iamsam103

24 (2001)

Started off as perfection, but going down hill...

Back in 2001, I remember sitting down with my family at 10:00pm to watch 45minutes of pure adrenaline and suspense with no adverts and commercials on BBC2. I would look forward to every Sunday night as I was properly obsessed with 24...it had it all, suspense, action, romance, espionage and believability. Of course, this was all before Jack became an action hero and the "real-time" factor became lost. I liked the fact that in the first two seasons, 20 or so minutes were given to Jack driving or an episode was given to him purely in a jail cell...why? because it made it believable, the fact that the entire season was 24hrs in real time had never been done before, and was done so brilliantly.

Season 1 starts first of all with introducing the characters and then once that's done things get rolling. We meet Jack Bauer, a CTU (counter terrorist unit) agent with a wife and daughter (Elisha Cuthbert). What happens then is that there's a threat against a Presidential Candidate and that Jack must solve the threat. However, things get complicated when his family is put in danger by the same people after to kill the candidate...so jack must now do two jobs at once; save his family and protect the next president, which also includes sniffing out a mole in his workplace. It's all very tense stuff and extremely entertaining, i've since bought the DVD box-set and re-watched seasons 1 and 2 3 times now.

Season 2 is more violent and action packed and also has a very good story, but it's not up to the same standards. However, everything is still believable and the series still holds you captivated. However, it's after this that the series goes downhill... I might be biased because after Season 2, 24 went to SKyOne...which meant advert breaks every 15minutes which ruined the pacing of the show. The real-time factor also seemed lost, with Jack travelling to Mexico within about thirty minutes and driving from one-side of LA to the other in a matter of 2 minutes....the rest of the series (including the now airing season 6) isn't a matter of real-time but how can jack save the world or the USA within 24 episodes. The series has truly gone downhill, and over the last 4 series it's been agonising to watch favourite characters get killed off or disappear..and just when you think the series might end...it doesn't, it's revived for the next year.

It's a shame...what started out as possibly the best show ever, unfortunately transformed to the run-of-the-mill action series. What made the series such a hit was that it was unpredictable, you didn't know who would be a mole and who would die next...nowadays it's all predictable and you KNOW Jack will in the end save the day.

So I'm giving 24 a 9/10. The first two seasons rock my socks off, they're the best TV can offer us but as always, the best things in life never last...and 24 is pure proof of that.

Eragon (2006)

An above average epic bursting to come out of a below average cheese-athon

I'm going to point out first of all that I love dragons. I LOVE dragon-slayer and still think it was ahead of it's time! Dragonheart was an amazing experience for me when I was younger, and still now the dragon looks f*ing cool. Reign of Fire was a disappointment, but the dragons were so dam awesome I didn't care....So this is mainly why i watched this film...for the dragon.

I have not read the books, in fact the only thing I do know is that the books author, (Christopher Paolini?) wrote them when he was about 15. Now I'm not doubting for one second that the books are good or bad or whatever, to be honest I have next to no interest in the books and just care about the film adaptation. From the second I saw early pictures of Robert Carlyle in his outfit and of our lead hero (which i've already forgotten his name...)I knew this film would turn out to be a flop. I wasn't wrong, every review I've read about this film has slated it and the trailer made me feel queasy into saying "lord of the rings" ripoff? Now I shouldn't be saying that at all, because it is unfair to nearly ANY fantasy film that comes out nowadays. You can't immediately compare a new film to the best of fantasy films;it might be a totally different type of fantasy and if your already calling it a LOTR wannabe, then it's already failed in your opinion of sustaining any respect...which should be reserved for AFTER you've seen it.

Well i can fairly say, after seeing this film, that it's not just a LOTR rip off, but also a Star Wars rip off as well. The story is basically the same as A New Hope. Farmboy lives with uncle, farm-boy finds something that is dangerous for the King of baddies, King of baddies sends out soldiers to kill him....Farmboy's uncle dies, farm-boy goes off on an adventure under the influence and teaches of an Aragorn wannabe (they even dressed Jeremy iron's character the same as Aragorn!) and he finds himself in the middle of a battle between two forces. My main problem with the film is that, it had so much potential! It was an hour and 40 minutes I think which could quite easily have been two and half hours and been stretched out to make a good film. The pace of the film is horrible, you can tell that the filmmakers are rushing from one set piece to the next to try and usher the film along to the climax to meet under a 2hr mark so that the little kids won't get bored. The acting is around average, Jeremy Iron's, as usual, hams it up and does a good job with material he clearly doesn't seem comfortable with. Sienna Guilroy (spelling?) looks fabulous but she to seems uncomfortable and frustrated with delivering the lines with meaning. The lead actor, (cant remember his name) playing Eragon just wasn't very good, he did an OK job but nothing fantastic or believable, which is needed...it shows just how good it is when you can't remember any of the character's names except for the one which is also the title of the film! I don't know what John Malkovich, Carlyle, Irons, Honsou or even Guillroy were doing here...maybe they felt sorry for the production and took part in it for good faith so it didn't do too badly (this would also explain how Uwe Boll gets good actors, sympathy).

