Reviews

6 year olds, 85 year olds, geography teachers, members of the Royal Family, tramps, beggars, millionaires, everyone. Everyone knows Tom and Jerry. Everyone. It is a rare phenomenon. Wonderfully drawn, fantastic music effects, side-splittingly funny. Something so popular, there were attempts to ban it, at one point. How did they make it so good?

I'm going to put a lot of the credit at Fred Quimby's door, and give kudos to Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera as well. Every good Tom and Jerry cartoon had 'Produced by Fred Quimby' somewhere in the credits. The brief bit of trivia on him says that he was despised by Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera, and he constantly got into arguments with them. All I can say is, whatever he did, however he got those cartoons produced, he did it perfectly, because every single one of them is well above average, and has more than a fair share of laughs.

After Quimby, the cartoons that were both produced and directed by Hanna Barbera were also of an excellent standard, although subsequent producers, particularly Chuck Jones, did the name of Tom and Jerry no good at all. When you think of Tom and Jerry, Fred Quimby's name on it is the seal of approval.

As far as the animation goes, the expressions in particular were just exquisite, and frequently were they the source of the many laughs that each and every episode contained. The way they could suddenly change. When Tom is conducting, watch for the part when Jerry keeps tugging at his tuxedo, and pleading with him. The urge was fortunately resisted to give Tom and Jerry proper, full-time speaking voices throughout Quimby's days in charge, instead just letting either character speak when it suited the part.

Up to a few weeks ago, I'd known Tom and Jerry as something to watch if it came on, because it was reasonably funny. But when I visited America recently, and watched Tom and Jerry for a full hour on the Cartoon Network every day, I realised just how good it was. The two best Tom and Jerry cartoons are 'Hollywood Bowl', and 'Cat Concerto'. They are the best cartoons in the Tom and Jerry range and considering all of Quimby's were excellent, that really is saying something.

How exactly it is that a cat and mouse who hate each other, and spend most of their lives trying to kill each other, stayed so successful, and NEVER lost ANY of the humour under Quimby, I will never fully know, and I think MGM may have pondered on it themselves (look for the episode 'Life with Tom'). The facts are: Tom and Jerry was started over 60 years ago, and Quimby's last was made in 1955. There were attempts to ban it, thanks to a woman named Mary Whitehouse, but she is dead, and Tom and Jerry lives on, as well known as it ever was. All that remains is for me to say good riddance to Whitehouse, and long live Tom and Jerry!

Hidden at the back of a lot of more recent titles, the title 'The Limey' caught my eye. A look at the box told me everything I thought I was going to need to know; a guy kills lots of Americans as vengeance for his daughter's death, the twist to this guy being that he's British. Probably a 6 out of 10 type thing. I was proved very wrong.

What I got is an intelligent, well made, well acted film. I thought Terrance Stamp was perfectly cast as Wilson; I know there's been a lot of people complain that he wasn't a very accurate portrayal of a Londoner. Personally, I didn't think there was anything wrong (compared to the laughable efforts I've seen before, I thought he did very well), but then again, when has anyone ever known an American director to accurately portray a British person? As I say, I thought Soderbergh and Stamp did it very well, but prior to this, everything from The Simpsons to Independance Day has portrayed the British as being royals who live on an island so tiny they must all know each other. So there have been worse.

Frankly, I haven't any idea why the scenes kept flashing back and forward, but whatever the reason was, Soderbergh pulled it off brilliantly. (Only complaint being that it became less apparent as the film went on, had he kept it up, it would have made it more powerful still.) He and Peter Fonda also created a very interesting villain in Terry Valentine. In contrast to Wilson's anti-hero, you can really see how un-stereotypical Valentine was. He got someone else to do his dirty-work, he often needlessly panicked, he didn't seem in the slightest bit vicious, yet you'd want to hit him really hard within seconds of meeting him.

