Reviews

So here we have Rob Zombie's debut outing as a movie director. For those who don't know (and I can't imagine there's many of you reading this who don't), Rob Zombie started his carrier in the entertainment industry running errands on the set of Pee Wee's Big Adventure, before forming the seminal heavy metal band White Zombie. White Zombie gained notoriety in the late eighties and early to mid-nineties for their energetic horror/sci-fi/fantasy metal music, before Zombie split the band up and released a series of much acclaimed solo albums in the same vein.

If memory serves, at some point in the late-nineties Rob Zombie was involved with Universal Studio's Halloween party/event in which he designed a 'house' type set for attendees to walk through etc. as part of the celebrations (my memory fails on the specific details). This eventually led to the development of the movie in question. Conceived and directed by Zombie, the movie was shot in 2000, but due to various legal wrangles and studio issues, was not released generally until 2003.

So what of the movie? There is a short prologue before the credits introducing the eccentric Captain Spaulding, a foul mouth and ill-tempered clown who runs a gas station-cum-curios museum-cum-friend chicken shack. After the credits it begins as so many horror movies before it have, a group of teenagers/twenty somethings driving through a rural area (in this case Texas) when they have to stop for gas. The gas station they come across just happens to be the aforementioned Captain Spaulding who roughhouses our protagonists before giving them a tour of his 'museum' and directions to the sight of a local legendary/mythical lynching. On the way there (through predictably horrible weather conditions) they pick up an eccentric but beautiful young female hitchhiker, get a tyre blown out and are invited back to said hitchhiker's house while their car is repaired. You can guess where the story goes from here, needless to say the house is as the title implies not a homely Bed & Breakfast welcoming visitors and the Firefly family who dwell there subject their house guests to a series of ever more alarming, bizarre and grotesque situations.

The film is and widely comes across as homage to the early slasher and exploitation films of the seventies. The film contains stylistic references to just about every 'cutting-edge' horror technique of the seventies, shaky-cam, point-of-view-camera, negative exposure etc. and initially this mish-mash of cinematic styles works. The general plot line is also inter-cut with surrealistic snippets of film and home movies of the Firefly family. This style of cinema fits the movie quite well but becomes tiresome as the movie progresses, you almost feel that Zombie was trying to cram too many styles and ideas into an 88 minute movie; he almost seems desperate to pay tribute to all of his favourite movies. And he succeeds, what we have here is an exploitation pastiche, a combination of Texas Chainsaw Massacre; the Hills Have Eyes and stories of the Manson Family. However, this is all combined together with the more modern horror movement some call 'gorenography'. Rather than attempt to shock and frighten us like in the days of old, Zombie builds the uncomfortable tension by explicitly exposing us to extended scenes of emotional and physical torture, physical mutilation and gory injuries and death. This is what prevents the film from coming across as a spoof or a comic book account of serial killing and reinforces its status as pure exploitation.

Don't get me wrong though, I liked this film. It's not a masterpiece by any means and it falls down in a lot of areas, but on the other hand there's a lot to like. Sid Haig's wonderfully over-the-top Captain Spaulding steals every scene he is in, there are some hilarious characters and moments of dialogue such as the prologue with Spaulding when the Firefly's go to buy some booze for their Halloween party. The characterisation of the protagonists, although is quite obvious to any horror fan, is quite well done. The Firefly family are fantastically flamboyant caricatures of the worst of the worst horror movie villains and played with conviction, avoiding the temptation to 'camp' them up. While the movie isn't as shocking or chilling as I may have liked, the slow exposition of gruesome events in an otherwise fast-paced film does well to build tension and repulse the viewer. The ending is suitably over-the-top and does look like something out of a graphic novel, but somehow fits together with the rest of the film. Despite the villains being played convincingly and the general grim rather than camp tone of the film (which could have easily been the other way round in some director's hands), it is so over the top in some places and surreal in others that it's difficult to know whether or not to take this film seriously.