Now, the star of the film...the dragon. The visual effects, aren't stunning or breathtaking, but they do the job well into creating a believable dragon. Two things annoyed me though, when the dragon grew up (going from little puppy dragon to full grown just because it learns how to fly) and suddenly being able to communicate to Eargorn through thoughts...the firs time I heard the dragon speak, or ...think to Eragon, and noticed Rachel Weisz's voice...i laughed with embarrassment for the film. It was done so horribly and was so cheesy I couldn't take the film seriously. To be honest though, the dragon probably does give the best performance in the film...but this doesn't make it worthwhile of any special attention. I admire the fact that the dragon is a different design to what we've been given in the past (not just scales but also feathers) and it certainly was cute at the start after hatching...but it wasn't a "cool" dragon, if I wanted to own a dragon it would still be Draco from Dragonheart.

All in all, the film was a let down and so obviously rushed. If they had taken their time about it, spread out the budget a bit more then the could have come up with a 2 & 1/2 hour something epic that is perfect for kids and not bad for adults. But instead we get an extended teaser trailer for what MIGHT HAVE BEEN a good film. This is silly, unbelievable and sadly...uninteresting hokum which I simply don't care about. The sad thing though, is that if they make the other 2 films...i will probably watch them for three reasons;

1. Sienna Guilroy 2. Dragon 3. Hope that Eragon dies.

Not a good sign is it? Well here's hoping that the other two films find a new director that shows some talent and a degree of respect for the novels, other than simply rushing ahead to get to fighting and it's disappointing climax.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Directors Cut is a MUST see!

I won't make an essay for this film as I tend to do sometimes, so I'll keep this short.

I saw the Theatrical release at the cinema and really liked the film. It was epic, gritty and emotional and clearly defined Scott as the king of "sword and sandal epics". However, it was missing something. The film seemed incomplete and didn't answer half as many questions as people would have liked. I for one was impressed with Bloom's acting, it seemed he was only good as an elf and although he's adequate in Pirates of the Caribbean, he's never excelled in my opinion until now.

From the moment I saw the film, there was the news of Scott releasing a Director's cut DVD...so I waited...and waited. And finally, it arrived and I bought it. The film has plenty of additional scenes which makes the film all the more grand. Character's have more of a back-story and there's an added sub-story of Sibylla's child becoming King. Bloom's acting really excels even more in this version, as you can truly sense the depression, anger and frustration his character is going to.

This director's cut is a MUST see for any Scott fan or Crusades buff. It's just as brilliant as the first but 10x better!!! If you have to see this film, this is the version you want to see...it's just a shame Fox made Scott shorten the film otherwise I'm sure the response to this film's theatrical release would have been extremely different!

Titanic (1997)

Such a shame...

I love this film, it's in my eyes on of the most well blended films I've seen and yet one of the most tragic films. Everything about this film is brilliant whether it be the acting, the effects, the music or the direction...

This film was a HUGE success back in 1997 when it went on the cinema and it seemed everyone loved it. I was shown it on video (was about 10 or 11) and thought it was a remarkable film and it seemed everyone 10 years ago loved it....how things have changed. I don't understand how people can hate this film, it seems almost "cool" for people to dislike this film, calling it "cheesey" and "corny" when it simply isn't! I re-watched Titanic the other day and loved it just as much as ever, the brewing romance between DiCaprio and Winslett, the ill-fated attempt to make the Titanic famous, and the social issues between lower class and upper class people.

It's understandable to see why this film was so expensive...but I don't care, because it pulled it off. James Cameron worked a miracle with this film and truly deserves every bit of credit and more... there is almost nothing bad I can say about this film except for the fact that the whole "chase and shoot whilst boat is sinking" was a little bit too far fetched...but hey, it's only a film and it was still good entertainment.

If you haven't seen the film, please ignore the hate buzz around and watch it, you will enjoy it....

9/10

Undead (2003)

Disappointing to say the least...

I'm a huge zombie fan and even bigger fan of low budget splatter movies (early Peter Jackson films as examples) and I was very excited to this film, expecting to see an Australian Shaun of The Dead....

...It starts off well and has a good mix of humour, gore and suspense...and the special effects themselves are very good considering the budget of this film (this film was in post production for ages...and it has really paid off)...however, that's about the most positive things I can say about this film.

The film sort of ditches zombie routes and turns into a full-fledged sci-fi alien taking over the world b-movie...which is very bad considering it was advertised as a zombie splatter film and thats what I paid to see! The acting was bad, as can be expected from splatter films but the film just left a sour taste in my mouth. It had it's moments, it's gory, funny in parts but ultimately doesn't know what it wants to be: a zombie splatter film, a sc-fi film or a special effects extravaganza. It would be have been better if the directors would have decided to make 3 short films instead of one mixed up concoction.

The ending scene is memorable, as is the start...but the rest is just a blur in which I have no problem in forgetting....If you're an avid horror buff or splatter film fan...give it a look if you must, just don't say I didn't warn you!

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Snakes On A Plane is not Oscar worthy..but a dam good ride!

This film has a lot to live up to with all the hype surrounding it from internet fans alike. I was worried going into this film because I think the idea is sound and hype made it seem invincible. I was worried the film was going to end up being a below-average horror that only got attention through Samuel Jackson.

However.,..this is not the case. I loved this film! From the very start this film is not an action film, it is not a horror film or a comedy. It's a weird mix of horror, thrills and comedic value...it's a film that doesn't take itself seriously but then again doesn't turn into a spoof or a comedy itself.

