Reviews

Revenge of the Sith carries a heavy burden as the pivotal film in the new trilogy, in much the same way as The Empire Strikes Back carried the central conflict of the original. It is under this weight that Lucas produces his best work of the original trilogy, but one still plagued by many of his shortcomings.

Essentially Sith is a vast improvement on the previous two films featuring far better dialogue, more character moments, and better action. It is unique amongst Star Wars films for its lack of humour, presence of complicated issues, and the minor yet graphic violence. Lucas has crafted a reasonable end to what has so far been a mediocre saga, in that sense the film is an enjoyable popcorn flick.

The tragedy of it is however the dire political sub-plots that consume a story starving for air, hacking the film into a stilted series of poorly linked exposition and meaningless battle sequences that disappointingly drive the film to its dark conclusion. Ultimately highlighting the many design flaws present since The Phantom Menace such as the lack of a consistent bad guy, or dramatic drive for our main characters.

But even if the characters had clearer motivation, there is little time devoted in Sith for any character to build a repour with the audience. Much of the film is spent on elaborate effects, shifting many of the more personal confrontations into the realm of visual ecstasy where the prevalent theory is the more amazing the better. Amongst the computer generated optical bombardment the story and drama of the event is simply lost. I yearn for more of the spectacular yet believable theatrical moments such as the speeder chase in Return of the Jedi, something last seen in any form in the Pod race from Menace.

The film does have its moments with much improved performances from Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman, who actually manage to conjure some real romantic spark in their limited time together. Its clear Hayden is much more comfortable dabbling in the fear and anger of the darker side of Anakin. Ewen McGregor and Ian McDiarmid still remain the stand-outs of the trilogy, seemingly the only two actors who had some real fun with their roles. While the casting of Samuel L. Jackson, and the host of computer generated characters like the films bad guy General Grievous, will always seem poorly planned if not a little random.

Which brings us to the moment of truth; did Lucas nail the purpose of this trilogy? Was the descent of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader all that we had hoped? In the end, it is really a question of perception, but for this reviewer, the cause of Anakin's betrayal was weak and feebly constructed. It seems disturbingly lame for Anakin to literally one moment realise the folly in his way, and then surrender to the will of the Emperor in the same breath, without even an irrational reasoning. To then march off and willingly slaughter the innocent, while still believing he is defending the Republic, is probably the most disappointing part of the film.

There is some redemption for the much anticipated turn to the dark side, when Anakin and Obi-wan face off in the inevitable duel reprised in A New Hope. It's in these last moments of the film that the new trilogy finds itself closest to capturing some of the feeling of the original. It is admirable to note that Lucas has improved as a Director in all facets, particularly in his ability to capture more genuine acting. Were he to re-attempt the prequels now he would probably be far more effective, however given his recent quotes in the press, one wonders if he really cared too much in the first place.

Revenge of the Sith still fails to answer some of the questions the saga has posed thus far, and seems to make a mockery of Lucas' own mythology, while at the same time bringing a conclusion to many things and establishing a logical link to the original trilogy. It's in that analysis that this film will probably forever remain stationary, a film that achieves quite a lot, but leaves too much under done and even absent.

It is rare you find a film that features one central character as the centre of almost every single scene, and shot for that matter that can hold your attention for any length of time...

Jack Black manages to stun the audience with a non-stop parade of over the top, almost ridiculous antics that (believe me or not) are actually very enjoyable and extremely funny! He boarders on falling flat on his face so many times in the movie, but he manages to keep it going with a sense of confidence that forces a laugh when it would otherwise have scored a chorus of moans. This film is probably a fine example of what energy and confidence can do for a performance.

It ain't all about Black however, the support cast of extremely taltented and young musicians are amazing, this film will certainly do wonders if any of them wish to explore a career in the music industry. The draw back is they aren't great actors, but they grace the screen with an honesty and some brutal raw talent that means you can't ignore them.

The plot is pretty basic and it really ain't worth talking about... Needless to say it is totally unbelievable and would in reality be very dangerous territory for anyone to explore. But that ain't the point, because the plot don't really matter! If anything this film succeeds in suspending your disbelief and allows you to be caught in the moment. A Jack Black moment yes, but a moment none the less.

For Black fans this is his best film ever, for comedy fans this is definately worth the price and for the rest... Well if you hate black, you still might like this film - A must see!

To be as blunt as the Stiffmeister: this film sucks! Attempting to bask in the glory of its first two instalments- American Wedding shows itself wanting in almost every single department. Keeping the tone going, this film is so obviously a cash cow attempting to re-create the financial success of the previous films, albeit by simply extending each character's idiosyncrasies and running jokes over enough time to classify it as a movie. Not even the cast who have returned for the third helping seem all the enthused, particularly noting that Sean William-Scott, now famous for the role of Stiffler seems content to turn the character into a caricature of itself reducing the comedy cult icon to … basically… unfunny!

But let me stay my hand for just a second, there were some surprises and a few very funny moments. But even then, the funniest of all the jokes and gags in the film seemed to receive the smallest screen time. The characters of Stiffler and Finch swap roles in the film over a girl, a sub-plot in itself that would of out-done the real plot as a single film… Instead it receives approximately 3 minutes of film and disappears into the convoluted mess.

Definitely leave this to a Saturday night video rental; maybe after a few drinks the movie may seem funnier… Perhaps that reflects the state of mind of those involved in producing this recap of what was originally some really funny stuff!

Jonathan Mostow takes over from James Cameron to release a third instalment of the post-apocalyptic man vs. machine action thriller series ‘The Terminator'. The connection between the original films is very loose and the plot holes come thick and fast, but that doesn't get in the way of a non-stop thrill ride of chills, spills and kills…

The script is nothing short of a carbon copy of film two with a little more emphasis on the action set pieces and a coating of flashback and one-line humour. This time around however Judgement Day has come and gone with no apocalypse, leaving poor John Conner (Nick Stahl) to come to grips with a life without what he has been prepared for. It is not long however before we quickly learn the machines are still out there and still very keen on killing John Conner. It seems Judgement Day was merely postponed by the events of the second film and the catch line `no fate but what we make' was really not that important because it is all going to happen anyway!

In this adventure the machines send back a Terminatrix or T-X, a female and very sexy Terminator. Unlike those before her this one seems specifically designed to please the human eye, obviously to lure sex deprived males into a false sense of security. None the less she is outstanding and despite having very little to do Kristanna Loken pulls off the seductive killing machine with a sense of freakish sadism and clinical emotional-less efficiency, ah if only all women…. *cough…

Needless to say the resistance was able to send back another T-101 or another Arnold Schwarzenegger to protect John Conner. Refreshingly there is a new and interesting twist to this journey in the time-line of the series making the sense of repetition (repeat of film two) go unnoticed at least during the course of the film. Arnold also spends the majority of his time poking fun at his character from the previous films and reprising such lines and `I'll be back' with `I'm back'.

