This is a film all about love, although it takes a whole new cynical approach to love, or the lack of it. It criticises modern relationships and explores the aspects that ruin love such as jealousy and betrayal. Also unusually for a love story, the characters are arrogant and difficult to sympathise with, which is a challenge to the audience as it is difficult to take sides with any of them. It certainly doesn't offer the similarity of a usual love story; I will applaud anyone who comes close to guessing the ending.

The script is extremely witty and honest: it will have you watching the characters as you would a tennis match. Most lines are spat out without much passion; they really hit you in the face. "I don"t love you anymore. Goodbye.' They are mostly very short and snappy, and anything but poetic.

The plot is about four strangers whose lives intertwine together: Alice, a stripper (Natalie Portman), Dan, an obituaries writer (Jude Law), Anna, a photographer (Julia Roberts) and Larry, a doctor (Clive Owen). These four strangers form unhealthy and unbalanced relationships with one another, involving betrayal, cruelty and obsession. Although it is a very dark story, the tension is often broken down with laugh-out-loud humour, so the audience doesn't feel suffocated.

Law's and Robert's characters are catalysts to the story although they are anything but charming. Owen's and Portman's outstandingly chilling performances outshine that of Law's and Robert's.

At the scene of the two major break-ups, Owen's character cruelly and bluntly asks Robert's about her sexual encounters with Law. "Did you come?" it is deeply unsettling and uncomfortable to watch. In contrast, when the scene jumps to Portman and Law's break up, we feel more at ease with this much more emotional encounter, and we feel sympathy for Portman's character. These scenes are certainly emotionally challenging to watch- it is difficult to take it all in the first time you watch it; you might not know how to feel about it.

The script, however, can be to articulate for the characters to be believable and sincere. Despite that, it cleverly highlights the differences in the personality of the characters which is very interesting to watch. For example, Portman says she doesn't eat fish because "Fish piss in the sea", in contrast, Roberts' character finds fish "therapeutic". Spotting these differences should be rewarding for the viewer.

Another unusual aspect that makes this film interesting is that there is not a single sex scene in the entire film. Sex is talked about in a very cruel and blunt way that makes the viewer cringe ('you know she likes a guilty fuck') without the use of any physical contact, except kissing and subtle touches. This focuses on the moral aspects of sex and at times, the consequences of lust, although it does not enforce a morality on the viewer.

The narrative also differs from usual romantic films- out leaves out the periods of the smooth sailing relationships and focuses instead on the beginnings and ends of them. This emphasises the point that the film makes- love can be short, blunt and cruel.

Although some people argue it is more admirable than enjoyable, it is a contemporary masterpiece that challenges the audience's experiences from a romantic film as well as challenging them to think about the real definition of love. All in all, it has amazing script, beautiful cinematography, brilliant acting and an unforgettable soundtrack. Definitely worth seeing, although maybe not ideal for a first date.

Harry (the lead character of the movie) is the character with unconscious desires and throughout the film; he showed us indication of who it might be. Going back again to psychoanalytic theory, this phenomenon includes dreams, disturbances in functioning, transient forgetting, and neurotic symptoms. Typically unconscious wishes and beliefs are constituents of conflicts. The term unconscious in psychoanalysis does not mean simply that mental contents are out of awareness. Its psychodynamic meaning is that the person does not want to be aware of these contents and takes active steps to avoid being aware of them. This instance was shown when Harry pee in the toilet while his mom was bathing. The scene looks normal at first until a man appeared in the living room and talked to Harry asking for his mom. He punched the man when he insisted of going after his mom in the bathroom. Another instance was when Harry is in Louis' mansion alone with Iris, the maid, the same man sexually assault Iris and Harry just stare at them looking helpless. Later at the end of the film, we learned that the man who came frequently in Harry's world is his alter persona.

Harry may not be aware of his desire and since he cannot fulfill this desire in reality, his split persona tried to fulfill this for him. Psychoanalytic theory suggests that the dynamic unconscious was thought to consist of sexual and aggressive impulse or wishes. There are many parts in the film when Harry show ultra-aggressiveness. He even reached the point of killing his own friend and his gang. It now emphasizes that the dynamic unconscious of fantasies-internal scenarios of sexual and aggressive wishes-are imagined as fulfilled. In the case of Harry, he did not only imagine it but it happened in reality with the aid of his alter ego.

This film also portrays an oedipal relation between Harry and his mom. One theme of the psychoanalytic theory is the Oedipus complex. Harry's fantasy of his mom is clearly shown in some scene like when he let Iris wore the black veil of his mom on the onset of their lovemaking.

The director of this film did a good job in showing us Harry's "unconscious desires" and this film even gave the fulfillment of the character's wish at the later end. As for the quality of the film as a whole, it's a different matter…

The rules of the game in the global economy are set by the open market. Before, global economy rules were used to be set by the government. But the shift to open markets' influence began manifesting in the postwar period, from the "60s and "70s. The heavy reliance on government intervention seemed to be working (Fischer, 2001).