Overall, this film is hardly ground breaking but is a decent entry into the murky genre of horror. Given the inconsistent nature of the horror movie genre which can lump together such films considered masterpieces (The Shining, Psycho, Rosemary's Baby etc.) with some incredible (but often entertaining) garbage (Plan 9 from Outer Space, Return of the Living Dead II, Seed of Chucky), House of 1000 Corpses fairs well. I get the impression that Rob Zombie has the makings of being a capable director who an obvious passion for what he does. On House 1000 Corpses he was honing his skills, which he further improved with The Devil's Rejects and Halloween. I look forward to seeing more from Mr Zombie in the future.

Cast: Bad Acting: Bad Plot: Un-developed and bad Direction: Mediocre in places, otherwise bad Score: Bad Costumes: Bad Sets: Really Bad

This is a bad bad film, I hate to say it but I enjoyed recent remake fodder House of Wax and Amityville Horror better than this. the plot was very, very slow, characters had no development. For some reason Ambasador Thorne lives in a castle which appears larger than Buckingham Palace in the middle of a country estate with acres of green land, which the title card kindly informs us is 'London'. This patronizing moment sums up most of the film. When the character's die, you feel no compassion for them because they are so 2D and lifeless. In some horror films this doesn't matter because you at least get a good gore fest or a good villain, but not in this. No action, nomomentum, no decent preformaces. Rubbish.

In short this is a terrible film. Hollywood, please stop wasting money on pointless remakes and plough some dough into an original idea.

I went to see this film out of curiosity more than anything. I knew very little about it other than the usual media tagging of it being that 'gay cowboy film'. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, was it truly a great film, or was it just getting media attention due to a mass-media perceived controversial subject matter? I was pleasantly surprised.

From a cinematic point of view, Ang Lee has done a fantastic job of capturing the beauty and the desperation of parts of rural America. Showing the magnificent natural scenery to great effect and convincingly transporting his audience to the little farming communities and cowboy towns of Wyoming and it surrounding regions. The music is moving and fits perfectly with what you are seeing on the screen. An understated score perfectly adds to the atmosphere and feeling that the story generates. The costumes and sets create a convincing backdrop to the period of the story.

Heath Ledger absolutely excels in his role as Ennis, a man of very few words with a lot on his mind. I came away from the film with the idea that Ennis was a man who had extreme difficulty communicating his feelings with others. This is most likely why when he experiences what he does with Jack on Brokeback that summer, he fails to cope with his own feelings, let alone those of the ones around him. Ang Lee has made this film cleverly, he never thrusts an opinion upon his audience about the characters or the decisions they make, he concentrates on analysing their reactions to the events which unfold and the way they deal with them. It is fairly obvious that homosexual relationships met with far more suspicion and disgust in the 1960s than they are in more modern times, especially in more rural areas.

This film could have easily been about two men who fell in love in a time when it was not accepted. Brokeback Mountain however, goes much deeper than this. It does not just show Ennis and Jack and victims of the time they lived in, but shows the decisions they made and the impacts it had on their lives. Jack throughout the film comes across as more accepting of his nature, where as Ennis appears to struggle more with it. But as I said before, this film is not just about 'gay cowboys', it is more of a film about relationships. The relationships between two worker who become lovers, the relations ships they both form after their season together, the relationships they would face with society and their relationships with themselves in a less understanding era.

Heath Ledger is in outstanding form throughout this film. Playing almost a tortured soul character with many difficult decisions to make about his life and himself. Jake Gyllanhall is also very good, but HEath just steals the show. Playing a man who says very few words, but he manages to convey a volume of emotion through his expression, body language and tone during the limited times he speaks out.

Of course most people will think of Brokeback Mountain as that 'gay cowboy' film, but my advice to them is go and see it. In all honesty, this film is about relationships between people, it could have feasibly been made with two sets of families involving a 'straight' affair. The homosexuality of the main characters add more depth to this film, rather than detract from the story and the themes of communication, commitment and human nature.

Most people will go and see this film and enjoy it, some more blinkered people will see it and be offended by it, worse still some damn ignorant people will refuse to see it and spout abuse and disgust purely because they are not open minded enough to enjoy a film on its own merits. I recommend you go see Brokeback Mountain, it is an intelligent, poignant, sometimes moving and sometimes sad portrayal of two people trying to find happiness with others and within themselves.

Green Street, as it was called in the UK, or Hooligans is a bad film. The story is full of fantastical ideas and premises that anyone who lives in England, has been to a football match or knows the first thing about football will spot immediately.