Jumping right to the point this film is an action film, with very little time to take in the events of the first few minutes of the film the audience is rushed into the films most astounding sequence. John and his new found friend Kate Brewster (Claire Danes) find themselves being chased by four remotely controlled vehicles and a massive mobile crane driven by the T-X herself. The sequence lasts of around 15 minutes and is worth the price of admission alone as we are treated to some very daring and exciting stunts of explosions.

From here the pace never lets up as Mostow spreads out the thin serving of plot, which on the surface is very interesting but fails to live up to any deep scrutiny. One imagines James Cameron would of put more emphasis on the plot and fleshed it out a great deal more than Mostow. It seems however the emphasis on this film is action and comedy. Unfortunately for Mostow as the film progesses and the hard decisions must be made about the direction the film will take, plausibility and suspense seem to go out the window in place of pure blood-thirsty action.

Besides all this there is little more to say, the acting ability of Nick Stahl is quite adequate for the role and is Claire Danes who looks convincing as an action star. Arnold returns to what he does best and does it with flying colours, and Kristanna Loken thrusts herself onto the big screen and ultimately steels the show.

Technically the film is not as sharp as it could be and the special effects are often very noticeable. This is probably an indication of the ability of Mostow who looks promising but does not quite have the finishing touches yet. Oh and the music or soundtrack is utterly woeful and completely the opposite of atmospheric.

This finally leaves us with a little over two hours of some very entertaining and fun reels of celluloid. Certainly no thinking required, but well worth seeing it on the big screen if you love the traditional Saturday night action spectacular! (7/10)

The Matrix is nothing short of an absolute cinematic masterpiece that will re-define modern filmmaking. It is a once in a lifetime special event that nobody should miss.

The elegant combination of mystery, suspense and action with a dark religious and social under-tone combined with a genuine shock factor create a visual and intelligent tour de force of celluloid not to be missed.

The story follows a computer Nerd or hacker named Neo who seeks the answer to a question that he cannot yet comprehend. Not feeling right in the world, as if something is wrong, Neo searches for a man named Morpheus who can answer the question: "What is the Matrix?" What follows is a horrific and realistic vision of our technological futuristic hell that more than parallels our own existence.

As Neo discovers the true meaning of his question and the shocking reality of his existence we are treated to some of the most stylish and exciting action sequences ever to make it to the silver screen. It is rare that an all out action film can create and maintain a sense of intelligence and social commentary without feeling completely poxy and contrived.

Despite all its complexity, deep and meaningful parallels and the questions it raises, The Matrix can still be enjoyed and completely superficial Saturday night entertainment basis, thus making its re-watch ability extremely high.

Each and every shot, scene, musical piece, sound effect and piece of dialogue feels perfect as if someone wasted endless hours ensuring it was all perfect from vision to reality. There is hardly a fault in its complete construction, pacing, editing, cinematography or any other filmmaking aspect for that matter.

The acting is more than sufficient on the whole save for two noteworthy performances: Hugo Weaving's perfect and extremely likeable Agent Smith and the exception Laurence Fishburne's Morpheus who is almost like a religious prophet instilling a sense of faith in audience, helping us to suspend our disbelief.

Finally the special effects, which have been copied and spoofed in countless films since, will simply stun. Admittedly as the film ages, so will the effects, but at least for the time they are nothing short of amazing.

In the end the film is a rollercoaster ride of everything that is good in a film, and certainly some of its financial success must be attributed to the fact that this film was not hyped at all, in fact it almost left the cinemas before the mainstream discovered it. Warners Brother even predicted that it would fail and the first comment from critics would of indicated as such. Now it is the single biggest grossing film that Warner Brothers has ever made.

This is filmmaking at its best, and as the film races on from climax to climax and you get sucked into the fantastic world of The Matrix, we can all feel something special… Intelligent action can work – and Hollywood can make a film that does not insult you either.

5 stars! A must see film!

If one goes to ‘Chicago' expecting the ‘ol razzle dazzle, then you will get it – nothing more and nothing less. Let that be a warning too, if you are really expecting anything more than a jolly good piece of entertainment, you will simply be left wanting.

‘Chicago' does the deed as a musical adaptation, it won't ever go down as one of the greats but it can certainly hold an audience. The trouble is that the film's format leaves a great deal to be desired and the casting too may not of been, lets say based exactly on talent.

It is pretty clear from the start that this film is attempting a kind of surreal Jazz feast set in the mind of the lead character Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) who imagines reality as one giant performance. Sounds fun right? Well it can be! Some scenes from the cell block tango to We Both Reached for the Gun are quite magnificent and reason enough to justify the price of admission, but the continual excitement factor seems a little underdone.

The first half hour of the film is really underwhelming. Catherine Zeta Jones as Velma Kelly gives an average performance alongside Zellweger, one imagines they were cast as `big names' rather than for pure talent. These two do feature in the films best moments, but they are constantly upstaged by the film's other roles. Richard Gere as Billy Flynn is clearly not a great singer, but he pulls his job off to perfection in comparison to the lead women. John C. Reilly as Amos Hart steals his own lime light in patches, and at some points you even wish he could have more of it, he gives his side of the story far more emotion than any other. Besides these individual standouts, I found that most of the smaller roles felt far more in place than the stories leads.

Still as a rendition of a musical of days gone by it settles into a very 50s rhythmic style of filmmaking. After the initial hurdle and pretty much about the same time as Cell Block Tango, the film lightens up and kicks into full gear. From here on in most of the films flaws can be forgiven due to the entertainment value. Still, for some, the ending leaves more than a few things to be desired. Perhaps a little too much razzle-dazzle, and not enough of the flare that you get from the stage version.

As a film, ‘Chicago' is not better than the stage version and it does leave the audience wanting more. Not because they didn't want it to end, but because it failed to deliver. It is entertaining however and will satisfy the most.

The truth sometimes hurts ... Michael Moore's documentary ‘Bowling For Columbine' is a moving look at the culture of the United States, and what it is exactly that makes them unique in the global community when it comes to guns and murder!

As a non-American who has never been exposed to such a culture I find a great deal of the film hard to swallow, not from disbelief but simply from pure shock. I have never met, nor could I have imagined meeting some of the people in the film. I stayed in a state of shock for the majority of the picture and thankful that I live in the great country that I do. This film will not fail to spark discussion, and it will certainly not fail to move any viewer with a conscience!

More importantly however, especially in the modern global climate, Michael Moore puts forward the strongest argument against big business, corporations, media, the American government and anyone else who would follow in the steps of any of these bodies. He achieves this with a masterful blend of fact and though provoking rhetorical questions. He succeeds because he does not ram his opinion down your throat; rather he simply presents his case for your consideration.