Government intervention proved to be very effective in the short run. Brazil, in which government intervention was apparent, enjoyed swift growth. During the "70s, after the energy crisis and the early "80s debt crisis, it became clearer and clearer that government control was not working. Gradual changes were then introduced. But total change is not implemented yet since it is not possible to get rid of government intervention totally (Fischer, 2001).

The key actors influencing the rules of global economy were John Maynard Keynes and Frederick Von Hayek. In Commanding Heights the struggle through the lives of two men, whose ideas had much more influence on shaping our world than most people know was effectively captured. One was John Maynard Keynes, the elegant Englishman who advocated government intervention to control the booms and busts of capitalist economies. The other was Frederick von Hayek, the Austrian émigré who argued that government intervention in the economy would erode human freedom and was doomed to failure (CERA, 2005).

The Asian countries experience immense growth during the globalization era and seem to enjoy the fastest growths. Hence were the biggest winners. Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China took advantage of globalization. Globalization allowed Asian countries to integrate into the world economy, to export, to rely on import markets and open up to other markets (Fischer, 2001).

Globalization is more and more being referred to as Americanization. During the early 1900's Americanization meant taking new immigrants and turning them into Americans. These days, critics define globalization as the imposition of American culture on the entire world. And the signs are everywhere from the number of American burgers and cola to nearly every country on earth. The influence is apparent everywhere (Porter, 2005).

But Thomas Friedman knows that by simply dismissing globalization as mere Americanization is misleading. Globalization can change not just the movies or food consumed by a society. Its effects are incalculable which could be good or bad or something in between (Porter, 2005).

To be honest about it, this horror flick is one of those flicks that I regret seeing. Mediocrity was all over the place, especially apparent in the plot of the story, which is supposed to be the core that cuts deepest to the audience.

The whole film appeared amateurish, and I personally think the section to blame is the writers'. The "Give me your suffering" concept could have been an essential meat but was all taken into waste by coming up with the common characters that you would be able to predict how each would die or worse, how the film would end.

It could have been better if the film focused on the emotional turmoil of just one character, the lead, and entangled the minds of the audience into predicting if she is really seeing things or just plainly insane like her father and brother.

The emergence of the other characters, who also ended up as the victims, made the film all the more trashy - from how each was introduced, how they were drawn automatically to be friends and be in one circle was mushy, up to how each of them was killed.

All in all, Asylum is just another teeny bopper film. And yes, it's horrifying. Horrifyingly boring.

The movie also addresses the issue of amateur versus professional sport, in a time when instead of guzzling down a post match Gatorade, bottles of champagne were the order of the day, and athletes more often than not would enjoy a pre-race cigarette to calm their nerves - an era that now seems far removed from the rigours of modern day sport.

Also, as an interesting aside, check out the nod to New Zealand athlete Tom Watson, when the Great Britain Olympic team arrives and settles in Paris, and the instantly recognizable soundtrack by Vangelis.

Over the last few years comedic films from the emerald isles have been rather like taking your mother for a long walk in the park - nice but not terribly exciting. You see trees, grass, flowers, more trees, a park bench, and even more trees, until eventually you both decide you've had enough and turn to go home. At no point in your walk do you get attacked by masked robbers, abducted by aliens, nor does your mum take out a big stick and start hitting you around the head with it. It's just a nice walk in the park.

In much the same way Mystics follows a nice, manicured path to a conclusion most people would be able to predict after the first twenty minutes. At no time during Mystics does the viewer get mugged, abducted or even worse, attacked by their mother. It's just a nice movie that doesn't really do anything outside the norm. The plot and the acting are average; it's just an average film.

For those of you who want a bit more excitement and daring from their cinematic experience, give Mystics a miss, but for those of you who want an uncomplicated, simple, relaxing Irish comedy then go see it, and better yet, take your Mum with you. She'll enjoy it just as much as that walk in the park.

5/10

All through time, there had been a lot of misconceptions regarding the motives behind his death. It is in the History Channel's release that for concerned politicians and common citizens alike - the real story could be made out. Our love for Abe Lincoln is sufficed. - And it is not only because of this that “The Lincoln Assassination” remains a worthy educational/entertainment source. - “The Lincoln Assassination” also gives pleasure to the regular student film-seer as much as it is food for history experts.

First, the production of “The Lincoln Assassination” is superior in quality. This is best seen by the film's cinematography, which takes the viewers back through time during the moments when Abraham Lincoln lived, and died. The first video of the two began by introducing the characters that took part, including of which is none other than Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth.

The dramatization elements gave us a glimpse of the thoughts and emotions of the people revolving around Lincoln and involved in the assassination. The film makers' perspective given upon the assassin colored the documentary as not all are aware that Booth was a stage actor after all and that he was not at all insane - one important hypothesis that the film ruled out as sufficient reason to kill the President. The plotting of the documentary is simply awe dropping.