My first main gripe with Hooligans is the poor casting of the two main characters. Don't get me wrong, I like Elijah Wood and have a great respect for his work, but despite his best efforts he struggled to pull off this role. The main motivation for his character is anger at the system and anger at betrayal, however he spends much of the film placid and cheery, only displaying his pent up aggression in one brief scene towards the end of the film. This linked with his looks and physique make him a thoroughly unconvincing addition to a gang of football hooligans. At no point during the film was I convinced that a) he could handle himself in a fight against such thugs and b) the 'firm' of thugs would accept such a person into their fold.

The other main character is played by Charlie Hunnam. Charlie looks the part, and is fairly convincing as a thug. Unfortunately, being a native of Newcastle Upon Tyne in the North of England, he demonstrates the worst East London accent since Dick Van Dyke tried to go cock-en-y in Marry Poppins. Details such as this probably will not bother an American audience who will be less attuned to regional dialect in the UK, but being from the UK it was a problem I couldn't ignore and it contributed to ruining the movie for me. The supporting cast all gave convincing performances and were well cast, especially the role of Bover. The lad playing this character would have been much more suited to the main role that Charlie played. With a film like this, you have to convince the audience that your characters are plausible, unfortunately, the casting failed. Imagine if you made a film like The Godfather and had Sean Hayes (Jack) from Will and Grace playing Michael Corleone's part. You would not be convinced. The story in Hooligan is also full in implausibilities. I am no football Hooligan, but I am a fantatical football fan. I know how cliquey a group of 'regular' football supporters can be, as such it deem it impossible for a non-football fan, who is not a fan of the club in question, is not from the area in question and not even of English nationality to be embraced by a 'firm' who equate to a secret organisation in some severe cases. My final, and biggest, problem with this film, is the way it portrays football hooligans. I take objection to the film's idea that despite being very violent individuals, hooligans are excused as they live by some sort of code of ethics in their own world and should be admired for being brave and loyal to each other. This is complete rubbish. Football hooligans are complete scum. They take football, the national sport of England and use it as an excuse to terrorise, frighten and intimidate people. They only represent a tiny percentage of football fans but give the whole game and people of this country a bad reputation. They are not brave or loyal, they are cowardly and evil. If the 'GSE' in this film truly loved their club, West Ham, why would the devote their lives to being a stain on its name. Hooligans are an embarrassment to football and to English society. Football hooligans do for the reputation of football what Hitler did to the reputation of Germans. Although this film tries/intends to show the 'gritty' side of football violence. It does nothing more than promote it as some kind of excusable activity for extreme fans of the sport. It does not show the poor innocent by-standers at football matches who have their day ruined by some idiot throwing coins/lighters/glass into the crowd. It does not show the innocent home and property owners who have to put up with graffiti and broken windows. It does not show the REAL fans of football clubs who suffer indignity and embarrassment when their teams supporters are banned from travelling to away matches or abroad to European games because the thugs among them ruin it for everyone. If you want to see a good film about football violence, watch the BBC drama 'The Firm'.

Crash is an incredible film and an important one.

The film concerns an ensemble of characters from diverse backgrounds, different racial origins, different class in society and different life experiences. The film follows no particular plot as such but instead cleverly intertwines the many subplots of its various characters and how the directly or in-directly touch each others lives, for better or for worse. Before I move onto the subject matter, it is important to point out that this film has reaped some awesome performances from its cast, notably Matt Dillon playing a been-to-long-in-the-force type cop and the desperate and fearful housewife trapped in her own life Sandra Bullock.

Crash tackles the always tricky and always heatedly debated subject of racism in society. The film has been set in LA, most probably as LA is a city with a massively ethnically-diverse population and a huge divide between the classes. However this film could have been set in nearly any big city in the western world. The world is now so globalise, there is very few places left where you will not meet/pass in the street/know/ignore a person from a different ethnic background to yourself.

The film shows racism and ignorance in an un-apologetic and realistic context. Other films have (often successfully) tackled racism and the causes of, but none I have seen have shown it in such an obvious and everyday context. The characters in this film for the most part are not bad people, nor uneducated, nor malicious. However they do commit acts of racism and ignorance, small and large, based on the stereotypes and presumptions they have in their mind from personal experience or from the media. The film then goes on to show how even the smallest slip of the tongue, a lazy comment here or there can go on to have drastic impacts.