I would go as far as to say that the film should be compulsory viewing in all places of learning. If you don't have an opinion on the current state of the world, or you think you know all the facts – this is the film that will put you back in your place.

On top of the amazing message buried in this film is a well-made film all the same. The film is a mix of vox-pop and file footage blended together with an often sarcastic or mocking soundtrack that generates a great deal of black humour. It still however manages to retain a serious dignity especially considering some of the subject matter and the images that are on screen.

There is one particular sequence similar to one out of ‘Good Morning Vietnam', set to the song `What a Wonderful World' that closes with the second plane flying into the world trade centre. It is an incredible montage of tear jerking imagery and facts that will not fail to reduce almost anyone to at least releasing a tear or two.

Your world will never be the same again… a must see!

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is without any doubt the ultimate showcase of how good cinema can get. Not only is Towers a worthy extenstion of the first instalment, Fellowship, but it is a stand alone thrill ride of cinematic genius.

Without warning, without any form of reminder or any chance of catching ones breath, Peter Jackson thrusts us right back into the world of middle-earth and right back into his daring and exciting form of film-making. Unlike most sequals (I guess you can't really call this a sequal) Towers is a completely different and unique film from the first. Towers presents a darker more unforgiving Mddle-earth and is unquestionably a war epic of truly incredible proportions.

Watching the film the energy that oozes off the screen in the extremely fast paced and action packed three hours gives you a bizz that many people would relate as the feeling they had when watching The Empire Strikes Back for the first time all those years ago. The chemistry between each character, aided undoubtedly by the first film is electric and every scene serves to advance the film in a positive and entertaining direction. One weeps at the sheer brilliance of the films complex construction and near perfect cinematic execution. This is the stuff dreams are made of, this is the stuff that shapes the way forward in the future of film.

Towers is not without flaw, with a screen time limit of three hours much of the book has been cut and changed much to the displeasure of many fans and purists. Still the film stands alone all by itself as grand cinema regardless of how prescious the book is. There are some very obvious computer aided effects, especially when watching the Ents, but these are over shadowed by the sheer joy derived form the events on screen. Peter succeeds where most special effects directors fail, he suspends disbelief so that even the most fake of creations is missed as the audience gets sucked into the events on screen. Speaking of special effects, Gollum/Smeagol will undoubtedly go down in history as the very first succesful completely computer generated characters on film. Yes he is obviously created by a computer, but he looks far better than anything else that has ever been presented and the character itself is an absolute treat and completely steels the show. The emotional high point of the film is stolen by Gollum in his two he scenes where he speaks quite disturbingly to himself as each other alter ego.

The acting is all very sifficient and definately above average for any film of this style. Special credits should go to Brad Dourif as Wormtounge who is as evil and cunning as the genius of Peters vision, Elijah as Frodo and Sean as Sam who as a pair make for a great on screen plutonic chemistry defining a lost art of male comradeship, and of course Any Serkis as Gollum.

The film is often very light hearted as John-Rhys Davis discards his sombre Dwarf character Gimli from the first film and settles in as the comic-relief, this is a sharp contrast to the films very dark themes. People die, limbs are hacked, the world falls apart around them, but all the while Peter remains focussed on the task at hand and delivers Tolkiens message with the edge that only he can.

The Films three climaxes, the Battle of Helm's Deep, the Trashing of isengard and the Siege at Osgilith would all be a single fitting end to any epic film, and then the film leaves you breathless and wanting more... Such torture - if the ending to Fellowship had you wanting more, this willhave you tearing out the seats at the cinema in riot that you have to wait another year... Still to behold the scene at Helm's Deep will be enough, no words can describe this except to say that it is the biggest most spectacular battle on screen and will not fail tpo satify.

These films are looking to be the defining trilogy of this century and are certainly groundbreaking near perfect cinema. This once weeped for a good portion of the film, I can only hope the experience is as good as that for everyone else. Peter Jackson, Heres to you and yours!

I was amongst the disappointed crowd after the first Harry Potter film, billed as the greatest film of all time it feel desperately short of the mark. Not a complete failure on all levels, and I did enjoy the first film, it was at best a well-made children's film. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets succeeds where the first did not, a children's movie that works as adult fantasy.

It is very obvious from the very start of Harry Potter that Warner Bros. and director Chris Columbus have both learnt some very valuable lessons from the first film. It is darker, scarier, it contains some real magic and it entertains both adults and children alike, it was not over hyped, it was not overdone and it did justice to the books. I must admit I was a little scared when the film opened and Dobby the house Elf made his appearance, ‘mini-Jar Jar Binks' came to mind until the character redeemed himself with the first comic relief of the film. That was basically the entire mood of the film, some scenes made you cringe at first with the stilted book like dialogue but they all tended to redeem themselves very quickly.

Like the books Columbus still takes the time to re-introduce the characters and places ever so briefly, obviously to remind our young attention less audience who is who and what is what. Some questions still remain unanswered, like why is Harry still with his awful muggle aunt and uncle, but in the end these questions are not very important to the plot, so why let little facts like this get in the way of a good story. Still we jump straight into the story of the Chamber of Secrets and the dreadful past of Hogwarts.

At some points, my friends and I looked at each other in wonder, ‘is this a kids movie' we asked ourselves as certain events unfolded on screen. Certainly some of the content is of an adult nature (nothing to with sex thank the lord) but some of the scares and some of the more harsh treatment of a few certain characters would make you think this was not intended for kids. Fortunately the children still enjoy it and these adult themes seem to only make the film tangible for adult viewers. So parents can relish in the fact that they won't be bored for the whole two hours of forty minutes.

The child actors too take a step up from the first film, all putting forth a far more mature performance than before. Daniel Radcliffe now seems quote content as Harry Potter and he loses that totally annoying cardboard cut-out style approach of the first film. Rupert Grint shows us he is in puberty with a new tone of voice in every scene os good friend Ron Weasley, and Emma Watson (II) starts to look like a young attractive star in the making as Hermione Granger. Special mention must go to Kenneth Branagh who almost steals the whole show, let alone a few scenes as Gilderoy Lockhart and Jason Isaacs and the cunningly evil Lucious Malfoy. The rest all seem to remain same as they did in the first film, with no particular standout. There is a little mellow-drama and some over acting and some would call the final sequence of the film a little over the top, but it still does not distract from an overall wonderful performance.

The special effects also have increased in quality, supposedly they only had three months to do effects on the first film and it showed, this time around they had a lot more time and they have put in a greater effort. Rumour has it that the Fellowship of the Ring served as inspiration for Columbus to become more daring in his approach to the second film and the effects he could create. He succeeds, with scenes such as the Qudditch game and the dark forest look quite impressive and energetic. The action seems to take a more prominent role in the story and the climax resembles any Hollywood action blockbuster, except with a little more intelligence and fantasy to boot. It is not all perfect, with creations such as the Phoenix being totally dissapointing and looking really out of place, but the problems are small enough that they can be overlooked. Overall this film is far more daring then the first and Columbus has visibly matured in his film making skills.