My compliments to Lesley Ann Warren, Luis Guzmán and Barry Newman, they all did their jobs text-book perfectly. The action scenes weren't overdone either. Frankly considering the hype, they could have been a little more brutal, but they didn't come every five minutes as I expected. The brief car-chase bit is great.

9/10 - I expected a knock-about actioner, I got an intelligent well-made film. My congratulations to Mr Soderbergh.

This film never really stood a chance. I taped it after reading in the TV guide that it was a 'tasteless low budget gore-fest, with a very high body count'. My reaction to this was 'So?'

If you watch this and don't expect it to be nasty, then you'll probably focus on the gore and nothing else, like Larry Drake's fine performance for example. He was very creepy as the doctor, and I found his one-liners amusing, for the most part. Maybe the amusing ways in which he killed his victims made me laugh to begin with, and the one-liners just added to the effect afterwards.

The rest isn't all that great. Reasonable performances mostly, though the story was very predictable. We've all seen it before, and yes, we all know that a lot of extras are going to be killed before we get to a confrontation at the end. Maybe in 1992, this storyline hadn't been seen as much.

Gore-hounds will absolutely love this (I know because I'm one of them). Quite honestly, I was surprised, no, make that astonished at some of the gore levels this went to, without cuts. I expected it to be gory, but the scene documenting baby Evan's escape was unbelievable.

All in all, a reasonable horror flick. A lot of films like this tend to have characters commentating on their own actions, but this was avoided here. It's not great, but as a horror, it certainly isn't bad either.

6/10 - Just avoid it if you don't like blood, gore and horror.

Absolutely awful sequel to Children of the Corn, which wasn't a great movie itself. I have no idea what tempted me into buying this tosh, I think it was a £4.99 online deal, plus I'm the sort of person always interested by the sequels, even if I thought the first movie was terrible.

It's actually a mixture of things which make this so bad. The first is that you could read the back of the box, skip straight to the ending, and still have quite a good idea of what happened. A film with a lot of characters can be done of they're all developed properly (Needful Things for instance) but that wasn't the case here. You witness about five or six quite gruesome murders, then a few more are killed in a fire, and apparently after that, 'all the adults are gone.'

The main problem is that the film lingers about for ages and ages, then the whole conclusion is about fifteen minutes long. The script isn't really that great either, although there are one or two good moments in it (the Indian's quotes followed by his explanation, for instance). For example, after the first death of the old woman, when the other old woman approaches and suddenly proclaims 'She's my sister!' you can't help putting your head down, closing your eyes and cringing. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean.

The acting was..... so-so. I think Ned Romero was probably the best, and the fact that he was playing an essentially needless character shows how well he must have done. Paul Scherrer, Terence Knox and Christie Clark all seemed natural enough, but Ryan Bollman was perfectly awful as Micah. He looked like he was trying far too hard, and the end result was a very shaky character who looked like he was having a nervous breakdown. The other children weren't a lot better (Was his name Mortachai? I have seldom seen worse).

On the plus side, the film was quite disturbing in places, which is the next best thing if it doesn't manage scary. The fire death scene was quite disturbing (watching people die slowly often is) as was watching the children kill the guy who'd been so nice to them as he examined them....

But that's about it. There was some ridiculous sub-plot as well, but I'm not even going to take the trouble to mention it.

2/10

The worst thing is, I'll probably still watch the third one....

I first broke into the Harry Palmer series when I thought Midnight in St. Petersburg sounded like a good film in the TV guide, and it had Michael Caine in it. Since then (realising there was more of it)I've become quite a fan of the series, not really minding if it was the vintage 60s or the modern 90s.

Bullet to Beijing was the fourth film out of the five that I've seen (I've yet to see the somewhat rare Billion Dollar Brain) and I thought it was a good film, certainly worthy of at least a 6.5 rating on IMDB. I know fans of the vintage 60s were somewhat opposed to this even being made, because it was obviously not going to be as good as The Ipcress File.

