Reviews

By the title, I mean beats it at being total crap, which is some feat. Saw IV is one of the worst films I have ever seen, and I can't believe James Wan doesn't protest at the fact that the latest 2 sequels actually title themselves "Saw". They have absolutely nothing in common with Wan's excellent original. No. 2 also had little in common, but at least it was just about decent. Now all logic has been swept aside, the story is terrible and the traps are poorly designed. The director hired to take Wan's mantle, Darren Lynn Bousman, has once again proved he has no talent for the horror genre. Saw 2, 3 and 4 aren't scary in the slightest, and he can't even generate decent suspense, due to the fact he can't think of anything new to replace people jumping out of the dark.

Once again, Jigsaw's past has formed part of the storyline, presumably to try and show us why he does what he does. But why would we care? The first film tells us his basic premise - he wants people that he feels do not appreciate their existence to show him that they do. We also found out later that he himself has contracted cancer, which started off his motive. That's enough surely, why does 3 and 4 try to make us sympathise with Jigsaw by trying to show him as a normal person? Tobin Bell is also a really poor actor, and displays the same emotion during every scene, whether he is killing, or in an 'emotional' scene with his girlfriend.

Also, the story has again been neglected for horrific torture scenes. Although the first installment was marketed as being violent, it actually contains minimal violent scenes, and had a genuinely interesting idea. Saw 4 contains many traps, but at no point did I care about any of the characters - I didn't know anything about them, as no time was spent on developing them. The storyline is basically identical to that of Saw 3, and it really is a boring film - any supposedly scary moments are predictable. Another thing, why are some of these people even being put in these stupid games. The main character's reason for being there is 'he wants to save everyone'. What? Is that a crime? Surely thats a good thing. Why does Jigsaw claim he is doing the right thing and then torture a person who is 1) doing a respectful job and 2) arresting the very people he originally tortured because he thought they were bad?

*SPOILER*

The story also makes little sense. If the new 'apprentice' guy knows Jigsaw is dead, why doesn't he just shout to our "hero" Rigg and tell him not to walk into the room before 90 minutes, so they can survive, instead of relying on him not doing the thing that he has been specifically told to do.

*SPOILER OVER*

Also, what is with the lighting? Why do characters walk around their houses at night without switching lights on? Yes, darkness can be scary, but when characters are having regular conversations there's no need to build suspense, and we would like to actually see what is going on when we go to view a movie! All in all, this is one of the worst I've ever seen. Not only does it rely on gratuitous and disgusting violence as a sole reason for entertainment, the story is absolutely awful, and the 'twist' makes no real sense and is completely stupid. Hopefully people have realised this increasingly abysmal franchise has nothing to offer, and its days of making a nice profit at the box office are over.

Due to one of my friends being a Rambo fanatic, I agreed to go and see Rambo despite not having seen the first 3. I didn't have any high expectations, but what I was expecting was an enjoyable fast paced action film. What I got was a boring, repetitive, ridiculous, gratuitous mess, that has clearly been made to make its ageing star as much pension money as possible before he can't do these mad stunts, with no emphasis on even a hint of quality.

There are many reasons why I thought Rambo to be so bad. The acting is dreadful, most of the cast are just annoying (especially that bald commando guy, who deems it necessary to swear at least 4 times per sentence) and the plot doesn't make much sense. For instance, when the Christians first approach Rambo, he refuses to help them and it is made clear he has absolutely no interest in doing so. Then enters the entirely bland and unconvincing Julie Benz, and it takes her about 30 seconds of dialogue for her to convince him.

My main argument may sound quite bizarre, but it is the violence that makes Rambo stand out as a poor film. I was obviously expecting a lot, but here it is way over the top, very repetitive and horribly gratuitous. It is of those films where the makers just put as much violence in as possible to appeal to 'action' fans, just because they can't think of anything new, and want to show off how many ways they can viciously slaughter random characters. 230 odd people die in the film, and about 150 are in the last 10 minutes, and it gets incredibly boring.

Stallone is the only actor to come out the other side with any credibility, basically because Rambo is the quietest character.

*SPOILER*

He is also the only character we really know anything about - the rest of the character's development really is non-existent. For instance, at the end when Julie Benz's character and her boyfriend (supposedly) get back together, a load of epic music is blasted at you, as if you care. How can we care? The guy only has about 3 lines in the entire film, and they're only brought about when the Burmese psychopaths are attacking them.