Samuel L Jackson plays the lead amazingly and is amazingly cool as always, and of course he has the ultimate moment by saying the lines "I AM TIRED OF THESE MOTHER F****** SNAKES ON THIS MOTHER F****** PLANE!"...pure brilliance.

The film is not for the squeamish!....it has every sick and funny moment you can think of that involves snakes biting something (eyes, tits, penis's and tongues) and there is that feeling that ANYONE can die at any moment..even the slick Sam Jackson himself. Little kids get bitten, dogs get killed and babies are put in danger. There's quite a few jumpy moments in the film and suspense is kept high without ever taking over from the fun side of the film.

Overall I enjoyed this film A lot and would recommend it to anyone looking to spend a couple of hours having a dam good time! Me and my friend went together and spent most of the time laughing because of everything was SO damn cool.

The film is a blast...sure it won't win any Oscars or awards (except from the MTV awards perhaps..best film?)..so any die hard film buff who wants to find hidden meanings in films can look away now..this film was meant to be fun..and it is! 8/10

The Break-Up (2006)

Could have been brilliant, but ended up as a disappointment

The Break-Up stars Vince Vaughn and Jeniffer Aniston as a couple who's relationship takes a turn for the worst and neither of them wish to surrender their dignity in order to save their relationship.

I went into this film hoping for a huge dealing of entertainment, Vince Vaughn has been responsible for many huge comedies come the last 5 years (old school, dodge ball, wedding crashers) and Jeniffer Aniston, as ever, looks fabulous.

However....this film isn't as funny as it tries to be, or advertises to be...in fact you'll be hard done by to spot any comedic moments that aren't in the trailer!...so there's hardly any surprises in store.

A film lives or dies upon its characters, which is a shame here as neither of the two are particularly likable and just come across as arrogant, sinister and deceitful. Vince Vaughn tries to relate by being the "average Joe" and works in parts, but in others he's just making us "guys" feel guilty...not good considering you're paying to see a film which makes you feel bad. In fact, the film basically revolves around the 2 characters trying to get the other annoyed or jealous so that they will end the argument...but all they end up doing is either getting hurt or making the other even more furious.

The ending is definitely surprising, and serves as the only highlight in this film...expect no clichéd Hollywood ending where everyone lives happily ever after,...but still, the ending isn't worth watching the entire film for.

Chance it if you will, but bets are you will be disappointed. 5/10

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Beautiful and Masterful.

I have had this DVD on my shelf for years now, and have recently dusted it off, sat down and watched it from start to finish. A lot of people can't even manage this with this film, with a running time of approx 160 minutes and during that only one major battle sequence. However, that's the only real complaint I can find myself thinking of.

The film is from Terrence Malick (The New World) and sports the theme of human vs nature. It's obviously also a war film, and focuses on a load of soldiers fighting against the Japanese so they can take control of an air field. The film follows the soldiers from arriving at the island, to leaving the island....and in my opinion there isn't one dull or boring moment in between.

Don't believe the trailer, at the end is boasts how many actors are involved, and although it certainly is true, the one misleading fact is that actors such as George Clooney and John Travolta are only seen for a matter of minutes. Instead, the film focuses on the characters of Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Ben Chaplin and Elias Koteas. Everyone here acts to their best and we see Elias Koteas in his very best performance, as well as a stunning and emotional portrayal of love, loss and fear from Ben Chaplin, who uses memories and the hope of getting back to his wife (Miranda Otto) as a means to carry on. The flashbacks themselves are very well conceived, using the music to carry on the emotions between the couple and placing Miranda Otto's character in situations and places of dreamlike quality....they were conceived and executed perfectly and makes the character of Ben Chaplin all the more believable.

The music and cinematography here are stunning. The music is beautiful but also haunting at the same time and helps stir the emotions, whereas the scenery never fails to mesmerise. It really makes you question brute force when you see a beautiful landscape get blown to hell by a raid of artillery and the effects of war and human invasion has on the animal inhabitants (e.g. a baby bird on the verge of dieing amongst a battle and a snake being caught up amongst a group of crawling soldiers).

The battle(s) themselves are also tremendous....but anyone expecting the shaky-cam style of Saving Private Ryan will be disappointed. The action is realistic, but not gritty. The raid through a Japanese village is exceptionally emotional, following American troops as they chase the enemy through a village and witness them killing and being killed. The violence is not glorified, overly brutal or gory....but serves a reminder of how unsettling and emotional war can be like.

The reason for why this film wasn't as much of a success as it should have been came down frankly to Saving Private Ryan, which was released around about the same time. This film, is not for the average movie-goer and needs a lot of attention and endurance from the watcher....it does not adhere to the conventions of normal war films, but then again acts and flows more like a piece of poetry than it does a war film.

I urge everyone to at least try and watch this film.

9/10

BloodRayne (2005)

Don't even bother...

I'll start off by saying that I have seen some of the other works of Uwe Boll; Alone in the Dark and House Of The Dead. House of the Dead for me was a truly painful experience and Alone in the Dark, although better, still felt like eating a sloppy turd (dont ask me how i know what eating a sloppy turd feels like...) I watched this film because of mainly 2 reasons: 1 - To see if Uwe can get redemption from his earlier game to film adaptation.

2 - I am a big film fan, and like the vampire / horror genre.

