writer and journalist.

“Hassan & Morkos” states the reality of the Coptic - Muslim relationship in Egypt.

It shows the different points of view about that relationship according to different layers of the Egyptian community.

The movie genre is of course comedy. Most writers in Egypt tend to write their scripts to be a comedy because they believe that it is the most appealing genre for the majority of the Egyptian people.

I really wished that it weren't a comedy though. The issue discussed in that movie should have been more realistic and intense to describe the real deal not just stating a vague situation.

Actually I wasn't satisfied. I expected a lot more concerning the script and the making.

The thing that really made me like this movie overall is Omar Sharif's performance.

What an outstanding performance by the icon.

Honestly I didn't think he would perform in such a perfect way but even though I am in fact a huge fan, he did surprise me.

The movie plot is about two religious men, one is a Muslim sheikh “Omar Sharif” and the other is a Christian preacher “Adel Emam” and their families.

They were both threatened by the fanatics in both religions and in order to protect them, the government decided to give them fake identities of opposite religions and relocate them.

They accidently meet and a love relationship is formed between the two families as each one thought that the other has the same religion.

Another love story is formed between the Christian family son and the Muslim family daughter.

The whole movie is a pure comedy until every family knows the truth. The whole thing then turns into a drama and here comes the end which for sure wasn't the smartest thing to do.

Another scene that I didn't get is when the truth is discovered the sheikh's wife wore “nekab” which is the strictest form of Islamic outfits.

She wasn't wearing this outfit in the beginning of the movie. She was wearing a normal “hijab” which is the simplest form of the Islamic outfit.

So all of a sudden she decided to wear this when she discovered the truth about the other family!!!

In the end I'd like to say that the movie has tried to state a truth untold which is something all writers should be doing.

Enjoy the joyful performance.

As a child one can marvel at the effects it took to get the submarine animal to bulldoze its way through the town, today the sluggishness makes that action all too ridiculous.

How one could possibly believe that a machine, which removes oxygen from water, would kill an animal that had otherwise been able to resurface, is beyond me. One can appreciate some of the Japanese acting among the secondary actor like the actress in love with the scientist who decided to give his life up to science over the failure to be have protected Tokyo from the monster.

Raymond played a reporter who gave a point-by-point coverage on the monster's entry into the town until he was hit by a crumbling building.

What I have been able to learn from this film is that poor dialogues need to be revamped especially when the film editing is inferior. I suppose there are many lovers of cheesy films as this who appreciate the lack of acting ability, poor script and editing.

1. Snatch (2000)

   in this film Brad plays a gypsy hustler named Mickey. This little movie was missed by a lot of people, big mistake; directed by Madonna's husband, Guy Ritchie, Snatch is a fast paced caper film filled with interesting characters. But the gem, the stand out performance is Pitt's Mickey. Mickey is a bare knuckle fighter who manages to take a beating with style. Don't miss the tattoos. (some makeup artist somewhere was very happy on the set of this film)

2. Interview with the Vampire (1994)

   Ah, Louie. Brad plays a misunderstood centuries spanning vampire who is pained at the thought of killing to survive. Despite Ann Rice's dreadful dialogue and even worst plot line, Pitt manages to garner sympathy for his character's plight. And he's so pretty in the period costumes.

3. The Mexican (2001)

   Here Brad is deliciously teamed with America's sweetheart Julia Roberts. He is a bumbling bagman for mob boss, Arnold Margolese played by noneother then Gene Hackman and as Julia says, He manages to “Forrest Gump” his way through a whole mess of trouble and come out without a scratch. The cast of this movie also features James Gandolfini and Number's David Krumholtz. (Julia Roberts met her husband Danny Moder on this film, too.)

4. Legends of the Fall (1994)

   This is the movie that made Brad Pitt a superstar and landed him on the cover of People magazine as the sexiest man, but some how it was not the huge blockbuster, go figure. Brad is beautiful, Julia Ormond is beautiful and the Montana scenery is breath taking.

5. Thelma and Louise (1991)

   Although not his first movie, this is probably the first time Pitt makes an impression on the audience. He plays JD a hitchhiker Thelma and Louise pick up and has steamy sex with Thelma (Gina Davis) before he steals all the money and runs off. Scoundrel though he is, he manages to light up the screen.

6. Kalifornia (1993)

   Very violent, very dark, very disturbing film, but if those things don't bother you, you will enjoy Pitt's portrayal of Early Grayce a sociopath serial killer bend on causing as much destruction as possible. Also, very good performances by Juliette Lewis, David Duchovny, and Michelle Forbes.