The film never becomes preachy at any time nor does it try to impose any views on the audience. It shows in a matter of fact way, exactly the sort of things that happen everyday and exactly the sort of things we hear and sometimes say or think about people, just because of the preconception we have due to their apparent race.

I work in a job where I come into contact with literally hundreds of foreign people, people of a different racial background to myself and people of many diverse cultures every single day. I wish I could show this film to all of my colleagues as the amount of pre-judgement I hear muttered or even see practised while working with these people is scary. This film would show certain colleagues of mine that what they think is a harmless remark, or even think that a view they hold is valid because they think they know something about a particular race of people, is the worst kind of judgement that they can ever make.

Go watch this film right now.

Neil Marshall follows up his surprise hit Dog Soldiers with claustrophobic creature-feature The Descent.

Being a fan of the horror genre I have found myself constantly disappointed with nearly all the horror movies I have seen at the cinema in the past few years. Hollywood keeps churning out terrible remakes of average Japanese films (the grudge, Ring, Dark Water etc.) terrible remakes of really terrible American films (House of Wax, Amityville Horror) and rarely do we seen a decent horror film with some good scares.

Mr Marshall delighted me with his previous film, Dog Soldiers. While the film wasn't original, big nor clever, it was tense, scary and comedic all at the same time, mostly though it was just entertaining. The Descent has a much darker tone than Dog Soldiers do and this is apparent from the beginning. as the main characters are introduced, we quickly learn that before any 'horror' has taken place, these are troubled and tormented people. The characterisation isn't majority developed, but enough so that we actually care about the main characters and we are given enough back-story to understand their motivation. Much better than the usual method of introducing 2 dimensional pretty-teenage cast members who are there purely for slaughter.

After the introduction of the characters and the situation, the second act begins with the girls heading off on an expedition into the caves. In my opinion, this presents the most excellent part of the film. The direction, lighting and wonderful sets (and locations) really broadcasts the sense of claustrophobia and risk involved in pot-holing/caving. Before we get as far as seeing any 'monsters' I was already squirming in my seat at the thought of the girls getting trapped in the caves. As the caving gets harder and the tensions rise, the strained relationships between the group members begins to show.

As we move into the final act, Mr Marshall lays on the 'horror' as we fans of the genre like. Subtle at first, throw in a few double takes and false starts, then lay on the scary/gory stuff thick and fast.

I'll not spoil the climax of the film, but it was most enjoyable. The director clearly demonstrates his understanding of the horror genre and how best to execute it. There are quite a few references to other classic films which are fun to watch out for as well. A lot of people have said there is an ambiguous ending which may or may not lead to you reading much deeper into the meaning of the film. Whether or not you agree, it doesn't matter, I felt this film was a most entertaining horror flick that will probably work on several levels.

Not too clever, but much smarter than 99% of recent Hollywood horror movies. Neil Marshall has to date made two excellent horror movies on a relative shoestring budget and still delivered the goods. I look forward to seeing his future work.

Batman Begins, the much hyped, much publicised 'reboot' of the Batman franchise is finally here and boy what a treat it is! I was a big fan of Tim Burton's take on Batman, his portrayal of the dark knight as a brooding and reluctant bringer of justice, I always felt fit perfectly with the imagery of the comic books and gave a great feel to the whole Batman mythology. The following outings of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, were less than splendid though. Over-blown campy nonsense with two-dimensional characters being upstaged by a campy over the top rouges-gallery of villains.

So here is the re-boot. The beginning. Batman begins breaks from the convention of other comic book films. The first act of the film is told through flashbacks and does not follow a linear editing style. It gives a fantastic insight into Bruce Wayne's feelings towards his origins and his motivation for becoming the Dark Knight. It traces his path from young boy, to troubled young man; unable to vent the anger he feels for injustice he has suffered at the hand of the criminal element.