The film is purely awful from start to finish. The only good thing I can possibly think of is that the cast is definitely impressive for a film of this caliber. Michael Madsen, a legend of cult cinema, sways his way through the film swinging a sword like he's drunk. Ben Kingsly mumbles about as if he's simply bored. Kristanna Loken looks beautiful but doesn;t carry the furiosity of Rayne....and therefore simply doesn't create a sense of believability. Michelle Roudriguez looks as if she'd rather be doing some porn film and Meat Loaf just seems to be on aboard for the opportunity to lounge around in a room full of prostitutes.

The sword fighting / battle scenes on show are beyond disgrace. There was obviously no choreography involved and the actors / actresses clearly didn't have the time to be put into training sessions. The sets and wardrobe all feel like castouts from Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings.

There is a sex scene involving the beautiful Kristanna Loken and some Matt guy....instead of increasing a romantic sub plot, tension or signs of "human emotion" within Rayne...the scene simply feels like a seqence from a porn film has been lifted into the film.

All in all the only praise I can give this film is that it finally ended. Only go to see this film if you are desperate to see Kristanna's breasts as she humps a guy against a cage wall.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Could have been brilliant but ends up as a slither- above-average horror

I watched the original Wes Craven film a couple of nights before this remake and was overall disappointed. I won't go into a review but I have to say that it was clumsily but together and overall not scary or gory as it has been raved about so often.

After several trailers, I was very much looking forward to this film, expecting plenty of frights and buckets of gore. The start of the film is predictable, a couple of people getting killed to establish to establish what the rest of the film is like. OK, so it's done well, and has a sinister and gory effect...but what does it accomplish that the audience doesn't already know? What would have been better is a proper and decent introduction to the family travelling through the desert.

The film's pace, as well as introduction is also questionable, it seems to leap forwards at times but only to grind to an immediate halt...whether this is to try and force feed us some character driven moments. The film only really picks up pace when it seems the director is most comfortable, towards the climax.

If you like your scares and gore, look no further. I can honestly say the film does have its jumpy moments and is indeed full of gore and some unpleasant moments...but these are far and few between. Between the moments of horror and gore, you really want certain members of the family to just get on with it and die...which shouldn't happen if the director wants his / her audience to sympathise with the characters.

In conclusion, the film was worth-while experience...and whereas it fails to identify itself as a leading horror film, it certainly keeps itself above the likes of; "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2004) and "The Ring 2"....but if you want in my eyes what is the BETTER Wes Craven re-make...then look to "Wrong Turn " (2003)...which although technically isn't a remake, serves as a better reminder of the earlier Craven work than this film does.

Flightplan (2005)

Panic Room but in the sky.

First off, I loved "Panic Room" and Jodie Foster's performance in it. When I first saw the looks of this film, I was very intrigued and thought it was going to be a "The Forgotten 2"....i was very wrong.

What starts off is with Jodie Foster playing a mourning mother after the death of her husband. Her and her daughter catch a flight to go stay with Foster's grandparents, however, after Jodie's character falls asleep, the daughter is gone....and to make matters worst, she is told that she never existed...

Sounds like a good premise eh? Well that's what infused me to go and see it. It starts off well but once the daughter goes missing, it went downhill. Jodie's performance throughout is good, not Oscar worthy but it is one of the highlights of the film (as well as the ever-cool Sean Bean.) Unfortunately I can't go into great depth of anything else of the story because of spoilers, but I will say that the ending plot is horrible, totally impossible and so therefore ruins the impact of the film and its good beginning.

There are also a lot of other things that annoy me about the film, to cut a long list short here are some examples: - a brilliant, new state of the art plane...and there's hardly anyone on board.

• Foster's character, although confused and frustrated does get annoying after a bit, and seeing as w're meant to identify and sympathise with her, is not a good thing.

• The overall twist / ending plot is ridiculous, as I stated before.

A Sound of Thunder (2005)

Good story, badly realised.

I saw this film after seeing the trailer on the internet and thought it looked fairly interesting. I knew that it would be a no-brainer, dumb sci-fi flick, but to be honest...i didn't care, i was looking for fun.

The story is that a "time safari" is opened up, where rich people can travel back in time, kill a dinosaur and come back (all for a heft price of course). Then, something goes wrong, and the entire course of history and time is changed, which throws the future into a unbalanced mix of mutant dinosaurs, forests and urban buildings in which our heroes must solve the mess they created.

I thought this sounded like a perfect popcorn film, and has endless possibilities to be a great film. This is not a great film though.

So I sat down, and watched. The first 10 or so minutes pretty much sum up what the rest of the film is going to be like. When the T-Rex came staggering onto screen, I was amazed, I was in awe, I was shocked at how bad the special effects were! It truly did look like a big gelatin blob, or a rubber toy. It wouldn't have been too bad if you were without the knowledge that Jurassic Park is about 12 years old and has far superior graphics to this film. I'm afraid it doesn't get better, all the creatures in this film looks unbelievably fake that its hard to enjoy the film. There's a sequence in which two characters are walking down a street, behind them are futuristic cars and buildings. It's so obvious that it was done on a blue screen and overall it just makes you want to cry.