Finaly note as usual goes to the score, which was far too overwhelming in the first film. This time around it takes a back seat to the action and adds to the film instead of over taking it. I caught a glimpse of music from Attack of the Clones in the Quidditch game and if I am not mistaken a number of sequences sounded suspiciously like other John Williams scores from the past. Still it was a far more moody attempt at music, and it worked very well in this film.

In the end you have a rare thing, as sequel that is better than the first! My friends tell me the third will be even better and I am even keen to read the book first. Still this film is a darker, scarier look at the world of Harry Potter, and it should delight all audiences of all ages. 4 out of 5!

A one line review of this film would simple be `The Ring does what most scary films promise, but never deliver'. That should be enough for any scare enthusiast to justify the price of the ticket, and for the most part no one will be disappointed. I say `for the most part' because it is tough to define what is scary for everyone, and I don't deny that this film may not scare many people as easily as others. It must be said however that this film is probably one of the more successful scare flicks, in the spirit of movies like ‘The Exorcist'.

Well crafted, extremely well developed and perfectly executed this remake of the 1998 Japanese Horror film ‘Ringu' is one movie to fit into your top 10 scare flicks. Disturbing from start to end the film quite effectively leaves you writhing in your seat, grasping a loved one until its gripping conclusion without a single piece of gore at all. An art often lost on modern films and obviously inspired by the original (I have not seen the original), the subtle approach to making these kinds of films is delivered to the screen close to an eerie perfection.

The Ring is about a tape, a tape that features some rather disturbing yet very `student film' like snapshots of what can only be described as someone's nightmare. The problem is when the tape concludes, the phone rings and a voice tells you that you will die in exactly seven days. When four teenagers die, simultaneously at 10pm exactly seven days after secretly staying at a secluded cabin a reporter named Rachel, who was the mother of a boy named Aidan, who was a cousin to one of the girls decides to investigate. Partially motivated by the will of the dead girls parents to find an answer as to how their daughter's heart simply stopped, Rachel successfully finds the tape the group watched. Unfortunately for her, she watches it and to her horror she receives a phone call, she now has seven days to solve the puzzle or end up like the others. What follows is an exposition mystery about the chilling origins of the tape, and the power behind the sudden death of each viewer.

Notably, there is nothing terribly exceptional about the acting in this film, it is by no means truly award worthy. It is however extremely well suited to the film and very well executed. Naomi Watts as Rachel holds up very well as the centrepiece of the film and remains a constant link to the audience making the drama more real. Martin Hendersen as the X-Husband Noah was quite well played and David Dorfman as Aidan was not only well cast, but will most likely go on to be apart of many more films that involve a child like this (very much like the Sixth Sense).

The most notable part of this film is its visual and auditory construction, which is responsible for creating most of the tension and scares in the film. There is a great deal in the sound design that will go unnoticed by the average movie-goer, but it features some very subtle sound ranging from scratching to moans and groans and a few other twisted noises. These are woven into the films music to create a deep sense of abnormality during the films more freaky moments and mood sequences.

The visual aspects of the film are close to perfect, a delightful blend of colour that looks digitally graded as opposed to filtered. A strong cold blue dominated throughout the entire film, very rarely mixed with any warmth at all, with the exception of a few scenes. The autumn colours are used quite sharply in contrast to the cold to create another level of abnormality that accompanies the sound design and makes certain aspects of the film standout quite deliberately. From there the camera captures the direction on screen perfectly and with some very well paced editing you end up with a visual treat as much as a formidable film. Much of the story is told with the camera and most of the stories best moments come from effective use of visuals.

I am afraid now that I can't go on without spoiling the film, except to say that the climax is one of the more simplistic yet terrifying moments I have had in a cinema. To watch the packed audience all twist in their seats, gasp and groan in a sort of painful anxiety while the events unfolded on screen was just as much of a treat as the film. This film should scare or at least in the best part disturb you, but I am not promising anything as there have been the odd one or two who claim they found nothing frightening in it at all. Still, scary or not, it is one of the better made Hollywood horror films and more importantly it does not stick to the Hollywood formula not does it give us a Hollywood ending.

A film with M. Night Shyamalan as writer/director is becoming more of something to look out for. His unique style or emotional story telling places a fresh spin on the Hollywood formula films and Signs is no exception. Just like Unbreakable, which was basically a super-hero film that look nothing like a super-hero film, Signs is a war of the worlds film that looks nothing like a war of the world film. Loosely labelled a Horror movie, Signs is about a small family living on a farm that finds a crop circle in their fields. Soon after a series of events occur that changes their lives forever.

Father Graham Hess played superbly by Mel Gibson has lost his faith in God and removed himself from the church. He lives with his brother Merrill Hess, played by Joaquin Phoenix and his two children Morgan and Bo Hess, played by Rory Culkin and Abigaul Breslin respectively. The four form a unique emotional connection that centres on the tragic death of Graham's wife, which is the cause of most of the drama in the film. The course of the plot is basically Graham's journey back to faith and the belief that miracles are more than coincidence, that someone is out there helping us.

The film is also a return to the traditional edge of your seat suspense formula. You are constantly searching for answers and at time the painfully constructed tension is too much to bear. The entire film concentrates on the vulnerability of the key characters and their sometimes very close encounters. It also never forgets to humour you along the way, and the comic relief is both very funny and well constructed. In terms of rewarding you for purchasing the ticket, this film gets top marks.

Whilst all this dramatic story telling takes place, the rest of the wider world is experiencing events that equate to an alien invasion, nothing short of the original War of the Worlds, and in many ways very similar to The Day of the Triffids. One could be excused for becoming frustrated that the wider story is not being told, but that is not the point of the film and it may also be the reason critics have received the film with a mixed response. The film did enough to my mind with respects to the wider world without losing focus on the four characters and their story at home. The film is basically a domino effect, where several dominoes are established in the course of the film and they all fall over in one key moment at the end. Some found this emotional and symbolic domino effect resolution somewhat unsatisfying, but I would certainly disagree.

The film is not without flaw however, at some key moments the tension is interrupted by a lack of both physical and dramatic action. Some of the special effects towards the end of the film are questionable and you perhaps see a little too much of Shyamalan's not so little green men. Perhaps most of the film's flaws can be attributed to the fact that this is Shyamalan's first alien film.

Overall however the film is a rewarding and entertaining experience, it can frustrate those who prefer an Independence Day style production but at the end of the day that is not what the film is about. If only more films could display the level of intelligence and maturity of this film. Still it has received mixed responses and chances are you will either love it or hate it, I for one love it and will probably go and see it again.