*END OF SPOILER*

I honestly can't believe this film still has a rating of nearly 8. It really is awful, unrealistic and gratuitously horrible. I don't mind violent films if the violence is justified (e.g. Oldboy), but don't just bombard us with violence to try and cover up how inept your actors are. A lot of reviewers on IMDb have said things like "The re-birth of old action films!" Well, if this is like an old action film, thank god someone thought to make new ones.

Well done Paul Greengrass.

United 93 is a superbly well made film, especially coming into its own during the terrorist attack sequences. The last half hour is very intense, and Greengrass has created a fully believable, documentary style account of flight 93. Having a full cast of unknowns also helps with the believability factor; and the shaky hand camera that got so much criticism after The Bourne Supremacy really is wonderfully used here.

Okay, there are some truly awful lines of dialogue, but I do feel harsh pointing that out - because a lot of effort has clearly been made on this film. But this isn't about talking, its more of an experience.

The people who criticise United 93, seem to because they think films should not be made about this kind of thing. The same happened to Schindler's List. Seeing as movies are a hugely popular culture, surely there isn't any better way to educate people on these matters. Greengrass clearly didn't make this for entertainment or to make money, this was a tribute to everyone involved during 9/11, and a very good one at that.

Oh dear.

Firstly, I thought Saw to be a fantastic film. I'm not a fan of films who boast about torturing people, but the violence in Saw was kept to a minimum considering the circumstances - finally, a horror director who substituted blood and guts for a gripping storyline. The flashback story-telling device worked nicely, it was wonderfully written, and had a fantastic conclusion - one of the best I have seen. I then found Saw II to be a creditable film. It was totally different to the first instalment, and despite being much more violent, was also quite well written. Despite Jigsaw's traps edging towards the realms of total absurdity, the film overall was entertaining - and in these times I think its about as good a sequel as your going to get, especially for a serial killer idea such as this. Despite number 2's merits, I still wish they had just left it after the first one. But due to their ongoing success, they just couldn't let it go.

It seems Darren Lynn Bousman is contempt that if he thrusts a load of graphic violence in your face, he doesn't need a good script. Saw III opens with 20 minutes of torture scenes which are quite unnecessary. In the first 2 instalments, references to Jigsaw's previous traps were brief, and made for effective scenes. For the traps in Saw III, the makers have obviously ran out of ideas. They are now ridiculously unfair, and are totally stupid. How rich is Jigsaw? To get all these traps (and places to put them) he must be a multi-millionaire. The writers seem contempt to think about clever traps, and then ignore the plausibility of them. The only problem is - they aren't clever either. Traps now include getting drowned in pig juice. That's all I have to say on the matter.

The story contained some pretty stupid things. Despite their constant claiming that Jigsaw has good motives, he now has moved on to torturing innocent people. Most of the people he also targets to torture in this film, is basically for doing their job well. For instance, a homicide detective is targeted because she spends her time trying to figure out how people died - baffling stuff. Also, they try to make us sympathise with Jigsaw, with a scene with his presumably ex-wife. What the hell, the man is a sicko. That's the whole premise of his character. Don't try and make him human. Why must people try and ruin the most wonderful film villains? There are also numerous flashbacks to the previous films, which are just annoying, and proves the writers' have nothing fresh to add to the franchise.

To top the film off, they've once again they've gone for a twist ending - but this time they have 2. Saw's ending was superb, and Saw II's was acceptable, but both twists here were totally awful, and made no sense whatsoever.

One final criticism. The lighting. Okay, it's not a happy film, but a bit of light here and there wouldn't hurt would it. There is a scene between a "protagonist" and his kid in his house, and the place was shrouded in darkness. What the hell, you put the lights on at night-time.

I am sad to see that the Saw franchise has been influenced by Hostel it seems. They've taken away all that was good from the first film, and just turned it into a regulation horror flick that anyone could think of. Despite the fact both villains are supposedly dead, yet another sequel is about to be released. Will they ever learn? I would have given this a 4/5 if it wasn't for the dismal ending. Some of it wasn't that bad, although never enjoyable.

Definition of the term horror: "intense and profound fear".

Surely then, a HORROR film should contain intense and profound fear. So why is it then that most horror films are not very scary, and just contain grotesquely disturbing and violent images. Well, its probably because most people who watch modern horror films are mostly underage and get off on graphic violence. It's a shame really, because these films do so well, why would anybody go out of their way to make a genuinely scary horror movie? James Wan's Saw is an exception, but like all other actual good horror films, it has been exploited by making pointless sequels.