Bruce Wayne attempts to confront his demons head on, but soon realises he is just one man in a corrupt and frightening world. The film takes us on the journey Bruce endures in trying to find what it is he needs to do to come to terms with his past and to guide his future. He travels the world and seeks out a means to better himself both mentally and physically. He trains with masters of martial arts, to learn the fighting skills and mental strength he will require to bring justice back to Gotham. This all provides the very convincing back-story of the transition from Bruce Wayne to Batman.

Without giving too much of the plot away, Bruce travels back to Gotham and begins his quest for justice. It shows how he equips himself and the conflict he has within when dealing with the criminals of the city. It also shows what other Batman films have failed to show. The trouble of living a double life when you are a billionaire playboy. Bruce has to find balance between his public image as Batman and his public image as a rich, businessman and socialite.

The film climaxes with an awesome final act, showcasing immense fight scenes, brilliant use of the new Batmobile, gorgeous sets and intense acting. The final scenes set the film up perfectly for any sequels and all the while maintains the sense of realism and down to earthiness that Nolan promised.

Batman Begins is well written, well-shot and combines amazing special effects, set design and acting to form a perfect final package. This is without a shadow of a doubt, the best comic-book movie I have ever seen. Christian Bale puts in a sterling performance as Bruce Wayne, often reminiscent of his role as a businessman in American Psycho. He is also very convincing of a man driven to fight injustice, a man with a troubled past and a man seeking what he must do to come to terms with it. He is also entirely convincing as the all-action hero Batman, disposing of criminals with his expert martial arts training enthusiasm for justice.

The supporting cast is perfect. Michael Caine is an inspired choice for Alfred. There is good chemistry between him and Bale and you are left convinced that they have a quasi-father/son relationship and that Alfred genuinely cares for his young master. Gary Oldman plays a brilliant Sgt Gordon, the last honest copy, torn between misguided loyalty to the force and an honest will to protect the innocent. Cillian Murphy plays a reserved, but entirely psychotic proto-super villain and Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson, as always provide strong character roles. Holmes was a fine leading lady, but I couldn't help feeling she didn't really have enough to do in this film, however only a minor criticism.

Batman Begins is a dark film, centred on strong themes of fear, over coming demons of your past and the fight for justice in a corrupt world. Unlike many comic book films, this film is not in anyway aimed at children. It is not strictly adult in nature, but follows intelligent character development, adult conflict and complex portrayals of the characters. Most comic book films introduce your hero as good because he wants to save the world and the villain bad because he wants to take over the world. Then the action begins. This is not the case with Batman Begins, it gives insight into each character's motivation and reasons for their actions, it does not expect the audience to blindly accept anything on face value.

Well done to Goyer and Nolan for producing such an awesome movie. When I left the cinema, everyone in the audience was grinning at the end of the film, knowing they had just seen the beginning of something rather special. Bring on the sequels!

Now here is a novel idea, making a movie from the "enemy's" point of view, attaching a human face to probably the most notorious institute of evil in human history. Before watching this film, I had reservations over how much I would enjoy it and what I might gain from it. I was concerned that the film may be an attempt to show the human side of the Nazi party, to make us sympathetic not to their cause, but to their human nature. I had to think to myself, do I really want to attach a human element to people who history has painted as monsters? The film begins with Hitler recruiting Traudl Junge as a new secretary in 1942, from this point onwards the film is predominantly (but not entirely) seen through her eyes. This key scene at the beginning of the film shows how people reacted to their leader with fanatical loyalty, holding him high in reverence. This gives us a brief insight into the belief of his followers that what they were doing would lead them to a golden utopia, a better world. All to often in films concerning Nazi's, they are portrayed as evil personified, killing for killing's sake, being evil for the sake of being evil. What we get throughout this film is a more realistic viewpoint of people's attitudes. The people who followed Hitler may have no entirely agreed with everything he said, may have not hung on his every word, but believed that he would lead them to a greater future, as such they followed.

