Surprisingly, this is not a bad movie. One would thing a film starring Christina Applegate and a provocative cover would be nothing more than an exploitation movie based on her name recognition and sexuality. However, this is a very serious film that gives us a very adept and professional performances by Applegate and the unknown other lead in this film, Stefano Dionisi.

Directed efficiently by Antonio Tibaldi, Kiss of Fire is a simple story that is given substance by having characters that are above average in their complexity. The drifter, played by Dionisi, is not your typical character that you find in such films in that he actually has a moral compass. He develops a genuine and mature love for the Applegate character, and is not afraid to show it in his actions. The character of Claudine, played by Applegate, is obviously an emotionally and psychological damaged individual who has serious intimacy problems, yet there is a courageous dimension to her in how she attempts to battle and address her demons.

Much credit should go to Tibaldi and the screenwriter, Heidi Hall, who wrote the screenplay based on one of her own short stories. Hall did a fine job of developing a screenplay out of her short story, not an easy thing to do, and Tibaldi did very well in keeping with the integrity of the story.

This film could have been very good if it hadn't been for the fact that the director chose to turn it into some kind of black comedy. There are some very serious issues in this movie, yet too often it veers into the absurd, using humour in the most inappropriate ways. As a consequence, it becomes difficult for the viewer to take what is happening to the Nicholas Cage character with any seriousness.

Frankly, I do not understand why Werner Herzog took this film into the realm of the bizarre. Undoubtedly, he does get a magnificent performance from Nicholas Cage, his hunched back in the film giving him a surreal and ghoulish disposition. If this film is meant to be some kind of allegory about the corruption of an inherently good cop and decent man, or I hope I am wrong, how corruption is innate in the New Orleans police department, then I suppose this film can be justified by its approach. However, I did not expect this kind of tongue and cheek direction about the corruption of a good cop, but more a serious film that described the corruption of a good cop and his descent into oblivion and violence. Maybe Werner Herzog wanted to make another film a la Pulp Fiction.

This film garnered pretty good reviews from the professional critics, but I personally was disappointed with it. The film is entertaining enough thanks to Cage's performance, but the film veers too often into the absurd for its own good.

There are some films that are a pleasant surprise, and The Skeleton Key is one of them. I have to admit that I viewed this film with some skepticism, simply because I hadn't heard much buzz about it and I had difficulty envisioning Kate Hudson in such a film. In fact, not only was it nice to see Kate Hudson in a non-comedic role for a change, but she actually is very good in this supernatural thriller.

Director Iain Softley does a fine job of taking an interesting ghost story and merging it with the Southern Gothic of the Louisiana bayou and the legends and myths surrounding New Orleans Voodooism. Like any ghost story in a movie, the viewer has to accept certain nonsense premises to make it work, but if the viewer does so this film delivers great entertainment. The Skeleton Key makes it easy to accept these premises, making it an exceptional supernatural thriller.

Gena Rowlands almost steals this movie with her performance. She plays an old hag from hell that just reeks of evil. The film has a very well constructed story that also does a good job at developing a character profile of the Kate Hudson character that fits well into the story.

If you are looking for a great ghost movie or supernatural thriller to view, this film delivers in spades.

Invictus is an inspirational film about one of the truly great leaders of our time, Nelson Mandela. A man who could have easily allowed hatred to dominate his leadership, he nevertheless realized that what his country needed was forgiveness and reconciliation, not payback and revenge. This film attempts to display this through sport, in this case the World Cup of Rugby, which South Africa hosted in 1995.

Clint Eastwood has become one of the greatest directors in Hollywood history, and Invictus simply adds to his impressive legacy. He is very adept at merging a political history and sports story into an entertaining movie. Morgan Freeman is terrific in the role of Mandela, his personal charisma a great asset in playing the very charismatic Nelson Mandela. Matt Damon does a fine job playing the Springboks captain who Mandela approaches to lend support to the South African national rugby team for the World Cup. What is remarkable about this gesture is that the Springboks only have one black player on the team, but Mandela realizes how important the team is to the white community of South Africa and how his gesture would be an act of goodwill and reconciliation. It is a shrewd political gesture for the good of South Africa, though many of Mandela's black colleagues have difficulty in seeing its merit, which in turn allows us to marvel at Mandela's great leadership skills in getting them to at least trust his judgment and vision.

An entertaining and inspirational film that one only wishes more world leaders would take notice of.