A sequel by definition is generally not as good as the first film with few exceptions. It is no surprise a sequel of this nature has generated so much interest and box office cash, given the success of the first film. It is also no surprise that this film is extremely disappointing and fails to even move on from the first film.

You can be excused for thinking that Men In Black 2 was a repeat of the original, quite frankly the plot is almost a direct copy, change a few names, create some interesting enough new characters and you have the second film. The world of MIB is explored no further than the first film; no new technologies save for improvements on previous inventions and absolutely no new quirks or revelations that we came to enjoy in the original. The film instead spends more time expanding some of the smaller characters from the original, such as the worms and Frank the dog. They are certainly funny and enjoyable, but I can catch that stuff on Saturday morning cartoons, whereas this is a movie I have paid good money to see.

Will Smith has followed up his Oscar nominated performance in Ali with an inconsistent portrayal of Jay, a character he created so well first time around. He is totally unconvincing as a man in charge and fails to convince anyone that he has moved on or matured from before. Then when Tommy Lee Jones returns as Kay, Jay returns to the same character as he was in the original, leaving a gaping hole of inconsistency. Credit still must go to Tommy, who once again turns on his military charm and plays his role to perfection, be it one that seems impassionate.

I really don't want to get started on the plot, because despite being non-existent there are too may holes and presumptions, to list them all would take longer to read than the film itself, which is incredibly short.

Overall this is nothing more than a franchised picture designed for financial gain on the back of the original. Soon enough the public will get the picture and MIIB will slide into the halls of tragic sequels. It can be enjoyed on a purely no-brainer, superficial level and I certainly found enough humour in it to stand it, but waiting for the video may be a better option.

When you see a film based on any literature by Philip K. Dick you can rest assured it will be something worth watching. Steven Spielberg has crafted a very realistic vision of our future and the questions it may raise. He has not lost his tendency to put a positive spin on even the darkest of questions, but he manages to keep you on the edge of your seat up until the final breath.

The futuristic thriller/mystery is based on the concept of precognitive visions of the future, specifically murder. Three Twins have acquired the gift of seeing a murder before it happens allowing a controversial program called Precrime to emerge. Precrime is about to go national and has been placed under review to find any possible flaws in the system. Tom Cruise plays Chief Detective John Anderton, who is caught up in a conspiracy to ensure that Precrime fails, however all is not what it seems. John sees a vision supplied by the twins of himself killing a man he does not know, it is now a race against time for John to find out what is really going on before Precrime catch up with him and put him away.

The film is perfect in its conception, exploring futuristic law enforcement techniques, weapons, entertainment, modes of transportations and possible moral dilemmas. It puts a spin on the innocent until proven guilty principal and the criminal is arrested before they even commit the crime and even become a criminal. It asks the big question, "Just because you believe something is going to happen and you stop it, would it of really happened?' Even better than that is the film actually answers the question and doesn't leave you hanging.

It is also a perfect example of how well computer technology can enhance a production. The special effects are only evident because you know technology like that does not exist; however the image itself is flawless and very real. The "Think Tank" behind this production must of spent a great deal of time coming up with plausible technology and realistic effects to make the production seem that much more real. Ultimately it works and the film looks and feels like a possible future.

Unfortunately the film has no great standout performances and Tom Cruise is his normal self (same as always), but everything is very sold and certainly makes the pass mark. There are also a number of questions about certain details in the film, like why are the prisoners held in the manner that they are? It seems in a film about moral questions, some of the details are important, but they receive nothing in the script. It does however not seem to matter in the end.

This film is another Spielberg masterpiece and will not fail to entertain most tastes. It would of been nice to have a darker and thought provoking ending, but the film still works. 8/10!

We moan and groan year in year out at the tripe Hollywood peddle the masses in their supermarket cinemas, and we have every reason to. But it is when they get their Mainstream formula right that they deserve credit, and I for one will pay it when it is due. "Spider-Man" is the Comic Book, Hollywood formula film reality that entertains right to the last frame. Only when the formula works this well can we ignore the often cliché script and unoriginal filmmaking. "Spider-Man" truly is a Saturday Night joy ride that does not fail to deliver.

The standard hero formula of Romance, Action, Good vs. Evil, Dark side/Good side gets a good work-out here and unlike the recent "Star Wars Ep2: Attack of the Clones", this film pulls it off with flying colours. Each aspect of the film receives its due and none of it over-powers the show. Now the draw back here is there is nothing original, and if you're a fan of the comic book then you would of read this script before. It is admittedly a no-brainer and to some that is offensive, but if your out to enjoy something without using your noggin' then this film is definitely for you!

It is good to see Comic Book converts receiving the respect they deserve and the film will not disappoint long time fans of "Spider-Man". The film is well described as a motion picture comic and is structured in the exact way any off the shelf comic would be. This of course has led to some rather static and short sequences that are often a thorn in an otherwise well structured film. Some sequences are so short that you would question their relevance. However it is all a sideshow and does not damage the film's entertainment value.

One of the major reasons this film hits its formula bliss is the superb performance of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin. Tobey is a perfect and shy Peter Parker whilst still a perfect Spider-Man, he has an honesty in his performance that drives the audience to like him both as the character and the actor. All the while Willem Dafoe sizzles as the villain and ultimately steels the show; He is scarier without the mask and manages to bring a touch of darkness to a bright green character on a flying board. There is no room for awards here but the job is done and done very well.

The Special effects also get top score as the men at the helm have given reality the driving seat and slotted the computer generation in the make-up department. This movie is a classic example of how special effects can be used to add to a production, to make the final gloss rather than become the whole production, as is generally the case. Digital effects still have a long way to come and this film certainly pushed the limits, but it did not cross them and as a result has retained a sense of believability. There are moment s however where the film ruins its own suspended disbelief, mainly in the form of some of the Green Goblins toys, but it is again not enough to disrupt the film as a whole.

At the end of it all you have both a rather average film and a perfect entertainment package… The question is what your in the mood for? I will certainly add this to my collection for those times when I wish to escape and be entertained and it is for those moments this film is absolutely perfect.

8/10

A film like "The Mothman Phrophecies" is often a very risky endeavour - to re-create events from a string of police reports and rumour is not often the best basis for a film. Like many who have gone before "Mothman" offers nothing new to its thriller/horror genre and certainly comes up short in terms of telling a story.

The movie is literally a series of events, one after the other that have some kind of intangable relevance that often appear on the surface to be totally unrelated. Whilst causing some honestly intruiging moments and some rather ingeniously generated suspense it often becomes confusing and your left asking "What does this have to do with it". When you trace the events of the film back in your head the plot becomes as intangable as the concept of the Mothmen explained midway through the film.