Thankfully, we'll always have the legendary John Carpenter. Halloween is by far the scariest film I have seen. Instead of going out of his way to put graphic violence on camera, he instead creates unbelievable suspense by making us wait, setting the film at night, the heavy breathing sound, and adding a supernatural element. Notice there is no blood and gore in that list. Michael Myers has no lines in the whole film. He also has no back story. He is seemingly normal, that is perhaps the scariest thing about him. So many villains have been made so much less scary by giving them a back story - even Hannibal Lector was ruined by his own creator! Ignore the fact there has been a recent remake of Halloween, because it hasn't aged one little bit. It isn't gory at all, but remains terrifying in a way that no other film can. This is a milestone in film horror, and a true classic. Because what Carpenter lacked in budget, and some of the actors lacked in talent, was more than accounted for by superb technique, something that many budding directors should take a look at.

The concluding chapter of the critically acclaimed Lord of the Rings series further establishes the trilogy as the most over-hyped pieces of work since.....well ever. Since Peter Jackson has fully redeemed himself in my eyes with 2005's terrific King Kong, I don't understand how he managed to make the Lord of the Rings so poorly. I also don't understand why they are all over-hyped by critics and film viewers alike. Okay, I can understand why so many people find them entertaining, but this in the Top 10 films of all time? What is going on?? Okay, the special effects are moderately impressive, and for the most part nicely integrated with the live actors, but I don't see why so many modern directors have this obsession with using so much CGI. Whats wrong with the effects from say Jurassic Park and The Thing? That said, most of the CGI in this is necessary, but at times it seems that Jackson is just showing off how much he can put in. The part with Legolas climbing the elephant....thing is one example of him going too far - it's ridiculous and doesn't look that good either.

Also the god awful acting has returned as strong as the King himself. Casting Elijah Wood as the main character was probably Jackson's worst mistake in the trilogy. He hardly exudes the charisma needed for a 'hero', especially when he's supposed to be saving the world. He also delivers several lines as if it were Ed Wood behind the camera. Cate Blanchett can also be singled out for criticism. The hobbits Sam, Merry and Pippin are seriously annoying as always; and their supposedly 'emotional' and 'heroic' moments are quite frankly pathetic. Also, the less said about Gollum the better, so I'll steer clear of wasting time talking about it.

There are also numerous things that baffle me. Is it some kind of rule that everybody in Middle Earth must have long hair? Must hobbits persistently annoy everyone they are with and put their friends in jeopardy? Why would Frodo and Sam sleep 3 inches from a 10,000 foot cliff face? Are they deliberately trying to make their allegedly impossible task more difficult? Why does every building have to be built on the edge of a cliff? Then, of course, there is the problem with the film's length. Seeing as most of the film is in slow motion, including acts such as sword making, which require no emphasis, they could have easily knocked off at least 30 minutes by filming it normally. Also, after the main story is over, the film drags on for about 25 mins of unnecessary plot, which could have been done in 5-10 mins. I don't mind watching long films, but only if it is interesting. Scenes with any moderate length of dialogue in them seemed to inevitably lose me, due mostly to the weak acting. The battle scenes also could be better. Although they're good, I'd take Braveheart, The Last Samurai, Gladiator et al any time over this. Above all though, the lack of Saruman totally confuses me. The lack of a master villain who isn't a computer generated eye or an immensely ugly orc really hinders the film in my eyes, especially as Saruman is consistently mentioned throughout.

Having just written 3 paragraphs of criticism, this isn't all that bad a film. I thought about fast forwarding my DVD at several points but couldn't bring myself to do it, which is more than can be said for the horrific first instalment. I just don't understand how it merits a place in the Top 10 films of all time, or even a 10 rating from anybody. It would have been better if it didn't take itself so seriously, and had more emphasis on the battles than the characters, as the poor acting makes the 'emotional' scenes annoying more than anything else.

Many of the visuals are fantastic, especially the long shots of the armies, the volcanic Mount Doom and the shots of the New Zealand mountains. But I can't help but think that instead of watching this, you could be viewing Schindler's List, Heat or making your way through most of Once Upon a Time in America - they are masterpieces, but not this.

When I first watched A Clockwork Orange, I gave it 10. Then I wondered whether I liked it that much - was it really that good, or was it just a film filled with random violence and sex? After a second viewing, I was convinced that this is one of the most brilliant - and bizarre, films ever made.