Bruno Ganz, does a magnificent job of playing one of history's most notorious and documented individuals. He plays the role as, what I feel, accurately and realistically as possible. He resists the temptation to play Hitler as an uber-evil super-villain, disregarding all life who opposes him and wiping out humans at a whim. He plays the roles as an ageing leader, loosing grip on his health, his sanity and his conquest. A man who was kind, considerate and caring to children, his dog and his civilian staff, but who also attempted to wipe out an entire race of people and was proud of himself for doing it. It shows a man willing to send young children into the street to resist enemy advancement, it shows a man who believes that the civilian population would not be evacuated, as it was their chance to rise up (women and children, the old and sick, un armed) and prove they deserved victory. This film raises the question, was Hitler an evil man who practised evil deeds through his beliefs? or were his evil deeds a result of his absolute pursuit of his beliefs? Watching Ganz's performance, you get the feeling all Hitler had left before he took his life, was his ideals (not that this is anything to be proud of). He had lost the war, he had lost the respect of several of his commanding officers and he had lost his grip on reality.

The film also shows Hitler's closest officers and staff, it shows how they react to the downfall. Some have blind and fanatical faith that Hitler will act as their saviour and devise a scheme to turn the battle around. Some accept that their leader has lost his grip, but follow with blind devotion anyway. Some are not so sure and see the cracks in the beliefs they were fighting for. The film shows these often horrifying moments and realisations in all to realistic detail.

Ultimately, Downfall shows the human and personal element of the end of the war for Hitler and the Nazis. It shows how real people, people who tell jokes, drink, socialise, listen to songs and dance, also followed national socialism with a devotion that drove them to do the terrible things they did. It shows how they did not believe what they were doing was wrong, in their minds they were paving the way for their glorious future. It also shows their fanatical devotion and blind faith in their goal, led to their downfall, both as a movement and as human beings.

Downfall is an amazing and powerful film, documenting an unseen side of a major historical event. The film ends with video footage of the real Traudl Junge talking about her feelings towards the war and he involvement with the Nazis. She says that when she first became involved with the Nazis, she was in awe of their power and beliefs, she may have not agreed with everything they did, but what difference would her being involved or not make? She was ignorant to their deeds and as such held a clean conscience. Then she says has realised over time she had the power not to be ignorant to their deeds, that she should have stayed away from them, realising them for the evil that they were. I felt she was warning what ignorance can lead to, that no matter how tiny one person is in the scheme of things, it is no excuse to contribute towards the wrong cause.

Excellent historical film, highly recommended.

Despite the misleading title, The Rage in Placid Lake is not some ropey horror movie sequel about teenagers being chomped to death by a malformed alligator. It is a semi-satirical, light-hearted but intelligent coming-of-age comedy following the exploits of the cruelly named Placid Lake. Placid did not have a 'conventional' upbringing. His parents are two of the most over-the-top, but yet entirely believable hippies ever committed to celluloid. Their 'new age' methods of child rearing subject young Placid to humiliation time and time again, but un be known to him, give him an inner wisdom and strength to deal with life's little problems. Unfortunately, Placid doesn't concern himself with life's little problems, he rises above them. Placid leaves school and begins to worry about life's bigger problems, such as what to do with his life. Without giving away too much of the story, Plaicd formulates a plan which involves re-inventing himself in the quest to fit in, lead a conventional life and annoy the hell out of his parents in the process. Of course Placid is far from conventional and it seems the harder he tries to be 'normal' the greater the challenge becomes. The gags in this film are a mix of satirical jibes at the modern society we live in, observational humor about the trials of growing up, and some good old fashioned slapstick that the Aussies do so well.

Ultimately, this film is a great coming of age tale of a young man coming to terms with the world and himself. The acting is fantastic, Ben Lee is entirely convincing as the dead-pan and slightly unhinged Placid. His parents are over-the-top caricatures, but do a splendid job of convincing us just how well meaning (but entirely mad) they are. Rose Bryne is fantastic as Placid's foil/love interest/best friend/sole mate, and really doesn't get the screen time she really deserves. There a plenty of smaller character parts which also stand out, all contributing to this wacky, but believable film. This is a film for anyone who ever felt they didn't quite fit in, or anyone who didn't want to fit in. 8.5/10

Another day, another Hollywood re-make. The original Amyityville Horror was not a ground breaking horror movie, nor was it an especially good horror movie. The reason it was anywhere near successful was because it was apparently based on 'true' events that had gripped the nation through news reports and the notorious novel of the same name a few years earlier.