The story itself is full of huge plot holes that in effect ruin the film and its progressive story. However, it is not the worst film I have ever seen, and even though I was disappointed, I still think the premise was a good one. Next time though, the filmmakers should know they have enough money before setting out to do a film like this, as audiences demand decent SFX. Especially after the likes of LOTR, King Kong and Harry Potter.

House of the Dead (2003)

The one film that I think should be burned and forgotten

OK, first off let me state two things before I start the review.

2 - I am a huge zombie movie fan, I love all the Romero films, including the Dawn (04) remake. I have seen many zombie films in my lifetime, many of them brilliant, others not so.

2 - I have seen many awful film; Hercules in New York, Garfield, Alone In The Dark and Baby Genius are to name but a few.

When having mates round my house for a "movie marathon" night (usually about 6 films in a row),we usually go for 1 film that we know is going to be awfully crap. So on New Year's Eve, 2005. We rented Uwe Boll's "House Of The Dead", knowing full well what critic's have said, knowing full well where it is placed in IMDb's worst all time films. Yet, we watched, and why? for the comic value. We rent bad films to laugh at them. If you think you're going to be able to watch a bad film and take it seriously, or mad. However, watch it with the intention of laughing at it (especially with a few mates) and your guaranteed a good time.

This was not the case with this film. It went straight passed "so bad its funny" straight to the disastrous "so bad its annoying". Uwe Boll has tried to make the film adaptation of the classic arcade shooter "House Of The Dead", which, any director would try and do with care. Look at "Mortal Kombat" and "Doom", the directors and writers clearly know the story (or lack of) of the games, and turned it into a film, knowing what it is the audience wants to sees (be it fighting or monster demons.)

Yet with this monstrosity, Boll has taken the franchise with the pure knowledge that the ENTIRE of his film will consist of "zombies being shot"...and that's what he delivers. But even that simple concept is badly done. The zombies are extremely badly designed and created and is laughable when they're seen swimming, jumping (especially off clearly visible jump pads), running and swinging / throwing axes.

Almost as bad is the characterisation. OK, so we can clearly expect that there's going to be almost none of it, given it's a little horror film. But let me ask you a few questions:

1 - Would you pay £1000 to go to ONE rave? 2 - Once realising the rave has been interrupted and the people have disappeared, would you stay, drink and attempt to have sex? 3 - If you were a simple teenager / young adult, and you've seen the chaos of your friends being killed by zombies - would you have the mental and physical strength to pick up serious hardware, and go all "matrix" on zombies?

If you answered "no" to all of those questions, then you can carry on reading. If you answered "yes" to any of them and wasn't joking, shame on you.

This film has no reason to be this bad. Given that Uwe Boll (suposedly) had a decent budget and had one 1st class actor (jurgen prochnow - sorry about spelling)he should have been able to create a good film. The only way that he puts in references to the arcade game, is through very quick 1 second shots of the game itself, with zombies being shot or monsters attacking the screen. This, instead of being thoughtfully placed or helping the film progress, just makes it all the more annoying and adds to the temptation to pressing the "off" button on the DVD player.

This film cannot be stated as a "one off bad film" from the director, he has followed on to make "Alone In The Dark" and "Bloodrayne", both of them under the score of 3.0 on this website. It's sad to see his later plans are good ideas, because its hard to stray from the truth that he will utterly screw them up.

Resist this film at all cost, it does not deserve your money.

Resist EVERY Uwe Boll film at all cost, he does not deserve your money.

King Kong (2005)

Jackson once again delivers an outstanding motion picture

Before I start, I must first off state that I am a huge fan of the original 1933 film. It set a benchmark in special effects and stands as one of the greatest monster live action films ever. Of course, with this huge success there came countless sequels and spin offs, all of which were disastrous.

Peter Jackson now comes back in 2005 with truly gob smacking effects, a brilliant cast but most important of all....a heart, a heart of gold.

It would be impossible to count the amount of visual effect shots in this film, but the whole point of a visual effect shot is that you DON'T notice it, and accept it as real life. You'd think that would be impossible with 25 foot tall apes rolling around with dinosaurs but once in the action, you forget that it was generated on computers, and just marvel in the sheer epicness that is Kong.

Peter Jackson has a truly recommendable cast, starting from the comic rocker Jack Black (in his best performance yet) and the always deep and thoughtful Adrien Brody. However it is from Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis that this film is such a masterpiece. Serkis plays not only the foul chef, but also the great silver-back Kong. He was put into a suit and went through months of motion capture to bring to life this computer generated giant. All this involvement means that Kong can truly interact with other objects and brings fights and brawls with dinosaurs to a frighteningly real perspective. However, it is through the connection of Naomi Watt's Ann Darrow and Kong that makes this film not a fantasy action film, but a tragic love film. Without dialogue, Kong conveys such emotions of love, anger, sadness and joy that is truly absent in most actors / actresses talents in modern film-making, when so much attention is paid to visual affects. Director Peter Jackson has not forgotten this, and uses these effects to help tell the story, knowing full well that the heart relies within acting, which must come across in a CGI ape.

Scenes that truly grasp the audience are not the action scenes (as brilliant as they may be) or cinematic backdrops but the moments between Ann and Kong. The looks they spark off in each other, the bodily movements that are made... it all makes it believable and is such a treat to watch. I'd never thought I could get emotional over watching an actress pretend she was in love with a CGI ape, but I stand corrected.