And it's not. The Ipcress File is still the best of Harry Palmer, but I thought this was the second best of the series. I found Funeral in Berlin to be mind-numbingly tedious, and Midnight in St. Petersburg didn't quite live up to this one.

First thing, I'm going to address a few issues regarding plot holes or continuity. Make no mistake, this is one of those films you'll probably have to watch twice or even three times to fully comprehend all that's going on. You have to concentrate on it, you can't watch it and talk on the phone at the same time. So most plot holes are probably down to something the viewer missed (I certainly thought that the first time I watched it).

This certainly isn't vintage Palmer, and I give it credit for not trying to be. Palmer is on the verge of retirement anyway, and so he's not going to be as quick or sharp as he once was (at least they didn't try and pretend he was still young!). Even so, he's still somewhat quick-witted and amusing, the milk in the tea joke being my favourite. He doesn't run from danger, something present in all the movies, even when he's being followed by the mafia, he's fairly daring once he's got away from them.

As for the film itself, it's very fast-moving and fluid. There are a LOT of twists and turns in the plot, but I like the fact that's it's all within the time limit of the train arriving in Beijing, who's going to make it there etc. The trouble with something like the Ipcress File was the amount of free time Palmer had, and so it would sometimes seemingly stand still, whereas the train journey here gave it an edge.

That's my humble opinion anyway, maybe I'm just uncultured. This certainly doesn't have the class of the 60s, but it makes up for it with the action, humour and plot-twists.

8.5/10

Incidentally, if you can get hold of it, there's a special edition DVD where Sue Lloyd has a slightly bigger role than a voice on the telephone.

Sorry, but it really ISN'T as good a film as it's been made out to be. After seeing it shoot straight to the top of the IMDB charts, my immediate thought was that fans of Tolkien (or should that be zealots of Tolkien?) had already made up their minds to vote 10 out of 10 before they'd even seen the film. I was challenged by many people on this point, and having seen the film myself, I now know that I was right.

I can't say it enough, it simply isn't that good. At three hours, I found myself dozing off a number of times, and having to bring myself back to watching the film. The characters themselves were a mixed bag. Aside from some of the earliest scenes involving Frodo, Gandalf and Bilbo, those three did very well. Some of the comments on here seem to make them out to be gods, which isn't right, but they were definitely well above average. The other characters, aside from Samwise, were really not as good. They were so underdeveloped that I came out of the film not knowing the names of the majority of characters that had been in it.

The action itself was again above average, but still nothing spectacular. A lot of the computer generated stuff looked like large blobs of play-do, and some of the make-up etc. on the monsters was truly terrible. Some of it was absolutely ludicrous (the wizard's fight takes the cake there). And what was with the ring? Did the book state that we had to have a close-up of it every two minutes?

As most (zealots) may have guessed by now, I haven't read the book, and many claim that's why I didn't like it. My answer was, since when do you need to read a book before seeing the film? Do you normally need to read a film's script before watching it? Even so, much of it was predictable. Basically, after the opening, it was fight/hide from the baddies before moving onto the next part, then fight/hide again before moving on, then fighting and hiding again. And it goes on. And on.... for three hours.

It's all very straightforward. The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and there isn't a lot more depth than that. The one double-cross can be seen straight-away, because the double-crosser looks very evil from the first time you meet him. There've also been a couple of jokes added in..... at least, that's what I read on here, I actually missed them during the film.

I've often read comments that state 'scenery and costumes were nice' and frankly, I totally disagree. Costumes aren't that good because they basically consist of rags for the most part, and the scenery once again, while nice enough, just isn't anything special.

I know of course that someone is going to read this comment and disagree with everything I've just said because 'Lord of the Rings is the greatest film ever.' I agree that it certainly is an above-average one (from a critical point of view anyway), just nowhere near the top 3 status of IMDB. As for the ending, yeah it was expected, but with any trilogy, each part of it has to tell its own story, rather than just be a part. Sadly, that wasn't the case in this film.