Aside from the often pointless script and resulting confusion the film is well shot and constructed and clever in its presentation of suspense. You are concerned for the characters on screen and there are some genuinely freaky elements to the production. If anything this film is a pre-cursor to some freakish nightmare you are going to experience not long after going to sleep that night after seeing it. It is also as unexplainable as any nightmare you could have.

It really is at the end of the day another film in a long list of "true event" thirllers and it is an average one at that. Your left with too many questions and not enough answers.

The big question on everyone's lips is could George return from the immature `Phantom' to the traditional and powerful space opera the world had fallen in love with. The short answer is no, `Attack of the Clones' does not live in the shadow of Episode 1, but it fails to deliver. It is basically a children's film and it will most likely please in that respect, but to the more mature moviegoer, it will leave you wholly unsatisfied.

Cutting to the chase the overall basic plot is actually pretty good and `cool' in a fan sense, but the dialogue and attention to detail is completely pathetic. I moaned and groaned with every word during the love sequences between Anakin and Padme, which resulted in a totally unbelievable love between the two characters. Several scenes could have been cut without any trouble and several others shortened, Lucas seems to have devoted his screen time to the useless and left the key dramatic scenes to your own imagination. There is a sequence towards the end of the film where Anakin descends into a mad rage, it is probably the height of the films emotion and could of saved it except the scene only received a mere minute of screen time.

Which brings me to the screenplay, probably the films worst aspect. George is a visual storyteller and even in `Phantom' his skills in this area were very evident. This time round however there is almost nothing notable about the film as a visual entity. A highflying chase sequence at the start of the film and a few small scenes shoved in here and there satisfy in terms of visual appeal, but overall the scene construction is very poor. There is also nothing notable about the cinematography, which must have been a lost art on this film. It is very hard to do this job when the majority of the actors and sets are placed in the scene after shooting. Several individual shots were so awful that they alone interrupted the flow of the film and distracted my attention.

To top it all off the Direction was again, like `Phantom' completely non-existent. There is nothing to suggest that George has done anything more than tell his actors to stand in front of the camera and read the cue cards. The characters were already life-less in the script, but good direction can save them, the actors do a commendable job trying to bring life to them but ultimately George does not seem to have put in an effort. Obi-Wan and C-3PO steal the film and are reminders of what we loved about the original trilogy, Anakin too gives us a great scene when he reveals to Padme that he slaughtered the Sand People, overall however it is far too little to save the film.

As usual the visual effects are pretty good, however the film feels far less `real' than the original trilogy. Digital technology still has a long way to go before it can ultimately suspend disbelief. My major problem in this area would have to be that natural motion of living animals and humans is still not convincing in digital form and distracts from the action on screen.

My final thought is again on the films construction, which overall skips all the build-up, all the dramatic tension and jumps straight to the action. Unfortunately for George, half the fun is getting there and when the battle sequence suddenly happened at the end of the film, there was no feeling, emotion or tension to release. I was never breathing heavily, gripping my seat, gasping, feeling the force at all and it left me completely unsatisfied. I am sure the "fans" will love it, although I honestly used to be one until now. It is clear George is betting on the "fans" forking out for the new film and all its merchandise out of pure religious devotion, and he is probably on the money or rolling in it for that matter. I doubt we will ever get another `Star Wars', but God how we all want one!

Whilst `Phantom' is a rather reasonable Hollywood Blockbuster and a good film in its own right, as an episode in the Star Wars Saga it really does not live up to the reputation.

What makes a Star Wars movie great? It is nothing less than its characters and ideas! Darth Vadar, Han Solo and Yoda are all household names and the average person is easily captivated by their presence on screen, and the concept of the force could almost be considered a real-life cult. The parallels to be drawn between a world war 2 bombing run and the trench run on the Death Star made the fantastical world seem so real. The original trilogy was the be all and end all of great Saturday night entertainment.

So why does `Phantom' fail? To begin with, Darth Maul has nowhere near the presence of Darth Vadar and the young emperor seems less foreboding. The hero is an annoying ten-year-old boy and the dialogue seems rather out of place in many situations. The love angle between Amidala and Anakin is amateur in comparison to the tension between Han and Lea and it is also rather abrupt and unbelievable. The standout point would have to be Jar Jar who is no Chewbacca. It appears the creation of Jar Jar was motivated more towards a cheap laugh and appeal to small children rather than a valuable asset in the story.

It just doesn't have the aura of the first films, plain and simple. The Characters are far too life-less and cheap, the situations are far more one-dimensional and forced and the dialogue takes itself way too seriously. Oh and on a side note, the ‘massive' battle between toward the end of the film is a big let down.

However to be fair `Phantom' does have a few moments when the Star Wars thrill comes out to shine. Namely the Pod Race, which like the trench run on the Death Star can be paralleled to a real world phenomenon. The Jedi battle at the end is also another highlight and one of the better sword fights to grace the silver screen.

Overall however the film lets the Star Wars reputation down, without being totally wiped out. It is a certainly not a bad film, it just had too much to live up to. I did enjoy it, I just wish wish wish… My suggestion is to make up your own mind, Star Wars fan or not.

Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have delivered what ‘Hollywood' stuggles with mosy: A Massively Hyped, expensive, special effects blackuster that is actually good. There is no doubt that Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is something special and despite an approximate 8% thumbs down from reviewers, it is a great cinematic achievement. The many aspects of the film each deserve mention and will receive their due in this review. They are: Acting, direction, design, music, effects and finally story.

The most striking thing about the acting is that each actor is perfect suited to their role. Special metion must go to Ian Mckellan as the delightful, strong yet sometimes comedic Gandalf, Elijah Wood as the wide-eyed innocent Frodo Baggins and Sean Bean as the embodiement of human corruption names Boromir. the two most emotional scenes and of course the movies two dramatic climaxes all feature these three actors in full swing.

Peter Jackson has turned the unfimable into a worth while Epic, and of course this film is only one third of the story. The vision required to take the written word of Tolkien and turn it into a motion picture is extraordinay and Peter delivers an almost flawless adaption. The detail the film explores and captures is a sign of the effort he has put in and it is nothing short of an award nomination at the very least.

The design too is also worthy of an award, design being everything from costumes to sets to makeup. They are grand in scale and true to what Tolkien had originally produced for the look of Middle-earth. The very artists Tolkien used to create his pictures were employed by the film to draw most of the conceptual design. Whilst being ever-present and enormous in scale, none of this distracted from the on screen story playing out.

It was not until after the film when the voice of Enya sang out that I realised the film had a score. Sure it wasn't anything like John Williams Star Wars, but a score like that would of spoiled this film. It had no need for grand and recognisable music with most of the key scenes much better in without any music at all. The dramatic and physical action at play here was more than enough to increase tension without any extra music. The best mention I can give John Howe is he succesfulyl created a dark and haunting mood when the film needed it most, and that I believe is the best thing they could of done.