So, out of any original ideas, the big wigs in Hollywood decided to dust of an old cult classic and give it the 21st century make over that no one really wanted. The result is a hit and miss, horror by numbers tale of a haunted house. The set pieces are all there, brief back story, quick introduction to characters, camera showing off the exciting sets and then on with the show! The show in this case being the usual 'jumpy' and 'shocking' sequences all modern horror films are obliged to contain. Quick flashes or glimpses of something scary, strobe lights and sharp blasts of music. The problem with modern horror movies is, they all use the same gimmicks to pull the audiences strings, and ultimately they get a little too predictable. This film has nearly all the usual tactics, scary reflections in mirrors, demisting foggy mirrors to reveal scary image, seeing weird stuff in windows from a distance, being grabbed in the bath, looking at something scary-looking back to realise its something normal. All the tried and tested horror movie tricks.

This remake has its moments, to be honest the lead male, Ryan Reynolds is quite good. He does a convincing job of being intense and messed up in the head. Melissa George, does the usual running round and protecting her children bit (even though she looks unfeasibly young and pretty to be a widowed mother of three). The child actors pretty 2 dimensional and unconvincing though.

The sets and special effects are good and the pace of the film is well timed, but unfortunately this is where the good points list ends.

The back story is brief and any sub-plots are hardly explored at all and stand out more a lazy plot mechanisms than attempts to give the story depth. The film really comes crashing down in the third act though. The scare tactics are quite rightly turned up a notch, but unfortunately a frankly lame and recycled back-story is awkwardly injected to try and explain the scary goings on. Why Hollywood has to do this I do not know? When will they learn horror movie audiences don't need these lame attempts of plot reasoning. If we are told a house is haunted, we will accept it, now bother us not with this futile plot any longer and bring on the scary stuff! In my opinion, if they really wanted to do a really good job of remaking this, they could have woven in a bit more ambiguity into the plot. Included some of the aftermath of the Lutz family fleeing, such as the media interest and the whole 'real' or 'hoax' argument that followed.

Anyway, to conclude, not an entirely bad movie, but on the other hand not an entirely good one. This is the typical, no-brainer, horror-by-numbers, frieze-dried movie that we have come to expect from the big studios these days. 4 out of 10. Stay at home and watch the Shining.

A Very Long Engagement indeed. This film is visually stunning, combining beautiful sets and locations with wonderful, costumes and special effects which allowed me as the viewer to totally immerse myself in the period in which it was set. There is a subtle attention to detail and without detracting from the plot, the director makes the most of his sets and locations, resulting in some breath taking shots.

The film revolves around a young girl, Mathilde, who's fiancé was sent to war. She receives word that he has died on the front, however she feels deep down inside he is still alive and sets off on the heart wrenching adventure of finding out for herself his fate.

The story begins with the tale of five soldiers being court Marshalled, one of them is Mathilde's fiancé. Then through a series of flashbacks and adventures taking our heroine across Paris, each of the five men's story unfolds revealing clues as to the fate of her finance.

The characters in the film are wonderfully portrayed, especially the over the top Aunt and Uncle, Postman and Private Investigator. These colourful characters add a depth and compassion to the film.

Unfortunately, I had a few problems with this film too. While the fringe characters are filled out nicely, the main characters, Mathilde and her Finace Manech (I think is right) are skimmed over. You don't learn enough of their history together, it is only briefly explained, I would have preferred this to have been examined in more depth, then I feel I would have been more enthusiastic about Mathilde's mission. The end also seems to be very bittersweet.

On the whole, good film with stunning visuals, good acting and great direction. It has some great scenes with the intent of making you both laugh and cry. I felt a little disappointed with a few aspects of the plot, however this may just be my opinion, or my trouble with following subtitles and watching the film at the same time. I wholly recommend you go see this film. 7/10

House of the Flying Daggers is a stunning visual masterpiece, harking back to the glory days of Hollywood, with extravagant sets, masses of colours, wonderful choreography and incredible and fantastical substance.

Without spoiling the intricacies of the plot, House of the Flying daggers centres around a beautiful young blind dancer, who is suspected to be linked with the renegade group the Flying Daggers. Eager to track down these 'Robin-Hoodesque' villains, the local police/soilders send a spy to seduce the girl and inflitrate the gang. Along the way, the principal characters have mixed feeling's about their role in the world and society, eventually the plot shifts from a grand scale political and military struggle to a love story. This shift is seamless and the many different threads of the plot weave together to illustrate the tapestry of emotion that our heroes in the film experience.