Black comedies are not for everyone. These are films which place ridiculous characters in ridiculous situations, except these situations are often deadly serious and tragic. Pulp Fiction would be a good example of this kind of film, and Staten Island attempts to take a page out of that book.

Vince D'Onofrio plays a delusional mobster obsessed with a desire to do something great. He envisions himself as becoming the kingpin of Staten Island, breaking a world record for holding one's breath under water, and finally settles on becoming an environmentalist trying to save a forest. The character is so ridiculous that it is difficult to take it seriously, except we also see that he is quite comfortable with murder and violence. Then we have Ethan Hawke's character, an individual with such low self-esteem that he steals money from the mob in order to pay for a procedure to be his wife a genetically engineered baby that will have superior intellect. Finally, we have an elderly deaf mute who through a series of circumstances becomes a lethal assassin who gives the film its poetic justice.

These kinds of films have their comedic moments, and I suppose this makes the violence, often sadistic, more easily digestible for the viewer. However, I find that one Pulp Fiction type of film is enough, and I prefer to see films that take evil characters and violence seriously and not as some kind of joke.

It is difficult to evaluate a film like Bigger Than Life. There is so much more to it than meets the eye, yet it isn't necessarily that entertaining. Starring and produced by James Mason (he also had an uncredited role in writing the screenplay), this film comes with a high critical reputation, some going as far as to say it is director Nicholas Ray's masterpiece. This film at times can be very good, but it certainly not a masterpiece in my opinion. If one should seek a directorial masterpiece by Nicholas Ray, one should view In a Lonely Place.

When this film was released it did not do very well at the box, and also it was criticized for being an attack on the family. The film is heavy handed in its melodrama, which is about James Mason's character's addiction to cortisone, at the time a miracle drug that saves his life but inevitably makes him dangerously psychotic. The film relates the impact this has on his wife and son and on his life generally.

The interesting thing about this film is how it reflects the culture of the time. The film makes subtle comments about a myriad of issues: drug addiction, mental illness and its social taboo; the condescending way the medical profession deals with patients and their families; the role of women in the home; suburbia and consumerism; and parenting. These issues are not apparent unless one seriously reflects upon it, and consequently if one sees this film purely for its entertainment value, it is an average film.

I imagine this film was seen as an attack on the family due to the way it portrays this particular family in such a sterile way. This film was made during the baby boom, yet this is a one child (who is about 10 yrs old) family with a stay at home mom. The wife does not appear satisfied or empowered by the fact she is forbidden by her husband to work outside the home, even though this is a small family with one child soon to be a teenager. There appears to be a certain emotional sterility between the characters of James Mason and Barbara Rush, who plays the wife and mother, almost a chasm of frustrated intimacy. Looking at this couple, it was difficult to imagine any emotional and physical intimacy between them, though there was genuine love that was struggling to become more intimate.

The DVD commentary argues that this film was a critique of the so-called conformity and boredom of the development of suburbia and consumerism. I think this is misguided, since I disagree with the premise that suburbia and consumerism are all that bad. Coming out of the Great Depression and WWII, and even today for most of the people of the world or those who live in concrete jungles, suburbia and consumerism don't look that bad. Suburbia offers recreational and cultural activities that were not available to the masses prior to its emergence. As for social conformity, this exists in any social situation, not just the suburbia of the 1950's. If anything, the film in my opinion should not be seen as a critique of the material well being found in suburbia, but how the emotional and spiritual values of a family are compromised when a genuine concern for the other takes a back seat to individualism and materialism as an ultimate value rather than a blessing.

It is difficult to imagine an album being better then The Sensual World. Of course, pop music can be very subjective, but it is hard to deny the melodic power and insightful lyrics that this album offers. As with most great albums, it becomes better and more enlightening with each listen. This is my favorite album by Kate Bush, whom I am not hesitant to describe as a musical pop genius. This is a pop artist who continues to evolve musically and lyrically, and as her voice has matured over the years the more beautiful and sensual it has become. Also, her partnership with the Trio Bulgarka on this album is truly outstanding. Who cannot get goose bumps as the chorus of the Trio Bulgarka contribute their talents as a group or individually to this album.

The title song The Sensual World is unquestionably the most radio friendly, but not necessarily the best song on the album. Like The Beatles, the last few albums by Kate Bush rarely have a weak song on it. This album doesn't have one. Here our some of my favorite songs on this album.

Love and Anger is an unbelievably introspective song about lovers and forgiveness, with a great pulsating beat merging with beautiful piano and guitar rhythms.