What has received the most mixed reviews is the special effects and quite frankly I don't see what the fuss is all about. It is a movie, not real life and a movie like this needs lots of effects to make it work. Distracting or not you cannot argue they were poor. You can make up your own mind but speaking as a man in the effects industry I don't see how you could bad mouth these effects. The most powerful effect and probably the most misunderstood is the post-production colour treatment the film received. Every scene was deliberately `re-coloured' in an attempt to give the film that other-world effect. This adds a distinct feel to each location and at times creates extra emotional effects on screen.

Finally the story which can be broken up into 6 basic parts: The Beginning, the Ringwraiths, Rivendell, Caradhras/Moria, Lorien and Amon Hen. The beginning was simply put was superb despite the fact I would of enjoyed a longer Battle that appeared to be a victim of time in an already long film. The Shire is perfect, the acting perfect and the story is clearly developed from the very first frame. In my opinion there is no better beginning a film maker could hope for.

The Ringwraiths which covers everything from the East Road until the Ford appears to be the section suffering most from cut scenes. I know there are more scenes coming for the DVD and to me this section is slightly dis-jointed and plays out a little too fast. Once again a victim of time. None the less the Ringwraiths themselves are very terrifying and succesfully create tension all by themselves. The movie then slows down a bit as we hit Rivendell which is clearly the most beautiful mocation in the film. The love story recieves its due here and despite is lack of screen time it still manages a small tear. The Fellowship is formed in a wonderul scene featuring a tormented Frodo and the story is set on a pedastal ready for the beating.

We then move to Caradhras and Moria which contain the central action of the story. Whilst I have some qualms about the editing during the Caradhras sequnce it is still none the less a joy to watch. Moria however suffers from no flaw. A perfect ride through the dwarven mines pursued by ugly Orces, An amazing Troll, and the awesome Balrog. This scene alone is a great reason to watch the film.

Next to Lorien which is the most heavily cut sequence in the film. Several shots from the trailers are not here and the book is far longer than the movie with regards to this section. The essence is kept and whilst short is still effective. You could argue it is the most uneceesary scene in the film and should be cut but for fans of the book it is quite a treat. Perhaps the best purpose this scene serves is as another break before the final action arrives. Finally then to Amon hen and the most powerful scenes in the film. Without spoiling anything it you are not in tears by the end you have missed the point of the film. Frodo standing at the river edge, ring is hand in tears has to be the most powerful single shot of the entire epic.

All in all this film is well worth seeing and is nothing short of amazing. It does have its critics, but I am yet to here a good enough argument as to why this movie is not good. This film deserves a place amongst the best of all time and is definately now my favourite. I ask you to see it and make up your own mind, but at least go in with an open mind...

You will certainly have your own opinion of this movie, and if you

have not seen it yet then I suggest doing so and forming your own

opinion.

When we consider the original text, its vivid imagination and awful

writing style you would think there is no way it could ever be turned

into a film. This effort by Peter Jackson is probably the best we will

ever get and that is something a few people around town need to

come to terms with. It is a great achievement and it is a great film...

The problem is it is in a world of its own and cannot be compared

to anything else.

Firstly it is one story, not three, so yes this movie has no ending:

please wait two more years for the ending and I promise you will

like it.

Secondly: t is three hours so go home all you who complain the y

should not of cut scenes from the book.

Thirdly: It has to appeal to all audiences and there is not enough

time to do the battle sequences and characters all in one. I think

the balance is good but sometimes the action is longer: I like

good action and this is good action. You can't have both but I think

this is the best you'll ever get so stop whinging.

Fourthly: This movie is not handed to you on a silver platter! Unlike

movies like Star Wars the age group for this film starts about 15 or

so and that is only for the intelligent ones. Star Wars is for ages 2

and up. This film is intelligent beyond the average joe... the action

is in there to make up for that. So if you complain about no story or

characters and so forth maybe you should use your noggin and

watch for what I call subtlety... Although it is proven entire cultures

fail to graps that concept.

Finally: This is a new groundbreaking film that is on 1/3 of a whole

story. Live with that and live with the fact that the fantasy genre now

has a flag ship. We will see if it stands the test of time but if I hear

one more person ridicule its basic shortcomings that should be

better and are present in all mainstream cinema I will scream.

People should learn that mainstream cinema is basically drivel.

Well I got it out. I say get off the films back and enjoy it. It is far

superior to almost anything you could think of. I rate this next to

The Shawshank Redemption as my best films. And that is what

they are MY best films...

As recent cinema history records, films with large budgets and enormous hype are often duds in disguise. The Hollywood institution has become tedious and outdated providing little of the experience a cinema is designed to give. On rare occasions however, a cord of excellence is struck and cinematic bliss is attained in a rare glimpse of motion picture heaven. This cord rings out beautifully in the first instalment of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring. An unearthly tour de force of celluloid that rivals the greatest films of all time, Fellowship is without a doubt a cinematic event that like many films before will define a new generation.

Fellowship is an enormous three-hour Epic introduction into the world of Middle-earth, Hobbits, Wizards and one tiny Ring. Through events that span a long history of Middle-earth spelled out in an opening featuring the most incredible battle sequence to date, a Hobbit by the name of Frodo Baggins played by Elijah Wood comes into possession of a golden ring. When his long term friend and Wizard Gandlaf the Grey played by Sir Ian McKellan discovers that this Ring is in fact the key to all evil in the land Frodo's world is turned upside down. Frodo is now forced to quest deep into the territory of the Enemy to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it.

The passion with which this film has been made with oozes from the screen, the blood, sweat and tears are evident in almost all aspects of the production. Firstly Director Peter Jackson has done a superb job in bringing the original novel to the screen, daring to make changes and ultimately enhancing the story for the new format. It can easily be argued the film is in many ways superior to the original source material. The Cinematography is flawless using the natural beauty of New Zealand as well as the modern marvel of computer-generated images. The camera takes you deep into Middle-earth capturing the sights and sounds of the story in a unique and exciting fashion that requires many viewings to appreciate completely.

To say the acting was superb is simply an understatement, there is absolutely no acting they truly are those characters in flesh and blood on the screen. All the cast deserve a mention for their extraordinary effort but in particular Sir Ian McKellan for Gandalf who has now redefined the standard for a `brilliant' performance. The depth of these characters is enough to supplement the limited time given to the their development and introduction. I would imagine another hour or so of screen time could be added just for each character to be given a better introduction, Alas another hour is a bit much.

The other aspect worth special mention is the special effects, which make Star Wars look like an episode of Farscape. The sheer complexity of each sequence is a massive undertaking for any effects company and would certainly provide a great deal of room for error. Surprisingly enough the finished screen product is flawless. The Cave Troll and Balrog in the Mines of Moria sequence are beyond doubt the most convincing creations on film to date. Alongside the incredible detail of the massive Battle sequences and armies this film is a visual candy bar of computer-generated sights to dazzle anyone of all ages.