7. 12 Monkeys (1995)

   This film stars Bruce Willis and Madeline Stowe, but the scenes in which Brad Pitt appears as Jeffery Goines are some of the most compelling in the movie. Willis' character is a time traveler sent back to save the world from a runaway virus that kills five billion people. On one of his trips to 1996 he meets Pitt's character, Jeffery Goines, in a mental hospital in Philadelphia.

8. Fight Club (1999)

   Probably my favorite Pitt role, Tyler Durden. This film, I feel is misunderstood, yes it's violent and a little hard to follow, but it's a dark comedy and shouldn't be taken seriously. Lightenup enjoy the ride.

9. True Romance (1993)

   Pitt has a very small role as Floyd the pot smoking room mate of one of the main characters in this ensemble cast populated by some pretty impressive actors, Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper, James Gandolfini, Gary Oldman, Val Kilmer to name a few (an what a few they are) Pitt's Floyd is much needed comic relief in this violent love story.

10. Sleepers (1996)

    The story centers around four childhood friends who are sent to a juvenile detention home after a boyish prank goes drastically wrong. The boys suffer horrible abuse in the home. Ten years later they get their revenge orchestrated by Pitt's character, Michael Sullivan. Strong performances all around by Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Billy Crudupp, and Kevin Bacon. (And if you're into the six degrees of Kevin Bacon game, this is a great movie to connect with.)

In the past five years or so, budgets have risen and with it has come a mass of films relying on effects and stunts to pull in the crowds at the box office. Naturally, big budgets demand big returns, but how long will it be before the focus of a movie shifts away, possibly permanently, from characters, whether it's Mel Gibson's unstable Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon or Tom Cruise's superspy Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible.

Ethan Hunt is certainly a good example of the changes in film making. In Mission: Impossible, the movie was plot driven, with twists and turns, and whilst in hindsight slightly predictable, still dramatic and with a terrific ending. The ending itself features fantastic special effects, and with a little stretch of the imagination, you could quite possibly seeing it happen as the events unfold. Jump forwards ten years to the release of Mission: Impossible III, and you see that, whilst the movie at times is gripping and highly entertaining, special effects and stunts play a major role in drawing the crowds.

That is not to say that stunts and special effects are necessarily a bad thing; the scene in the first Mission: Impossible where Cruise's character abseils into a locked room at CIA headquarters possibly one of the most memorable movie scenes in the past decade. Yet critics were quick to attack it for having such a complicated plot for summer blockbuster.

The eighties and early nineties was the place to be for films that focused on plot that twisted and turns, and characters that were flawed and human. The aforementioned Lethal Weapon, with its grit, Gibson's terrific portrayal of the dark, unpredictable Riggs, and casting of two terrific villains in Mitchell Ryan and Gary Busey, brought in three times its budget, in addition to breaking even.

Die Hard is often considered one of the best action films of its era, reinventing the genre, and leading the way for movies such as Speed, The Last Boy Scout and Under Siege in the nineties. Again, there was little reliance on special effects or stunts, and it thrilled audiences worldwide.

Maybe directors aren't as adventurous as they once were? Die Hard director John McTiernan later went on to make The Hunt for Red October, Last Action Hero and then the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair around making two more in the DH franchise. Martin Scorsese is still making movies worthy of Oscar's, not that he seems to be able to win one, thirty years after the success of now-iconic Taxi Driver. And that's even before you consider Tarantino.

No, it's not the directors.

The nineties saw an surge in blockbusters which relied on the appeal of the stars themselves rather than the quality of the movies. One of the few exceptions to that is The Fugitive; with Harrison Ford on top form yet again as Richard Kimble. Ford's performances in the first (or should I saw last) Star Wars films and the Indiana Jones trilogy were fantastic, but nothing quite got close to his portrayal of Detective John Book in Witness, possibly his all time best.

Blockbusters such as Bad Boys, Armageddon and Terminator 2 drew in the crowds in greater numbers than ever before. This continued on into the twenty first century, with sequels to Bad Boys and Die Hard. But the magic that had been, the character driven plots that gripped audiences worldwide, had declined in favour of the spectacular stunts we now see.

They may not necessarily be bad movies; indeed, if the box office figures are anything to go by, they certainly aren't. They also see to the audiences' need to be entertained. Though at the end of the day, maybe Hollywood hasn't lost its way. Movie makes know what people want to see, and their accommodating that. Very few directors are willing to take a risk and defy the codes and conventions of the contemporary cinema goes.

They're dumbing down. And so are we.