1971 was a particularly good year for film; Straw Dogs, Get Carter and Dirty Harry were some of the best, but A Clockwork Orange surpasses them all. Obviously it was hugely controversial when released, which pretty much just increased its popularity. The controversy however, was not needed, as the other films I have listed from 1971 were just as violent (although Straw Dogs was banned whereas this wasn't). All violence is in the first half an hour, and is nothing by today's standards. The violence and sex is only there to introduce us to the main character. After the opening, the story unfolds and is completely unique to any other film.

The screenplay is the key to this film. Stanley Kubrick did an amazing job of adapting a book which might as well be written in Japanese rather than English. I have a copy, which has to have a glossary defining all slang words used by Anthony Burgess - it is 10 pages long. The voice over narration is a masterful touch, offering us a portal into the mind of a total psychopath.

The only problem is in the nudity. Any need? There is at least 1 penis in every scene in the first half. It is completely pointless, and doesn't add anything to the film. And before you call me homophobic - the female nudity during the rape scenes is also totally unnecessary.

I'll forgive Kubrick for that though. Because with A Clockwork Orange, he has given us one of the best, most original and most unique films ever. Behind the sex, violence and controversy lies a story asking more questions than any other, and which has stood the test of time as easy as any script ever written.

I think it is unusual that while the other great film of this kind of style, The Silence of the Lambs, won the main 5 Oscars, Se7en received only 1 nomination and no wins. While Silence of the Lambs is obviously a great film and is more thrilling than Se7en, I just find Se7en so much more interesting. Enough comparison, heres why I think Se7en is one of the best films ever made.

David Fincher doesn't show you any of the bizarre killings during the film, instead showing viewers the crime scenes and photographs. This gets you really involved in the film, as you form your own gritty mental images of what has happened. The script is fantastic, the murders are bizarre yet ingenious. The killer is a fascinating character. Kevin Spacey asked not to be credited for his role, as he thought people would not be concentrating on the film properly and waiting for him to appear. His performance, although relatively brief, is every bit as good as Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt.

The setting David Fincher has used for his unnamed metropolis is excellent, using shadows, dark lighting and narrow alleys to create a dark and dingy place where evil lurks, the perfect setting for this storyline to unfold.

The twist ending is fantastic. Along with Fincher's other masterpiece Fight Club, the twist gives it an extra edge and makes the film better. Se7en is by no means a horror film, but the gruesome visuals and especially the ending make it actually scarier than most horror films.

I wouldn't recommend your first viewing of Se7en to be 2am in the morning like mine, but any other time I would recommend it as strongly as any other film. 10/10

If you see any "greatest film lists" or if your looking for top award winners, you will never find The Big Lebowski. Film critics will not praise it, as it doesn't really have any underlying message on life, love or the dangers of drugs or whatever. They would feel ashamed to admit that this is one of the best films ever. Fortunately, thanks to the regular film viewers on IMDb, The Big Lebowski gets the praise it so rightfully deserves, and a cemented place in the top #250.

It offers so many things. It has the usual brilliant Coen Bros script, with its twisting plot and humour. It has so many unusual and wonderful characters. It really is one of the funniest films ever. They could have easily taken the script and made it into a good thriller. But the Coens made it into so much more.

The characters are just brilliant. Jeff Bridges is great as "The Dude", who never fails to have a drink in his hand, and ends each sentence with "man". John Goodman puts in a terrific performance, as a Vietnam veteran who turns into a raving lunatic at the drop of a hat, but "doesn't roll on Shabbah". My favourite performance comes from Steve Buscemi, despite only having a relatively small part. He maintains a rather puzzled expression throughout, only to interrupt conversations at random intervals. The Coens could have easily left Donnie out of the film, but it's little additions like him that make this film great.

There's so many great quotes and scenes in the film, and showing the dreams in the weird mind of The Dude such as the scene with the flying carpet, just adds a bizarre yet wonderful quality that most comedies don't have.

At the end of the film, after viewing all the wacky characters, danger and plot twists, The Dude brings to your attention that all he wanted was his rug! This just adds to the comic approach the Coens went for, and The Big Lebowski leaves you feeling happy and warm inside, as you have just witnessed such greatness on screen.

When I look at the fact that The Big Lebowski won just 1 (minor) award, it just proves that there is no justice in the world of film, and I find it hard to swallow that such genius can go unrewarded.

By my reckoning this is one of the Coen brothers finest achievements to date, up there with Fargo and Miller's Crossing, and believe me, that is some achievement. Their unique and clever scripts show they have so much more imagination than most screen writers, and despite the fact they haven't made a really great film for a few years, I hope they are just laying dormant and will give us another wonderful film such as The Big Lebowski.