5.5/10

Frankly, the fact that it is so over-hyped and that whenever someone tries to say something bad against it, all the zealots rise up together and immediately rubbish that person's point of view, have made me hate it deeply, and it was difficult not to put a much lower score.

I've actually been searching for this film for ages. They sure won't sell it in the UK, so the best place is the internet. Alas, no joy. Without using a credit card (I'm not old enough to have one), it seemed like this notorious video nasty was never going to be added to my collection.

Then, on a trip to Paris, I wander into a video store, and what do you know? There are two copies of it, tucked away in a box half pushed under the bottom shelf. And it was in English too. I mean, do we put that down to fate, or what?

I'd already watched Last House on the Left, and so was familiar with David Hess, and the character he portrayed (who, let's face it, was just a re-named Krug). Even so, I wasn't prepared for the graphic nature of this film. Last House on the Left actually turned out to be a lot less graphic than I'd expected, and I'd even got the uncut version. Since both films fall into the same genre, I was expecting this to be somewhat similar in terms of content. Oh man, was that a mistake....

The most repugnant moments in this film are unmatched, and I suspect they will only be surpassed by Cannibal Holocaust/Cannibal Ferox. Acting was somewhat dire to begin with, but did seem to pick up as the film went on. Also, the numerous scenes of rape were never distasteful in their own right. Last House on the Left kept flicking back and forth between a rape scene and a comedy scene, which is distasteful in the worst sense. Yet in this, the rape was never glamourised, it was never presented as anything other than rape, and it was never short of gruelling (or graphic).

Plot? Well, there is one, but it doesn't truly unfold until the end. I must confess that, for someone who successfully predicted the ending of Se7en, I never saw the plot twist coming. But I agree with a lot of the comments on here. The characters at the party were in the large part, very unlikeable, and I ended up hoping Alex would murder them all, which I don't think was the desired effect.

Still, if this is your cup of tea, then you want to make getting this film a priority. It's only going to become and and more rare as time gets on. And they don't make them like this anymore...

Caution advised: Content is extreme.

7/10 - For all its faults, it's very powerful stuff. I lent it to three people in the first week I purchased it.

This really deserves the prime-time TV slots it always gets, when ITV decide to air it. There are all number of thrillers, and most of them hit the average mark. And to begin with, that's how this sounded. A secret service agent has to save a president from a psycho - original eh? But there was so much more to it.

Frank's background about the ex-president he failed to save was never mentioned in the brief description of this film that I saw, so it came as an extra element to the plot. And the acting is brilliant. There isn't one main character who fails to deliver the goods, and while the plot unfolds predictably in the most part, there were small surprises along the way which kept me thoroughly engaged in the film at all times.

There are some weaknesses in the film. For instance, there was a rather weak romantic sub-plot, and the president himself was too insignificant. But the real ace-in-the-hole for this film is the acting, it never fails to be superb stuff. Out of Eastwood, and Malkovich, it's impossible to pick who the better man is.

9/10 - it stands out in the 'above-average' film collection

Whether I ever really wanted to watch this film or not was out of the question. I probably wouldn't ever have gone to see it, but it was played during a long coach journey. So I didn't really have much choice about it.

It doesn't surprise me that this film is popular, as it has moments of comedy from the beginning to the end. The plot didn't really matter, nor did the characters, or the script, for that matter. It was just supposed to make the viewer laugh, even if it did it in the cheapest ways possible.

I suppose that is where the movie falls down. If you find the humour funny, then great, you'll love this, nothing else matters right? But the film fails if you don't find it funny - and I didn't.

It did make me laugh three or four times (out of about 500 supposedly funny moments), but even then I wasn't exactly splitting my sides. It simply works like this: If you find this sort of thing comical, then it's worth a look. If your humour is perhaps, a little more intelligent, then stay well away.