The phenomenal Fellowship is also and most importantly a film that does respect its audience with a level must more suited to an adult than a child. Certainly children will enjoy the saga for the sights and sounds it offers, but many themes and sub-texts will go unnoticed. Our heroes are not all heroic and each share a common theme of human corruption. You can relate to all the characters deeply and without difficulty fully aware of the internal conflicts and feelings playing out on the screen. The Film is also much more violent than the rating it has received may suggest, parental supervision is truly highly recommended.

To me this film is a prime example of what cinema is capable of and reminds us all of why we make that sometimes expensive trip to the local theatre. Without a doubt this film will cement itself in the annals of history and forever be known as a landmark in cinema. The world can only wait in anticipation for the second and final instalment of what promises to be a rewarding and emotion filled saga.

Unless you're still too young to earn your own income chances are this movie will not sweep you off your feet and give you the experience the hype has been promising. That is not to say you won't enjoy the film, far from it! With some brilliant acting and a very original plot you can certainly expect to be entertained. However with the lack of some genuine fear and feeling for the characters on screen the promise of `the best movie ever' is a little off the mark.

Creating the atmosphere that sucks an audience into a story is arguably what Hollywood struggles with most and this film is no exception. Despite the strong performance of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) and friends Rupert Grint (Ronald 'Ron' Weasley ) and Emma Watson(Hermione Granger), the fact the film is aimed at children creates a distinct lack of emotional involvement we are used to in some of the better pieces of recent cinema. Harry's encounter with the snake at the beginning of the movie sums up the emotional level the film is aimed at.

The support cast is perhaps more relevant to older audiences and definitely provides the best moments in the film. Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman steel the show in with some authentic acting that makes the world of Harry seem much more real than the special effects make you feel. Coltrane provides most of the comedy relief and does so with the same line on a number of occasions.

The Special effects, whilst grand and definitely not cheap tend to overshadow a story that is beyond the need for extravagant computer generated effects. Besides the game of Quidditch, the Troll, and Fluffy, there were only minor requirements for the computer. Unfortunately there were a number of visually obvious computer additions that likened the awful Jar Jar Binks of Star Wars.

The films strength however lies in the story line. Whilst some scenes may seem oddly familiar to those well versed in Fantasy and Science Fiction, for the rest of us `main-stream' folk the world of Harry Potter is a fresh sight. Without a clear beginning, middle, or end, the story instead builds from the basic premise that Harry is something special. With no strong and outward villain for most of the film the pace and motivation of the story surprisingly held together quite well and is nothing but a huge testament to the abilities of the books author J.K. Rowling.

A novel to film adaptation is and always will be an immense task, particularly when the novel has a following most authors can only dream about. What would make it even harder is the promise to keep true to the written word, which is exactly what director Christopher Columbus swore to do. The finished product, whilst a breath of fresh cinema, ultimately fails to deliver much more then another Children's holiday adventure.

One normally does not expect much from a Stallone film, this one actually delivers more than a few suprising moments. Firstly you have to realise this is a racing film, an average one at that, so if you don't like racing perhaps this is not your cup of tea, but other aspects make it worth a look.

I never thought a film written by Stallone could have a few original interpretations of the old sports rival story. For starters, the tradition bad guy is not a bad guy, he even ends up getting the girl. The good guy is at some points more of a litte brat than anything else, and the wise man (Stallone himself) is actually just a good bloke who really does have something good to say. Overall the characters and their interactions is above average for these kinds of average stylish action films... and stylish it is.

The camera work in parts is original and fresh, the use of computer generated images was worth a shot but it is by no mean refined. Some of the action works quite well whilst the rest ends up a little over the top. The fast paced film gives you no chance to slow down and this helps in making you feel the pressure the young rookie is feeling. There is also one aspect that I call tunnel vision (block everything out) that looks good and has some hidden "real life" implications, which if you want to find, they are hidden quite well by stallone through many sub-texts.

The film, like all of these films, falls down about two thirds of the way through. The car chase in the city is what lost it, followed shortly by a massively overdone car crash and then followed by the final race with at times felt too "created". Then the end was a little dissapointing too, suddenly in one frame the entire cast becomes enlightend and everyone is happy! BORING! we all know real life is not so!

Overall this film is worth a look if you truly do not want to have a burden placed on your mind, it is fast, neat and at time very good but it won't overload your system with anything besides entertainment. If your in the mood for an action film with a bit of s difference, than Stallones effort is worth a look!

Given most of the films released during this period have consisted of fantastic cinematography and special effects but have by no means had a script worth much at all, "A Knight's Tale" is a refreshing break.

The film is by no means fantastic and along with its many strengths is coupled with just as many flaws. However it does succeed in dusguising those many flaws with a very intelligent, witty, fun, un-complex and suprisingly emotional script. When the film opens to the soundtrack of "We Will Rock You" by Queen one can be excused for thinking they walked into a B-Grade film, however this unsightly blemish at the beginning of the film is a forgiveable attempt at modernisation given the scenes that follow directly. Besides the poor musical opening it still manages to suck you into the story of a servant boy with fantastical asperations to be a knight. Although perhaps I would of appreciated a proper score instead of modern songs sampled throughout.

The characters are relationship based and hold up very well when interacting with each other. however when each characters makes personal descisions they seem to lose continuity. William is highly motivated to make money by winning tournaments but somewhere along the line he becomes very selfish and that does not suit the character that had been developed from the start. None the less I am being very picky and certainly these characters hold up better than most anything seen this year!

The subtle approach of the script really gave the "love" angle of the story all the base it needed to develop into a good level of anxeity for the viewing audience. Not knowing exactly how these characters operated together and given the many small but interesting interactions they had left enough room for ambiguity in thinking about what would happen next. Whilst still predictable the story managed to make you think about what was happening right there and then rather than waiting for the ineviatable. A trait most films often lack and consequently cause people to be unimpressed with storyline developments. Instead this film whilst being no different to most universal plots was alot more satisfying.

As for the action, all I wanted to do was go and joust after watching this film! Not only was it accurate but it managed to modernize the sport without being corny, unlike the musical opening to the film. We had everything from tactics to light weight armour, from qualifying rounds to the World Championships. The sport back then was truly not executed in the same vain as the film implies but the modernisation allows us to be more comfortable with the events taking place and hence provides even more satisfaction. Besides there is nothing more exciting than watching two men belt each other! At least this time sword fighting was portrayed very accurately!

Overall the film succeeded in providing a simple story of a servant turned night with everything from action to romance without losing any self respect. Hollywood can learn from the intelligence of this film, that special effects and expensive cinematography are not the most paramount elements of a film. This film may not rock you, but you will enjoy it!