Kong has character, he isn't a mindless monkey causing chaos. He has a heart, which belongs to Ann. The ending climax on top of the Empire State building is truly heart wrenching and every bit of emotion within the audience goes into the false hope of Kong living.

Even though the audience goes into the cinema knowing what happens, that King Kong is killed, it is a once in a life time treat to forget that knowledge and to accept this as its own film, not a remake. You beg for Kong to find Ann, you beg for him to smash the planes and you beg for him to live. However, with his pupils enlarging, and his heartbeat stopping - you leave the cinema with a profound experience, never to be felt again - that this film is in it's own class. It stands up there as a classic amongst greats.

Peter Jackson, who before brought us The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, has once again done it again.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Is better and worst than the original, but still fails to transfer the "Resident Evil" franchise to the screen.

If you find my review of "Resident Evil" you will very quickly discover I didn't like it. Simply because the director took the ideas and settings of Resi, and made his own thing. Eliminating gore, suspense and horror and instead making a lame action film. This film, has more to do with the Resi franchise, but still comes across as more of an action film than a survival horror.

The film, once again, starts off well, with the threat of the virus unleashed and Racoon City being evacuated. However, after that, it goes rapidly downhill. There is actually a lack of zombies in this film (which is odd considering the city is meant to be full of them)and even when they're on screen, they're presented in a dull, laggy collage of moments which is meant to intensify their horrid appearance, but just makes them boring.

The film centres around our main protagonist (super charged naked Milla Javovich - spelling?) as she is now a super hero and is helping a group of survivors escape from the city. It is good to see some of the characters such as Carlos and Jill Valentine appear from the game but they're characters are never explored and one gets the impression they're there to look cool and kick butt instead of having actual depth. But then again, this film has no depth.

At the end of the first film, audiences were treated with the possibility for a sequel involving Nemesis (a rock hard ugly dude in leather.) In the game, he is a force to be reckoned with and is truly terrifying and screamingly brutal. In the film, he comes off VERY cheesy, he is armed to the teeth with explosives and machine guns, and seems to appear, shoot at our main female, then disappear. Very disappointing.

There are some good moments though, such as making Lickers less powerful, making for a fairly entertaining shootout in a church (that is a until an overly dramatised bike scene is introduced), and a school full of zombie children. Although both these ideas are full of potential, they're both streamlined into lame action set pieces and never used to full advantage to creep the audience out.

The ending is the worst for the entire film, in which Nemesis joins up with our heroes to fight the evil Umbrella Corporation. It must be said that these "teaming-ups by former enemies" is a horrid idea, also idealised in Aliens Versus Predator (directed by the same guy who made the first Resi film and also produced this film.)

As I stated before, this film is a lame cheesy action flick - not the survival horror it deserves to be.

For the moment, I am hoping there is not a Resi 3 in the pipeline.

Resident Evil (2002)

If you're a fan of the franchise, steer clear.

I went to the cinema having high expectations for the film. I was and still am a huge fan oft he games, especially Resi 2. I was expecting the characteristics of the game to be int he film; gore, suspense, violence, zombies and some nasty monsters. I was in for a huge disappointment...

The film starts off OK, with some unknown figure unleashing the T-Virus but then it goes circling out of control. Whereas there are some elements still retained from the game(laboratory is under a mansion outside Racoon City and is owned by Umbrella Corporation it seems that the director got bored of transferring the franchise to film, and instead made the rest up. What follows is a mindless adventure as some elite soldiers go through the underground lab to try and stop the threat of the virus. Of course, there are zombies, but the overall look of then pales in comparison to Dawn Of The Dead (2004). Whereas some of them have gruesome wounds, 80% of them are just very pale and have makeup and fake blood. Along with that, there is no suspense. And what happens is that a zombie(s)will emerge, and along with tons of shooting, rock music appears.

The big bad boy boss monster is the licker, who most Resi fans will know and appreciate as a med-i-okre monster, not too challenging. This thing however is made out to be the mother of all creations and is very disappointingly realised with bad CGI. There is no suspense here, a total lack of blood and gore, and only one monster. True fans of the Resi games will be and should be disappointed.

That said, their are a few things which raise Resi from the dead (sorry for the pun). The ending climactic train set piece is enjoyable and fast paced, and the laser hallway (imagine, 3 soldiers, trapped in a hallway, with lasers that chop things in half) is pretty neat. There's also a cool appearance by some zombie Doberman dogs, however they're quickly killed off in a silly action scene.

This film could have been so much more if the director would have ditched the possibility for "cool stunts" and gone for more style, suspense and horror. Even when the heroes are outnumbered and surrounded by zombies, you never feel as if they are in THAT much danger....when in a situation like that you should be on the edge of your seat.

For zombie lovers, there are better choices out there. George A Romero's Dead films, the remake of Dawn of The Dead (04, Saun Of The Dead and even 28 Days Later serve up better chills and scares than this med-i-okre action fest.

Last Action Hero (1993)

An incredibly underrated film

Last Action Hero has a young boy get magically transported into an action film starring non other than big-old Arnie. Although it sounds like a kids film, IT'S NOT.