The first film demonstrated Booth's agenda in relation to the release of Confederate prisoners, and culminated the moment he pulled the trigger pointing at the President. The second part of the 2-volume production was not given to sheer credits and such "extras." In fact, this is where the action is; this is where the program reached climaxed giving more than what the viewers expected.

It gave out the information that everyone is thirsting for - the central message of “The Lincoln Assassination” - the sharing of the drama behind the President's death - the knowing interpretation of the event's real (most probable) cause and what happened next to the culprits. The documentary's director simply lets us realize and feel that the Lincoln assassination is a real and serious event in history, and that it needs further scrutiny. The Lincoln assassination could not remain as a mere legend in history, happening over a century since.

Presidential assassinations are one of great concern to the country and it is by this reason that the documentary catches viewers' attention by sharing the needed information about the death of "Our Abe," and possibly - to expose other (and prospective) assassinations.

To add, the documentary is not only informative - it is dramatic. The dramatic mood of the film is supported by actual materials used in the documentary, which could not at all be called mere props. There were real letters sent to threaten the President, knife used by conspirator, and photographs of the persons involved. Even among the characters are the real descendants of the president's assassin and conspirator. These true-to-life relics had the power to move anyone. The documentary is so rich in detail that not one could pass not seeing it.

Compared to fictional movies basing on real historical events, “The Lincoln Assassination's credibility lies on the fact that it is supported by the brains of forensic experts and practiced historians; unlike history-based movies, the documentary does not have inaccuracies in information. And compared to books, “The Lincoln Assassination” delved into the sentiments of the characters as well - the raging character of Booth, the President's felt tumult about his own death, the nation's mourning.

On the low side, the 2-part program could be dragging. The sounds, or lack of sound, could drowse at some points, specifically on the interviews/commentary parts, but overall, the information that the film served readily is enough to keep our eyes open and our minds rampaging as the documentary gives light and justice to President Lincoln's death.

Over 10 years ago some of the worst human atrocities occurred in Rwanda when the Hutus, who had been under years of repression by the Tutses, set out to massacre them in revenge, all of which went unnoticed especially by the American press. Within 3 months more than a million people had been brutally murdered and countless women had been systematically raped.

Through Paul's fight for survival, the film portrays his relationship with army officials whom he bargained money and alcohol for protection and also the United Nations and how little power they were given to protect the hotel and its people.

This is a moving human story about a man's fight for survival where there is no hope of safety and how an ordinary man can triumph over evil. A must see film!

In Fiction, Will Ferrell, giving a straight performance with no clowning, plays Harold Crick, a tax man who lives a very calculated life (to the point where he counts his brush strokes). One day, he starts hearing a voice inside his head. Someone is narrating his life- that someone is Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson), an acclaimed author who is suffering from a ten-year long string of writer's block. The woman is a third-person omniscient narrator, so she knows everything about Harold, even about the crush he develops for baker Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal). It's a strange but harmless nuisance…but little does he know that he's going to die!

There is a secondary plot that follows Karen as she tries to bring Harold to the pages, all the while being pestered by her publisher Penny Escher (Queen Latifah). A person who never thinks twice about killing off a fictional character, she cannot seem to find the perfect death for her newest hero.

When it comes to a high-concept film like this, the real star is the writer. Zach Helm has written a script that is smart, but never beyond comprehension. There is never a moment when someone needs to go off on a monologue to keep the audience caught up. The film is rich with subtleties (for example, all of the characters are named after mathematicians and philosophers, except for Escher, who's named after a painter). A film student would find Fiction a joy to take apart and analyze, but such a task is not necessary to enjoy it. It is refreshing to see that, in a world where most intellectual films speak high and with big words, there is a film that succeeds in keeping it simple.

The performances are strong all around. As mentioned before, a different Will Ferrell is seen here. Harold is a real person, not a character like Ron Burgundy of Anchorman. He shows a lot of range here, capable of playing a quiet, unhappy man without walking around with a big frown on his face. Maggie Gyllenhaal relishes playing the anarchist Ana. At first, she's very bitter, but then you can tell that she's coyly opening up to Harold. Emma Thompson is great as the troubled writer fascinated by death. There is also strong supporting work by Queen Latifah and Dustin Hoffman (as literature professor Jules Hilbert, who is given the strange task of dealing with Crick).

Much like Michael Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Bob Fosse's All That Jazz, Stranger Than Fiction seems like a film that seems too “arty” for the mainstream movie-goer. However, despite its playing bend on reality and slightly cynical study of literature, it is a film that is easy on the mind. Writer Zach Helm and director Marc Forster are not trying to force brilliant ideas onto the audience. Their goal is to make an excellent comedy-drama. Which they did.