I would first like to say that I am a massive fan of the 6 Alex Rider books. They are so inventive and thrilling. When I heard they were making the first film, I was really excited and looking forward to it, and I hoped they would recreate all 6 on film. How could they make a book that has great action, a great plot and some good Bond-style one-liners into a bad film? Watch this and you'll see.

It wasn't the worst I've ever seen - it had some good parts, but the director seemed to be unsure whether to make the film a comedy or action style. They failed at both in the end. I don't understand the screenplay from Anthony Horowitz. He leaves out all of the good bits that make the book so interesting and clever. A lot of the character names were pointlessly changed. The bad guy Darrius Sayle seemed to be a bit of a joke. In the book he is called Herod Sayle and is really evil. Why change? Also, the character Sabina is not in the first two books, so why change the storyline and add her in here? It seems to me that the producers had predetermined that the film would have a maximum of 90 mins run time. Maybe that's the reason they left most good parts of the book out. If they were going to make it 90 mins, they should have taken out some of the stupid comedy parts - such as the ridiculous fight in the house (not in the book), and tried to get straight to the point. The book is quite complex, and I think would have worked wondefully if executed like the Bourne trilogy. Clearly, the producers thought otherwise.

Please don't be put off the books by this poor film. They are great and have been let down severely on the big screen.

Clint Eastwood will forever be remembered as "The Man with no Name" form Sergio Leone's immortal spaghetti westerns. 25 years later, Clint decides to comeback and make his own Western. The result is Unforgiven, the best western ever, and is a film which really captures the brutal lives the people of the time had. There is no glamorisation of the cowboys, none are portrayed as good men, but as brutal killers.

Eastwood plays William Munny, a retired former gunslinger who owns a farm. Due to lack of money, he joins up with his former partner and a young man to collect a bounty, returning to the life he thought he had left for good. It is shown that having a respectable job is not enough. Munny is failing at trying to make an honest living, and by killing he can make much more. Also, the most brutal character, Little Bill Daggett, who is brilliantly portrayed by Gene Hackman, has the most power. He runs the town, and anyone not obeying his laws gets brutally beaten. People who do not resort to violence get killed, and women are treated badly - they are worth less to the men than horses.

The final shootout is one of the best things I have ever seen in any film. It is worth watching the film just to see it.

The fact a western - pretty much a forgotten genre, won 4 Oscars, especially best picture, is a measure of Eastwood's immense talent as a director as well as an actor. All Oscars were thoroughly deserved too, this is certainly one of my favourites.

The 51st State is certainly no classic, but its funny and has a half-decent storyline. Being from the Liverpool area, I'm glad to see a film set there, even if it is about crime. Samuel L. Jackson is as cool as ever as kilt-wearin', drug-dealin' Elmo McElroy, and Robert Carlyle is in good form as Felix DeSouza, desperately trying to get himself a cut in the deal. The use of Ricky Tomlinson, a very funny actor pretty much unknown to American audiences, was also a nice touch. I'm very much a believer that British comedy is (almost) always better than American. I always enjoy the inclusion of English words and slang, and with Elmo not having a clue about English customs, such as the different language and the Mini Cooper, makes this film very funny. I'm not sure about Americans, but English people will appreciate the hilarity of the situation as Elmo and Felix run around Liverpool, with Elmo wanting his 20 million, and Felix just wanting to watch the Liverpool vs. Man Utd game! A clever twist at the end adds a bit of a philosophical side to the film, and shows The 51st State is more than just a few laughs.

Horror films are associated with extreme and sickening violence/gore, lunatic killers and mostly focus on teenagers. They are mostly just poor excuses to put extreme violence on film to appeal to younger people, and nearly all, with a few exceptions such as Saw, are totally crap. Violence doesn't make a film good. In making The Shining, Stanley Kubrick has shown the world how horror films should be made.

There are none of the predictable bad-guy-jumps-out-of-the-dark scenes to try and scare you. Instead Kubrick builds up suspense with the chilling musical score, and Jack Torrance gradually gets driven insane. Jack Nicholson is perfect to portray the character of Torrance. Not only is he a brilliant actor anyway, but he looks perfect for the part. He isn't your stereotyped perfect-looks actor, I don't think someone like Brad Pitt would be as effective playing his part. Pitt is a great actor, but you can't imagine someone like him going insane in a weird hotel! I think the cast is important to this film. Kubrick cast a proper leading actor and actress, rather than the randomly assembled casts of young 20 year olds you get in most horror films. And hey! The result is way better.