4/10 - It either works a treat, or falls flat on its face.

I never specifically asked for this film. In fact, it was bought for me, with money left over from buying 'The Shining'. But am I ever glad it was bought for me.

This is really great stuff. A dark rain-soaked city gave it style, superb performances by Morgan Freeman as a burned out veteran, and by Brad Pitt as hot-shot David Mills gave it creditable performances. John Doe was suitably chilling, and the plot unfolded brilliantly.

A few people say that the gore should have been cut back, but this is something I disagree with. Not because I'm a gore-hound, but the scenes of almost untamed brutality injected the horror of the whole situation into the stylish surroundings. The sloth victim in particular. A whole year....

There are some minor gripes however. I felt that the majority of time was spent on the first three victims, then the rest of them were slightly rushed through. At the end car ride, I was still guessing how exactly it was going to end. When the box made an appearance though, I knew straight away what was in it, although I didn't know how Mills would react until he did.

Lastly, and this is nothing to do with the actual film itself, but I am positively baffled by people who say that it frightened them, and that it was scary. This film was very atmospheric, and at times, it was somewhat edgy. But scary? Don't make me laugh.

Anyway, a superb modern horror.

9.5/10 - Highly recommended.

School holidays can be desperate times. While it's nice to get out of school, you're often left wondering exactly how to occupy your time, and it can lead you to do some extreme things. Like going to the cinema, and watching this.

I'm sure there was a plot, but it was so poor and insignificant that I've forgotten just what it was. Whatever, the outcome was John Goodman chasing around these..... things, these small people, Borrowers. I think there was something about a house being knocked down as well, but it was an excuse for slap-stick rubbish. I think Death Wish fared better under plot.

Then the characters themselves. John Goodman is okay at best, but how exactly did they choose the rest of the cast? Put all the world's worst actors (Hugh Laurie excepted) on strips of paper and draw them out of a hat? It's impossible to choose between Pod and Arrietty Clock, but one of them takes first and the other takes runner up, as to who exactly the most annoying character in the history of the universe is. I was seething in my seat every time either of them spoke.

The only way to justify ever actually owning this is to make it a free giveaway with every packet of Skittles. Certainly never spend money on watching it. You could just as easily give that money to charity, and you would feel better about it than you would after watching this tragic mess.

1/10 - the people who made this made have to be terrorists, to unleash it upon the rest of us.

I'd made it my intention to get this film. Generally regarded as good, and only £5.95 at the video shop, so if I hated it, then it hadn't broken my wallet too badly. The only thing that worried me about it is that it got a good review on IMDB from someone who said 'The Haunting' (which is one of the world's worst films) was one of the greatest films ever.

I haven't seen the original or second Scream films (maybe I will, when they're on special offer too). But this was certainly a good film in that you would know what was going on without actually watching its prequels. And it's directed by genius Wes Craven. Sure sounded good. (And don't forget, it was only £5.95).

And the evaluation is that Scream 3 is thoroughly average. It made me laugh three times, and was on the whole, fairly suspenseful. Some parts were relentlessly nasty, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It was okay, but nothing special. I wouldn't actually go out of my way to watch the video again, but it's a good cure for boredom (if you really HAVEN'T got anything better to do).

So, one throughly average film. Not too bad, but it's nothing great. The only other teen slasher I have seen is Cherry Falls, and I wouldn't rate either film above the other. They're both staggeringly average.

5/10 - I think I'll be giving up on teen slashers for the time being, and go back to good old ultra-violence and other, better horror films.

It annoys the hell out of me when, if a film has a lot of violence and/or gore, that automatically means it's second rate, with poor acting and a weak script etc. I would say 'Wishmaster' is an example. Lots of gore = poor, so to speak. And I would say this is another of those types of films. It has an excessive amount of violence, which means by most people, including major film reviewers, it's discarded as junk.