The Fog is a wonderful song about remembering the comfort and safety of childhood. It has a smooth organ beginning leading into a melody dominated by a violin.

Reaching Out is a beautiful poem that can also be described as a sort of prayer. Put to a beautiful melody, the song sings of the virtues of life and creation.

Heads We're Dancing has a great melodic beat, though I have to admit I have not been able to discern exactly what the lyrics mean. I suspect it relates to an allegory of the influence of the devil among humanity.

Never Be Mine is my favorite song on this album. A yearning song of love, lost love, and unrequited love, I doubt there has ever been a more beautiful love song ever written.

Between a Man and a Woman is another great love song, however, with an angry edge of frustration to it. Ultimately, a song about the challenges lovers have of keeping their love alive and vibrant, and the temptations and distractions that can derail or hurt it. Another song with a great beat and some terrific guitar riffs in the background.

Finally, Deeper Understanding is a song reflecting about the social isolation of the internet age. All this information and communication, but how do we attain a deeper understanding of what love is?

I continually marvel at the way Bush fuses together the rhythm of so many different instruments and choral backgrounds to produce a pop music style that is uniquely Kate Bush.

The New Daughter walks dangerously close to being a silly rip-off of the Night of the Living Dead, except instead of Zombies you have bizarre looking monsters who walk and behave like Zombies. Fortunately, the film emphasizes the development of its characters, rather than their confrontation with the monsters.

The director does a good job of showing the viewer the relationship of the father, nicely played by Kevin Costner, and his two children. The relationship between he and his teenage daughter is of particular interest, the teenage daughter very well played by newcomer Ivana Baquero. This focus on the characters of the family gives life to the suspense and terror of the situation that they are facing, enabling the viewer to forget the silly premise of the film and how everyone who comes into contact with them is murdered except the father and his children.

Not above average for a horror film, but nevertheless better than most.

The Wicker Man is one of the greatest horror films ever made. Directed brilliantly by Robin Hardy and starring Edward Woodward, this film is one of the finest examples of horror film making as art. The genius of this film is its ability to touch upon a theme that can historically and viscerally hit home to the viewer in its realism. A deeply religious and spiritual film, it challenges the viewer on an existential and moral level that few horror films ever dare to attempt, and if they do dare often veer into camp or nonsense.

A very unusual film, it addresses the nature of religion, faith and the testing of that faith, and the historical reality of religious martyrdom. This film in particular brings to life the ancient confrontation between paganism and Christianity, displaying the sharp contrast between their divergent world views.

This is a film that is also very well made. The story is well developed and thought out, the characters giving the viewer an emotional connection to them, particularly to the policeman played by Edward Woodward in what has to be the finest performance of his film career.

If someone was looking for a classic horror movie to view, this would be the one.

Why did they even try to make a remake of a horror classic that can be arguably described as a horror masterpiece? To attempt to do so would be an exercise in futility to anyone, yet someone had the audacity to think they could do better or give it a different "modern" take? Such arrogance would be doomed to fail, and this new version of The Wicker Man not only fails miserably in even coming close to the brilliance of the original, but it fails even on its own terms of reference in offering a decent movie. In fairness to this film, for anyone who has seen the original, it is almost impossible to view this film without being continually reminded how bad it is compared to the original.

Though it probably would not have made any difference in the end result, the film had a serious problem in that it attempted to ignore with its secular and "modern" sensibilities a fundamental aspect of the story. What gave such power to the original film was that it was genuinely a religious film, in which we witnessed a struggle between Christianity and the ancient paganism of nature worship. The viewer truly appreciated the horror of martyrdom and the spiritual battle and test of faith which was taking place in the policeman, wonderfully played by Edward Woodward. The viewer appreciated the deep conviction of the pagans in their rituals in contrast and in relation to the Christian world view. The new version grotesquely attempts to give us a secular policeman without any noticeable faith confronting a pagan matriarchy of nature worship with a touch of Nazi Aryanism and the pursuit of perfect womanhood, witchcraft, male abuse, and social engineering. The film displays the pagans as having a rather sadistic disposition, something the original did not do, more successful in displaying the religious aspect of pagan ritual sacrifice.

So, instead of witnessing a martyr saying a prayer before he dies, we have a Nicholas Cage, in a thankless role if there ever was one, screaming in fear and pain as he dies. Above and beyond the dismal creative failure of this film to offer anything of merit in respect to the original, this betrayal of the original story and film in a misguided effort to try and give it a secular spin deserves our contempt.