There are a perfect amount of genuine horror scenes, such as the famous axe scene, and the scene in the maze, and it never goes over the top. There is also some unique horror scenes, such as when Jack writes about 1,000 pages of the same words, and the visions of the blood from the elevator and the little girls. They are bizarre but very effective in building suspense.

The storyline is also much more effective than the usual story of teenagers being pursued by a lunatic murderer. A man stuck in a hotel for the winter with just his family who gradually goes insane is much more original and much much much more effective. Horror films are meant to be scary, and this really is. There are many scenes showing Jack's willingness to give in to temptation, and how he wants to get away from his wife and weird son. The camera-work is also excellent, as it builds up tension by moving along the corridors, and it also emphasises that Jack is feeling confined in the hotel.

Stephen King didn't like Kubrick's interpretation of his novel, I can't believe how. Kubrick just made it better! This is a top film and is a landmark for horror films.

Phone Booth manages to put pretty much everything you want into a thriller in a short space of time. It is a thoroughly original idea - a publicist, who has been lying his way to success, is held inside the phone booth he has been using to cheat on his wife by an unseen sniper on the other end of the line, who wants him to confess to his wife. It is very well acted, with Colin Farrell portraying the desperation of his character really well, while Kiefer Sutherland, while only seen for a few seconds, plays "The Caller" very well. His character is a very good and original one, as while he does kill innocent people without remorse, his real victims are chosen well. He uses threat to try and force them to come clean, and stop cheating in life. It is one of the few films where you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. His voice on the phone is also chillingly brilliant. Without that voice, the film wouldn't be nearly as effective in achieving the suspense generated. Forrest Whitaker also puts in a nice performance as the detective trying to resolve the situation.

The camera-work is also fantastic. The shots rotating 360 degrees, looking up at the tall buildings give you a feeling of claustrophobia, like you are also stuck in the phone booth with Stu. Interesting dialogue, a thrilling situation, a couple of nice twists and a completely fresh idea make this a top film, and is one of Joel Schumacher's best achievements.

The Sixth Sense was deservedly a surprising Hollywood sensation. It is of course remembered for its amazing and shocking ending. I can tell you though, there is much more to this film than just the ending.

People who say The Sixth Sense is rubbish because the ending is obvious and they figured it out are just being stupid and they don't know what they are talking about. I have watched films before knowing the ending, and have still enjoyed them as much as anyone. The ending is there for you to see throughout the film, but it is still hard to figure out - a bit like the twist in Fight Club. Even without the great ending though, this film would still be excellent. Bruce Willis has proved once again that he has many more strings to his bow than just action hero John McClane that made him famous, as he puts in a wonderful performance as a doctor haunted by his past. The script and direction by M. Night Shyamalan is also very good. Despite these two great performances though, the stand out has to be Haley Joel Osment as the disturbed young boy. He is really freaky, and he really captures how scared his character would probably be in real life.

The huge twist ending does divert attention from the rest of the film, but the rest of the film should not be forgotten. If you haven't watched this yet, you will not just be sat there waiting for the ending, the whole storyline is a compelling and disturbing drama. It is a film to watch more than once, as the ending does fit in perfectly with the storyline before it. The ending of Unbreakable is about as shocking, but I don't think Shyamalan will ever make another film as good as this.

The Prestige is one of the best films I've ever seen. It is totally unique, keeps you gripped throughout and the plot is so clever and original. You don't see many films about magicians, maybe thats why I found this to be so interesting, and I doubt we'll ever see a better one. The film is not really about magic though. It is about obsession. It is about deception. By the end, Robert Angier (Jackman) is a magician for totally different reasons than when he started, and I think this quote shows his obsession not just to be a better magician than Borden (Bale), but to make Borden crash and burn.

"I need to know his secret." "Why?" "So I can do it better."

By the end, it is difficult to tell who you are supposed to be rooting for, because both main characters aren't exactly good guys, and I think this makes the film very unique. It is not about good triumphing over evil, rather it is about how you can get so caught up in one thing that it rules the rest of your life, and the dangers of becoming obsessed.

The acting in the film is superb. If you went to see a professional magician, you'd see the showmanship and antics that Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman perform in The Prestige. The special effects are fantastic, as are the illusions that are performed. Michael Caine is, as always, brilliant. He is still proving to be one of the best supporting actors in the business. Scarlett Johansson is also excellent.

