I have more faith in his work than any other living filmmaker.

It's a shame to see such sublime cinematography go to waste in a mediocre film. Murakami's novel is good (not great) despite its flaws. The film retains its source's flaws but also strips away the power of its most positive attribute: the female characters. In the novel they are complex, unique and compelling. In the film they are shallow and irritating. The protagonist is a self-important narcissist in both forms.

Chan-wook Park balances thematic clarity with wild originality. He never allows sporadic shifts in tone to take control in a negative way. Instead, he finds cohesion in the mayhem and turns out a powerful, unique piece of work. Technically pristine.

Robert Wise is a brilliant visual director. Some of the most dynamic framing I've ever seen.

The underwater photography is amazing.

The smarmy, obnoxious tone of this film is even worse than the content itself. Whedon and Goddard are relentless in their effort to prove how smart they are. Maybe they are both intelligent people, but this movie is certainly not good evidence. It fails as a deconstruction, and it fails even worse as a horror and comedy movie. The performances, writing, and direction are all downright shoddy. What's to like?

Brilliant, overwhelming, vicious, psychotic, bipolar. A relentless tirade of motion and fury. Exceptional photography, editing, and acting.

"All I can see is the frame. I’m going in there now to look at the picture."

Mary Lambert effectively conveys the novel's reflections on mortality and the destruction of the nuclear family. This film is aesthetically muted and weighed down by an atmosphere of perpetual gloom. King trims his complicated, emotional work into a lean, suspenseful script. Yes, some of the performances are weak and there are a few clunky lines. Nevertheless, it's damn close to being a masterpiece.

Solid overall, but not without its faults... King's writing supplies 1408 with the kind of subtext and psychological power that is unusual in mainstream thrillers. Håfström has a strong sense of style and atmosphere, and Cusack's performance is strong. Unfortunately, it kind of takes a dive in its second/third act, replacing tension with loudness. Also, Mary McCormack's acting is unprofessionally bad.

"Michael Myers is just a stand-in for all evil. He's a cipher; he's not a real thing or a person." --John Carpenter, 2004 interview

Tight, economical filmmaking. Impeccably structured.

One of the most well-shot horror films I've seen. Carpenter finds all the right moments for understatement and extremity.

Natasha Henstridge's performance might be the worst screen acting I have ever seen.

There are some ingenious things going on in this film, like the foundational struggle between science and spiritualism. I also admire Carpenter's use of mirrors as a passage for evil, and his depiction of supernatural transmission through dreams. Shot and edited with expertise.

Two layers of obstruction prevent the audience from connecting with Andy (he reveals very little about himself, and we see him through Red's eyes). As a result, the enigma surrounding him is enhanced. Darabont's writing and direction work on the basis of suggestion rather than exposure. Top-notch photography, performances, editing, and art direction. I don't care how cool it is to hate this movie. I love it.

Cronenberg's vision and thematic focus carry the film a long way. Unfortunately, the low production value and uneven acting prevent it from achieving greatness.

Embrace the trash! Thomas Jane shows himself to be a strong visual stylist and talented actor with this crazed, reflexive film. Unfortunately, the budget constraints are visible in the finished product. Even more unfortunately, it will probably remain unseen by most fans of the genre. Nevertheless, there's lots to admire in Dark Country; visually similar to Sin City, and a much better film overall.

Although it is occasionally deadened by forced sentimentality, Hearts in Atlantis is a heartbreaking film. Not only does the heightened sensation of nostalgia serve as a backdrop for dark themes; the two are intrinsically tied together. Hicks's use of subdued (often absent) artificial lighting and picturesque framing enhances the film's focus on childhood as a dreamlike state. Hopkins and Yelchin are superb.

The resonance of the content overshadows the form (which is somewhat contrived).

The whole film is intimate psychological assault. The lack of subtlety that people keep referring to is crucial to Ramsay's vision. Sure, it's anything but subtle, but that's hardly the point. It replicates the sensory traits of a nightmare, reinventing familiar symbolism in an effective way. Tilda Swinton's performance is the centerpiece, but Ramsay's unnerving, surrealist approach is ingenious too.

A few inspired moments are lost in this ridiculous, incomprehensible disaster.

My second viewing was unkind to this film. Once the shock wears off, the flaws show through. The material is full of potential, but the film is constantly off the mark. Steve McQueen's direction feels conflicted, and not in a good way; he is heavy-handed in his representation, but formless in his direction of actors. Fassbender's performance is uneven as a result. Mulligan's acting is the only outstanding element.

The final scene is one of the finest moments in Scorsese's filmography. Howard, vocalizing his alienation with maddened repetition, is submerged in the darkness of the womb that tainted him. Scorsese frames DiCaprio in inescapable closeness, so that we cannot avoid his desperation. "The way of the future" is also the way of the past. Howard is lost in a psychological loop that has no clear beginning or end.

Terrible. One of the most poorly directed films I have ever seen. The script is ridiculously bad, but Mark Pellington's contribution is the biggest disaster. He suffocates everything with a mess of sensory overload, rendering the end product nearly unwatchable at times. Lowe, Jane and Piven do some interesting things with a garbage script (McKay doesn't quite hold his own). Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

I can't wait for Spring Breakers.

King's novel has a consistently distinct voice, economical plot development and an affecting portrayal of domestic brutality. Hackford's film lacks in all the areas that the novel excelled. He stages his characters in strained, unconvincing ways and the performances suffer as a result. The screenplay is clogged with unnecessary sub plots and an intrusive framing device, consequently detracting from its power.

"We bury our sins here. We wash them clean."

I want to love this film so badly, but its flaws are too prominent. Jason Lew's script is cringe-worthy and the performances are uniformly uneven (particularly from Hopper). Gus Van Sant's voice is distinct and appealing, and he paints the film with all his attractive trademarks. The low-key lighting, unusual staging and exquisite composition are beautiful attributes, but they're not enough to save that screenplay.

Eastwood's skills are visible through the nonsense, but this film is a failure. It begins with promise and quickly disintegrates into something implausible and ridiculous.