This film is incredibly underrated, and for the life of me I can't see why! It's all here, action, Arnie, beautiful women, comedy, tons of inn-jokes that poke fun at the clichéd action films (especially those of Arnie and Stallone's caller). This is done with the really cheesy punchlines, over exaggerated action (which is spot on superb...eg, a villain throwing a stick of dynamite at Arnie, who shoots it, knocking it back at the guy) Plenty of in-jokes include cameos by Sharone Stone and Robert Patrick, reprising their roles from T2 and Basic Instinct. Ian Mckellen plays an interesting role as Death, and Charles Dance is excellent as what is possibly the best villain ever created.

The story is spot on superb, mixing effortlessly classy action, with comic dialogue, inn-jokes and emotional binding factors.

However as interesting as a boy taddling along with his action hero may be, it gets better once the villain escapes to the real world, in which Arnie and the boy follow. Things turn around now, as the boy is now in his element as opposed to Arnie (eg, Arnie punches in a window of a car, then complains of it hurting...he also did the same in the movie world as if it was paper) All in all, this is a fantastic film, and possible Arnie's best. Perfect blend of action, comedy, witt and depth...whom I'm sure movie-buffs to appreciate more than the casual viewer.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Superb adaption of the book.

Let me start off with stating that I am not a HP fan. I've read the books, and thought they were fairly entertaining, but nothing special, The first 2 films were adequate, but once again nothing special. I liked the 3rd film because it began to delve into a more sinister and darker tone...which I must say is the setting for this film.

Story: As most people know, Harry Potter is now back at school with friends and foes, but now had been anonymously selected to take part in a competition amongst three different schools. It's good to see that all the films have a sense of structure, starting off with harry going to school, investigation around the school and then ending with a finale and him leaving school. What I did like about this film, is how it took out Harry's Aunt and Uncle, which meant it gave extra critical time to the actual story development (which is a good thing considering the book is massively bigger compared to the other 3)

Acting: Acting wise, everyone is good, not brilliant but not under-average. It's good to see the children actors / actresses finally sink into their roles, whereas in the first 2 films (and sort of 3rd) they seemed rather hesitant at times. Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltraine and the brilliant Brendan Gleeson are all charming and bring unique qualities to their own characters.

Special Effects: Overall they were superb, the dragons, backdrops and even the little things (floating candles) were done superbly and really made u feel emerged in the fantasy world of HP.

Overall the film is excellent and well worth a watch. However, if your expecting a light-hearted and innocent trip through Hogwarts, be warned...things are a lot darker and sinister.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Not as good as I was expecting, but passable.

I thought the idea of Mr & Mrs Smith was fantastic, the two most sexiest people on the planet, together, kicking butt in a spy action film. However, when I saw it, I was disappointed. I'll start off with the good things, then move onto the bad things and then wrap up with a conclusion.

Good things: - The chemistry between Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie is red hot, they really did do a great job. - The mix of humour and action is superb and reminded me of one of my favourite action films - True Lies.

Bad things: - The action, although entertaining, contains a lot of unnecessary violence towards innocent by-standers - to which I don't particularly like. - It ends with the usual climax, however this time the action dissolving into a B-Movie where the bad guys seem to hit everything but their targets.

Overall I got the impression that this film simply was trying too hard to be the next True Lies. It had good action, great comedy and two fantastic stars - but thats it. I ended up walking away from this film thinking "was that it?" when usually i like to discuss it with family or friends.

It's recommended to rent for a Saturday night in, not recommended for a DVD collection or serious viewing.

6/10.

Doom (2005)

Better than the Resident Evil films, which ain't saying much!

I'll start off with the positive things first, as this film does have them

• The Special effects were nicely done, not groundbreaking in anyway, but I feel were used well, the creatures were kept mysteriously in the dark and the film didn't dwell on the SFX, therefore making the creatures more believable. - The concept of the FPS scene was good, even though it became quite boring (imagine watching a friend playing doom...and you get the idea). - The gore and violence was up to scratch, unlike in the Resi films. This film, although could have done more, knew the audience was expecting violence, and so they delivered. - Rosamund Pike :)

• The ending turned into a Mortal Kombat rip-off, 2 people, super powers = crappy fight sequence. - The story pretty much taking the setting of Doom and the enemies, but changing round the reasons. Instead of hell being unleashes, it is now an extra chromosome reacting negatively to test subjects, and then those subjects infecting others. - The film, although had some suspense, can't really qualify as a horror anymore than Resident Evil can classify as a classic alongside the original Night Of The Living Dead. It would have been nice if the suspense was taken a step further instead of the film seeming almost rushed to kill off its characters. - It has a very abrupt ending, it would have been nice if the ending would have been extended and fleshed out so it left the audience thinking "ok its finished" instead of "is it over?"

A History of Violence (2005)

Absolutely Thrilling!

I only saw this film about three hours ago, and immediately came on here to write a review about it....so here I go.

The story goes as a local café shop owner named Tom Stall is thrown into the headlines as a hero when he kills off two dangerous robbers. However, this way he has drawn the attention to a gangster (chillingly portrayed by Ed Harris) who believes he is another character called "Joey." What follows are some pretty intense and violent action sequences, great acting and a brilliantly evolving storyline.

The acting is superb on many levels and every actor / actress gets top marks from me. The action is short, violent and unsettling, which to me really defines the entire film...a bit short but very special. This was the only problem I found with the film, it was a tad too short and ended a bit abruptly. However, I totally forgive this....Cronenburg has done it again...like when I watched "eXistenZ", I was thoroughly gripped from start to finish.