Christopher Nolan's direction is, obviously, brilliant. This is a fantasy film, and he has still made it look completely real. I also think his screenplay for all of his films, especially this one, is the best by anybody. Never does he just put things in front of you to watch. The non-chronological order he uses means that as you go along, any questions you may have are answered along the way, and this makes for a wonderful cinematic experience. I think this sets his films apart from other directors'. In summary, I think it's safe to say that Christopher Nolan is the real magician here.

Honestly, how is this one of the greatest films ever? It is the most boring film I've ever seen. I've heard people say they don't want to watch great films that are very long, such as Once Upon a Time in America, because of the length, even though no one ever says it about LOTR. I don't get it, because to be honest this film is poor.

I have watched it twice now, and neither time did I see anything good in it. It is just plain boring, they just talk absolute crap for three hours walking through a forest. What is good about that? The worst thing is definitely the hobbits. Why do they give Frodo the ring when he can't fight? Why do they let his friends come when all they do is get the group into trouble? Especially when they are so annoying, mostly Sam, whose vocabulary seems to be limited to the words 'Mr. Frodo'. He drove me insane.

The stupidest thing about this film though is that at most points during the film, they could just hide the ring in the snow, or throw it into the forest. As if anyone would find it. There you go, I could do the hobbits 9 hour epic film quest in about 5 seconds.

Another annoying thing is that they go 3 hours of boring you to death, and then end up worse than when they started. I don't get that.

The ending is really bad. They go 4 full chapters on the DVD rowing 10 metres in a boat. You should always end a film with excitement. Star Wars Empire Strikes Back ends with some classic scenes, despite not being the end of the whole story. Peter Jackson should have done the same with this film.

I really don't see the point in having a 3 hour film to set the scene. Most films manage to set the scene in 5-10 mins. I think they could have made this much shorter, and they could have at least put a few more battle scenes in if it's going to be 3 hours.

It is ridiculous looking at the top #250 and seeing this in the top #15 in my view, especially with so many really great films way below, such as Raging Bull. I found LOTR:FOTR to be a huge disappointment, as I was really looking forward to it due to all the hype. The special effects aren't even that impressive. I think people overrate this film because of all the hype made around it's release.

I don't just think it is overrated, I also thought it to be a very poor film, it was incredibly boring and I had no idea what the characters were talking about. It seemed like I would have had to have read the novel to understand the film. There was no action and the hobbits really got on my nerves. There is no way this film should be in the top #250, it is just bad.

Christopher Nolan is already proving to be one of the very best directors, with films such as The Prestige and of course, Memento. Then there's this, Batman Begins. There are many things that make this one of the best ever comic book adaptations. The dark musical score, along with snapshots of Bruce Wayne's childhood are great accompaniments, showing Bruce Wayne's dark nature of anger and guilt, where most superheros are just being shown to show how good will always triumph over evil. Here Bruce Wayne is shown as a normal man (apart from being amazingly rich!) with huge personal problems, and the film shows how he triumphs over his own insecurities.

The best thing about Batman Begins though, is that Batman is not actually shown as a superhero, as he doesn't actually have any superhuman powers (such as flying etc.), he is shown as a man with a point to prove to himself, and he believes that only by "turning fear against those who prey on the fearful", he can prove himself. The high tech gadgetry and Bruce's ninja training are fantastically done to show where Bruce got his inspiration to become Batman, and learnt his skills. Nolan has used the fact that Bruce is a billionaire where no one has before, showing how he uses his money to create his fearsome alter ego - buying wires to suspend himself from, weapons, his cave and a new-look batmobile.

The fight scenes are really good, Batman flying from all angles - its really cool! Christopher Nolan really is a genius director, here he has made a film which for the first time has shown that a hero such as Batman could exist in real life. 10/10

I can honestly say this film didn't make me laugh once. Thats not because I don't like stupid comedy, because I love films like Dodgeball, Ace Ventura, Ali G Indahouse and Borat. I just thought this was beyond stupid. I really didn't like any of the characters, especially Napoleon, who didn't say or do anything remotely funny throughout the film. He is just such an idiot, you just want him to go away and stay off screen. The other characters are just annoying. It just goes to show that you can't just shove a load of stupid characters together to make a comedy.

I suppose this is a love it or hate it affair, and I'm a hater - this is up there with the worst I've ever seen.