And that's a pity because this film is really rather good. I'll be the first to admit that I'm drawn to any film which has warnings about its levels of violence, but this, along with 'To Protect and Serve', seemed to shine above the rest.

Anyone who said this film has poor acting obviously missed the bit when Jeff, over the phone, learns his family has been massacred. After a brief period of time, Jeff goes over the edge, and Robert Patrick does it perfectly.

This has been done before, and is, in some instances, ridiculous. (At one point, Jeff drives his car through the side of a helicopter. The helicopter goes boom, but the car emerges almost undamaged.) But then again, Die Hard was pretty ridiculous too, and that was one of the greatest action films I've ever seen. This isn't Oscar winning stuff, but it's damn good.

Caution is advised: Some scenes are very violent.

8/10 - I thoroughly enjoyed it

I don't know why I didn't like this film. I think it was because I expected something similar and just as good as Silence of the Lambs, and there isn't much that can do that.

However, it certainly isn't a movie to be sneered at. It is very different to Silence, and quite a fair bit more gruesome overall. Anthony Hopkins certainly did his best, as did Gary Oldman and I liked the way the story involved three different sides all trying to capture Lecter at once. However, this was a mistake for several main reasons:

#1: I don't care what's been said, the fact remains; Julianne Moore is a poor substitute for Jodie Foster.

#2: In Silence of the Lambs, Dr Lecter is a brooding psychopath, who can torture people simply through talking to them. In Hannibal, despite the tremendous effort of Anthony Hopkins, he is a gay with a lot of one liners. 'I prefer you just as you are.'

#3: The utterly ridiculous way that Mason Verger became disfigured. 'It seemed like a good idea at the time.' Gary Oldman did well, but his character was restricted by this preposterous premise.

I don't know how to score this film. It isn't a below average film in itself, rather an unnecessary one. But as a single film rather than a sequel, it can actually be watched and understood without watching Silence of the Lambs first. Personally, I didn't like it, but critically on its own, it doesn't seem SO bad.

6/10 - but it would have been so much better if they'd left Dr Lecter alone. Please god, make sure there isn't another sequel.

I quite unsuspectingly watched this movie on the television, when there was a lack of anything better to do. Rated by most T.V. magazines as having 'an unbelievable plot', I can't say I was expecting anything great.

But my expectations were all wrong. All wrong. Simply put, there aren't many films that made me laugh as much as this did. I found it utterly hilarious, pretty much from start to finish, and knew I had to get the video.

Watching it again, especially after a long time, it was no less funny. In fact, I laughed so much at some of it that I missed what followed and had to rewind back to see it again.

Put simply, this is a classic, a real classic. Plus, it has in small parts, some serious material added in. While some might have said this got in the way of the comedy, I thought it added to the point of politicians learning about life for the average American, so to speak.

10/10 - For laughs, there isn't much that can rival this.

As a horror fan, this one was recommended to me by a fair number of people. I can appreciate a thinking sort of horror, as well as blood soaked splatter films, so I decided to give it a go.

And for the first half of the film, I really didn't know what to think. It seemed like the film was degenerating into chaos, and some of the scenes actually made me embarrassed to be seen watching it. The film works that way, so if you're lost in it all, don't give up. The story suddenly becomes crystal clear.

Instead of letting the viewer languish in all the chaos, it suddenly picks up, and the viewer is suddenly working out all the answers, right along with Sergeant Howie. It is compelling stuff at this stage, but it still never ceases to be bizarre.

Despite a not altogether too surprising twist near the end, the visions of 'horror within society' really are the stuff of nightmares. This is especially true when the deceptively normal looking inhabitants of the island are all completely absorbed in the ritualistic singing, during the somewhat disturbing ending.

It would also have been nice to have a few text sentences after the credits, along the lines of 'That year, the crops were successful. The following year, they were not.' That would have put some more meaning into Howie's threatening predictions to Lord Summerisle....