This is a superb thriller with welcoming changes to the genre...i give it 9/10...definately recommended!

Wicker Park (2004)

A Welcome Change

Now, this isn't the type of film I would ordinarily watch. But my friend accidentally left the DVD round my house one day, and that night I decided to watch it.

I was expecting a film that would follow the cliché's....a couple, who are deeply in love, are separated by the disappearance. Then the one left goes on a mad hunt for her...probably ending with someone dieing.

However, this film is not like that at all, and is a very welcome change because of it. Too many films nowadays seem to think they have to be full of violence or shocks or death in order to entertain. We learn that Josh Hartnett's character has lost the love of his life, and although has tried to move on, he's still in love with her. Then after a fleeting glimpse of a blonde, he thinks he has found her. What follows is a mystery as he puts his career on the line to find this woman. Great performances from everyone...and a nice change to see a mystery film with no violence or deaths.

I rate 8/10.

Outbreak (1995)

Brilliant stuff!

Personally this film is in my top 10. It is a real treat of a movie to watch which not only acts as pure entertainment but also a deeply involving film which involves great performances and some real thrilling moments. It all starts with the wipe-out of an African village due to a deadly virus. However the virus is transported to the US by a small monkey which is smuggled by boat. The film then tracks along as more and more people get infected and the virus mutates making it airborne and more of a threat. "It spreads like the flu" The actors involved are Dustim Hoffman who as usual does an outstanding job. Rene Russo is used well as a love complication. Kevin Spacy is brilliant as the doctor with a sense of humour. Morgan Freeman and Donald Sutherland seem to be having fun with the material and things get interested when they clash at the end. The film, although thrilling at times (e.g a spectacular helicopter chase and an attempt to break out of the quarantined town) is extremely emotional as it does follow a few people as they are diagnosed with the virus. However, this is where the film also goes downhill a bit. We are expecting to see the chaos and mass panic of a virus infected town. However things seem abnormally calm, and I got fed up of main stars getting infected just to add to the pressure to Dustim Hoffman's character.

But overall this film is brilliant, I strongly advise everyone tries to watch this. it isn't everyone's cup of tea but is still a brilliant film which I will treasure and keep in my top 10.

Toolbox Murders (2004)

A pleasant trip back to old-school horror

Tobe Hooper is well known for his hit cult Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Whereas I did enjoy this film, I didn't think it was as good as people said it was. Everyone stated it was excessively gory and violent, however when I watched it I didn't think it was too bad. When I read reviews of this film...everyone stated how they didn't like it. Over the top violence, poor plot and lack of depth is what the critics said. When my friend brought it over I watched it and found it a pleasant surprise. It opens up with a good, solid, brutal and violent murder. What follows is a series of other deaths of tenants in an block of apartments, and one woman trying to see out what's happening. The murders are very original, and gory but I think could have been better if the director had a bigger budget = making the death scenes even worst and bumping the rating to an 18 (UK). The only thing I have against this film is that the killer isn't properly explained. He's said to have been fighting out of his dead mother and therefore being born as a part of death. This could have been explained a bit more, and the reason why he is disfigured is never explained either. The ending is a bit more to be desired as well. The police arrive, and the body is missing. Next thin you know he' jumping through a window (on the third floor) to attack the victim again, and ends up being hung outside. Again when the police arrive the body is gone..... What would have been better is if he would have won, and killed the victim in the way he tried to (sawing her in half) - but that's just my sick opinion.

Overall this film is impressive with good scares, gory deaths and a suspenseful and indulging plot. Much better than I expected and a well deserved 8/10.

Thirteen (2003)

A good film, a brilliant performance, a disturbing true story...

I was interested in seeing this film because I heard of the performance given by young Evan Rachel Wood. So when it premiered on Sky Movies, I sat down and watched it...and although I can say I didn't enjoy it...I can say that it is an excellent film.

It starts out with Evan Rachel Wood playing a thirteen year old girl who is a normal teenager who longs for the "cool & popular" friends. After becoming friends with the "hottest girl in school" played by Nikki Reed (who co-wrote the film and is the actual person who the film is based upon)she then is seduced into the world of underage sex, theft and drugs. One of the most interesting factors of the film is that as the it progresses the colour saturates and by the end it is almost purely black and white before leaping into full blown colour for the last few seconds.This is a good approach to represent the horror and the danger of her life as she leads it. Holly Hunter was nominated for an award for her performance as the hippie mother and although does an excellent job, she is shown up by young Ms Wood.

After the film ended I was left feeling quite disturbed. I had the same feeling after watching Se7en...although the film was excellent, it was not an en-joyful film. The film to me is disturbing for only one reason, it's realism. A lot of the shots seem to be done using a cam-corder and gives it a sense of a documentary, and to remember that this is a real life account of Nikki Reed's life adds more to the shock value.

I give this film 8/10, it is an excellent piece of film making that stands out with its bold performances and stylish film quality. My only real bad criticism about the film is that it seems to get carried away half way through with further min-escapades of the two teenagers running off to do obscene things. However, the film is definitely to be seen if you are looking for a solid movie...however don't expect to be enlightened if you decide to watch this on a Saturday night for sheer entertainment...it's a movie with a soul, a dark one.