Starship Troopers is certainly a good film. There's plenty of action, sometimes darkly humorous, and fantastic special effects. The battleships, bugs and battle scenes look really great, and very seldom can you tell they are just computer graphics. The storyline is good, not just focusing on the war - I always enjoy war films that include basic training in (Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead etc.), and it also has tales of romance and friendship, which break up all the gory violence nicely. The gore in itself is actually very good, showing how brutal the troopers' battle is. BUT, after watching 5 million different people get ripped in half, their brains sucked out and bashed to bits, it does get just a little repetitive. Really I think Verhoeven could have cut some parts of the battle scenes out as the violence does get a little tiresome. It is a good film though, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Sergio Leone's last film was also his best, with this epic life story of two best friends who work together as gangsters. Whether it is a real life story, or simply Noodles' drug-induced dreams is never resolved, but this and the film's non-chronological order add to its effectiveness. The usual brilliant camera-work of Leone's films, and the wonderful musical score by Ennio Morricone are a wonderful accompaniment to the strong violence and character's emotions. The story takes you through all the emotions, but ultimately leaves you feeling happy that you have viewed such a masterpiece. The acting of not just De Niro and James Woods, but all the characters, young and old, is superb and at no point does the storyline become overlong or boring. At 220 minutes, it takes some watching, but believe me it is well worth it. This is one of the best ever gangster films, a true masterpiece from one of the world's greatest directors, and was a perfect sign off for Leone.

A very interesting storyline, a determined rookie agent and the most chilling character ever depicted on film make The Silence of the Lambs an all-time classic. Not many films have won the top 5 Oscars and this certainly deserves to be one of them. The camera-work in this film is brilliant, showing you the action through the eyes of Clarice Starling with all other characters speaking into the camera, getting you involved with the film, and you can almost feel the fear of Clarice's assignment. Anthony Hopkins' performance as Hannibal Lector is something else. There are very few evil characters that you find yourself rooting for, and even despite knowing that he is a sicko mass murderer, you want him to escape from the prison. He is one of the best characters ever, certainly the creepiest! The Silence of the Lambs is one of the most thrilling films of all time, and the twist at the very end is the icing on the cake. 10 out of 10 - easy!

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has a very basic storyline - 3 cowboys trying to collect a fortune in gold. Sergio Leone then set this story against a backdrop of the American civil war. It is visually stunning, and has enough action for 10 films, let alone 1. Okay, so its not geographically or historically correct, but seriously, if you care about those things so much that you don't like the film, then you are just plain sad. The 3 main characters are excellent; Clint Eastwood as the laid back hero, Eli Wallach as his dirty Mexican partner and Lee van Cleef as the evil gunman who kills for a living. The whole film is like a work of art, leading up to the final gunfight in a stadium like cemetery, 1 of the best scenes in film history. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly isn't one of those films that is thought provoking, but it is one of the best simply because for 3 hours it is very entertaining, and a thing of beauty.

This is the worst and most bizarre film ever. Some films are so bad they are good (Transporter 2). This is just beyond bad. Its a sports comedy with very poor sports scenes (people kung fu kicking footballs - why?) and no comedy whatsoever. I honestly didn't laugh once. In fact, the only good thing about Shaolin Soccer is the tagline, "kick some grass!", which is quite clever. That says it all really.

What was Stephen Chow on when he made this? He must have watched Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Escape to Victory one after the other. He had a thought - I'll put them both together! I really wished he hadn't.

I just don't understand this film at all, it is abysmal. The storyline and characters are just plain weird. How is this film entertaining? The storyline is the usual predictable one used in all of the daft comedies produced by messrs Stiller, Vaughn, Ferell and Wilson (guy overcomes difficulties and ends up with the girl) with added football. The only difference is that they are funny, and Stephen Chow clearly isn't.

The worst ever.

Terrible acting, the obvious storyline, just plain terrible.

After viewing this garbage with 3 other people, we all said the same thing - "What the hell have we just seen?"

Why do so many people think this film isn't very good? Because they think it is historically incorrect? Do they not realise this is a comedy? I'm pretty sure that when Brian Helgeland wrote this film he knew that the song 'We Will Rock You' hadn't been released 400 years ago. I'm also sure he knew Nike hadn'd been founded yet. I think people are missing the point, because they thought it was going to be a film like Braveheart. A Knight's Tale is a story which is set in medieval times, and as a JOKE, they have mixed in things that weren't around at that time, such as the Nike sign, and Ulrich being introduced by Chaucer before his matches.

The story is predictable, but in my view that doesn't really matter in a comedy if it makes you laugh on the way. Overall, I though this was a very good film, and I would recommend it to anyone willing to not take it seriously.

8/10