7/10 - A predictable twist, and an ending too inconclusive denies it higher marks.

I've seen all three of the Die Hard movies, and this one is top of the shop. Fast moving, slick and efficient, indeed, this is a hard movie to find faults with. Unlike the other two films, where there are some 'introductory' type scenes to begin with, this is straight into the action, with the blowing up of a department store.

Edge of the seat stuff, with legitimate puzzles thrown into the mix, it doesn't require a whole lot of brains to work out what's going on. That makes this the sort of film you would watch when you just want a blast, and this comes fast and furious.

I enjoyed all three Die Hard movies, but this is my favourite. The only thing I could want to fault with it, is that they cut it when it's on the television.

9/10 - It's difficult to beat

These days, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still associated with being an action-man. A pity really, I found his comedies such as 'Jingle all the way' quite a laugh. But I suppose, like Hulk Hogan was better at wrestling than acting, Arnie is still a muscle-man, and that's a role he returned to, for End of Days.

I'm not going to completely shower this film with praise, as it did have faults. I felt the sex scene was needless, the way Arnie worked out the girl's name was ridiculous, and I had a major problem accepting that Arnie would be left alive on the cross, and when he woke up, he was able to get up straight away.

Still, despite these obvious flaws, I immensely enjoyed it. It has a lot more substance and plot to it than something like Eraser, and I thought the ending was appropriate, as it meant Arnie didn't win outright. I really didn't want to pick any flaws in this film, and when I'd finished watching, all I could think of was praise for it. Still, when it comes to reviews, snobby reviewers are going to look at it down the end of their noses, and say "Well, it had a rather strange plot" or "Arnold took his role too seriously."

I picked it up on DVD for £9.99 second hand. I would have been prepared to pay twice that.

8/10 - while I loved it, a few flaws stop it from getting the very top marks.

I have to say, I was very tempted to write 'AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL!' in the one line summary, as that is my true opinion of this film. However, I thought it better to be a little more objective than that.

I was intrigued by all the talk of how great The Matrix was, and at first, I was intrigued by it. Thomas Anderson, the agents that came looking for him, the talk about 'Morpheus' made me interested about just how the plot would turn out.

However, after the blue pill/red pill scene, what had been a nice premise became very poor indeed. I can honestly say that I didn't care who was 'the one,' and with all the cryptic phrases and mumbo-jumbo this thing threw in, I began to wonder whether or not I was watching a bible story. It leaves you wondering just exactly what this film is trying to say.

With the exception of Agent Smith, there was not one character I liked. I was praying Morpheus would die, as it might have brought this rubbish to an end. And what was with all those pointless one-liners? "It's Neo." "Dodge this." If I had watched this in a cinema, I would probably have been thrown out for shouting obscenities at the screen.

All in all, a thorough waste of time. The interesting premise, special effects, and well-executed scene where Neo is being pursued by Smith just about lift it out of the dung-heap, but they don't compensate for all its faults.

4/10 - Special effects and cryptic messages do not make a movie

To tell the truth, I never actually meant to watch Independance Day. I borrowed the tape from my cousin for the South Park cartoons on the end, and Independance Day being on the same tape was just a bonus. Well, it seemed like a bonus at the time.

Indeed, the entire film can be summed up in one word: American. Aside from the storyline, I was intensely irritated by the Americanisation of the whole thing, to the point that I'm commenting on it first rather than any of the good features of the film.

So, the world gets attacked by aliens (actually, I think it's just America that gets attacked by the aliens, you wouldn't know that many other countries existed). Take for example, the two British pilots. "Oh jolly good, wonder what the Americans are up to?" Pardon me, but hardly anyone has spoken like that for fifty years. The sort of people who do speak like that would also hardly be likely to be flying a jet.

But, now that's out of the way, the special effects for the film are really very good, and the way the story unfolds works a treat. I especially liked the bit where Jeff Goldblum has the lap-top computer, turns it round and says 'The clock is ticking.' For atmosphere and script, that was brilliant.