The film itself is a technical marvel, plot aside, you could be lost forever in the beautiful sets, the contrasting colours and the unbelievable set-pieces that rival Crouching Tiger in their elegance and excitement. Even if you have no interest in Asian cinema, world cinema or 'this type of film', you should check it out purely for the awesome action sequences and brillianlty choreographed fight sequences. Without heavily relying on CGI, the fights look like artworks themselves. Watching the Matrix trilogy again after this will lead to disappointment me thinks.

The plot twists and turns towards the end of the film, in sync with this the colours and landscapes twist and turn, each scene having the colour, look and feel of the emotions the character's are experiencing. The film successfully shows the different directions each character is pulled in, and their conflict within as well as their conflict with the political, social and military forces.

An amazing film, worthy of repeat viewings. Full of action, emotion, beauty and fantastic visuals. Why can't Hollywood make films like this anymore. This film deserves epic status, even if it only centres around a dozen or so characters. Highly recommended.

Having read none of the Lemony Snickett books, I was unsure of what to expect from this film.

The film begins with a gentle introduction that quickly turns into a humorous, but noteworthy, disclaimer that the following film has dark underlying themes. The main characters are introduced (the three children) and almost instantly we are subjected to the news of the first in a series, or unfortunate events. The film is fast paced and sends the children from one unfortunate situation to another, with Jude Law doing a splendid job of narrating the story along the way. The children a likable and resourceful characters with good chemistry between the actors. You genuinely feel they care about each other and have a great desire to help each other out of these incredible situations.

The real star of the show of course is Jim Carrey. This film provides the perfect platform for Mr Carrey to do what he does best, goof around and play over the top and outlandish characters. In this role Jim Carrey excels, never goofing off to much to undermine the credibility of the character, but being suitably over the top to convey the eccentric old count.

Visually, the film is stunning, the sets look straight out of a Tim Burton film, the costumes are fantastic, the direction is splendid and does a fine job of progressing the story. The visual effects are tremendous and fit in with the tale perfectly, never distracting nor undermining.

This film is quite dark for a children's film, but not dark in a sinister way, but dark in a spooky hallowe'en sort of way that kids love. Watching the film reminded me of reading Rhoal Dahl books as a child, with the over the top characters and out of this world situations.

The plot of the film is fast paced, but contains good character development and plenty of action and adventure. I would recommend this film to children and adults alike.

Okay, so I may be a little biased here because when I was a kid, Disney's Peter Pan was my favourite thing in the world, but bear with me. Finding Neverland is a truly wonderful film that is touching, uplifting, moving, happy and sad. Johnny Depp plays Barrie exceptionally well, eccentric and excitable but all the while still restrained enough to be convincing of the time period. His attempt on the Scotting accent was admirable, not perfect, at times he sounded a little too like Shrek, but on the whole better than I could have done, and I have Scottish heritage!

Kate Winslet also makes a fine turn, but the real gems of this movie are the children. The young boy playing Peter was exceptional, he really convinced me of the trauma he was going through and I found it heart wrenching that this sweet little boy with a wonderful imagination was having to grow up and deal with the pains of the adult world.

Finding Neverland revolves around themes that are all present in Peter Pan, the escapism, the power of belief, the importance of friendship and adventure but most of all the theme of not wanting to grow up. Finding Neverland doesn't really add much that hasn;t already been said about Peter Pan, but what it does do is tell the story of its genesis beautifully. It re-inforces the Peter Pan message of enjoying childhood and that within us all we are all children at heart. It shows that even though J M Barrie had the best and honourable intentions, his actions also caused sadness and grief to those he loved. The film shows his dilemma and the pain this caused him, but also how he need and will to delight the world with wonder and magic drove him to do the things he did. J M Barrie may have upset some people and had personal heartache along the way, but his gift to the millions of people who have enjoyed and loved Peter Pan is a testament to the man's vision. I think this film is a fine reflection of Mr Barrie, his inspiration and the legacy that he has left behind.

A wonderful and touching film. 8/10.