But, then we move into the realms of ridiculous again, when we look at just how the alien ship was destroyed. It's laughable and pathetic, and makes Mars Attacks! look like a realistic future.

All in all, it's just too blatantly stupid to warrant a movie blockbuster. I know it will appeal to some people, but it just didn't appeal to me.

4/10 - I can see why some like it, and the special effects are good, but just too American, and the ending is awful.

This film was pleasantly surprising. The concept of 'three idiots who escape from jail' seemed like a simple idea that could be made funny, if handled properly.

It was funny right from the beginning. Moving at a quick pace, it didn't take any time to be boring and show you how these three blokes met or what they're in jail for. Instead, it goes right to action, and the humour comes thick, fast and very funny.

Watch out for the toad scene, it's hillarious.

9/10 - though some might find the stereotyping 'offensive.'

A video rented from the shops that sounded funny, was how I approached this film. Good for a night in, so to speak. Oh, was I wrong.

How exactly this film got such good reviews is beyond me. As a comedy, the one major drawback is the lack of anything humorous. It's virtually impossible to understand anything that George Khan says (and if this is supposed to be funny, it wears thin quickly) and the film overall goes nowhere very slowly.

I actually gave up on this film before it finished. What a waste of £2.50. Goes to show you can't judge a book by its cover (or in this case, a video cassette by its reviews).

1/10 - a completely dismal no hoper. Awful in every respect.

I have to admit, I've never been a true fan of Stanley Kubrick. Most of the films I'd heard of with him directing just didn't appeal to me. So I was taking a risk and going on the advice of my mother when I actually saw this film. I only wish I'd seen it sooner.

This is sheer brilliance, right from beginning to end. The vast open hotel, the creepy music, the visions of horror unlocked by the child, and best of all, the total descent into madness of Jack Torrance, played excellently by Jack Nicholson.

This is the sort of horror that scares you, and doesn't give you buckets of blood and gore from start to finish. In truth, it is rare. As Torrance slips further into madness, the script was often funny, and I was left wondering whether wife and child would both escape, or just one of them, or neither, right up to the end.

If Stephen King hated this film, he is a fool, and I don't care how good the book is. If Kubrick said this was his worst film, then he's an idiot. Because this is just so good.

9/10.

Actually, this film was bought for me as a birthday present. I'd seen it in Woolworths, looked at it and thought it might be interesting, but nothing special. I had not specially asked for it, and the original film was rated by one magazine as the 4th scariest film of all time. Therefore, I didn't really have any expectations of this film. I expected it to be average, nothing spectacular and probably not as good as the original. Indeed, I began watching it in a fairly neutral mind.

And it has to be said, things were going promisingly, what with the weird caretaker and wife, and the 'beautiful' (although that's arguable) carvings of the children's heads. The story about the former owner, who couldn't have looked more evil in his portrait if he had tried. It was working well, leaving me intrigued as to what was going to happen and when.

Then we move to the rather unfortunate second part of the story. I can't really describe this part in any detail simply because it was so rushed that I didn't really have any idea what was going on or why. The startling discovery (which wasn't all that startling anyway) simply lacked justification. Why did it happen? Why did the former owner do what he did? Hello????

And of course, the totally rushed second part makes way for the utterly awful third part of the film. What took place, for lack of a better word, was inane, utter drivel. And because I didn't know what was going on in the second part, I honestly couldn't say I cared that much about the third part. But what I find all the more amazing is claims by people that they found it scary. Er, when exactly? I found myself mildly amused by the pointless chasing about and ridiculous ending, but I never even jumped at it. A house with lights for eyes, and a plume of smoke for a villain simply made me look on in disgust.

What started promisingly became a messy, ridiculous, overplayed storyline lacking any sense or ways to justify it.

3/10 - simply for its promising start.