Reviews

I happened to watch this film for the second time by accident recently, on Sky TV. The first time must have been years ago sometime as I only recalled having seen it before once it got to the end. If I'd have remembered sooner I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time (again!).

This film is so pretentious; it is very showy and has no substance. The story is totally stupid and really boring to watch. The twist has the OMG factor. But not "OMG that was so clever" but "OMG these guys are really stupid."

An 'it was all a dream' ending is shameful. Shame on you pretentious lot who made this tripe!

As for the 'suspicious' review & score I mentioned well, bar this one there are only 2 other reviews on IMDb for this film. One is written by someone who has never ever reviewed another film on IMDb before or since, but seemingly felt compelled to write one for this terrible short film. Part of the crew perhaps? Maybe even the director herself? The review seems to imply the reviewer knows the lead actor as they refer to him as a 'humble man', so it would appear there is a connection somewhere.

As for the "rising star" director, on what star she is supposed to be rising on I don't know as she only appears to have directed one other film and the lack of votes on that suggest very few people have ever seen it.

The ridiculously high rate for this film can surely only be accounted for by the filmmakers themselves voting on their own film. It really isn't worthy of such a high rating.

The doctor who hears voices

Literally just watched this last night and thought I'd visit IMDb to see if I could get a few answers but there are no other comments on here so thought I'd leave one myself.

The story itself was intriguing and, if true, quite incredible.

The reason I say "if true" is because while watching it I was confused by the format and also midway through and again at the end, questioned whether it could even be a hoax.

I'm pretty certain it couldn't be a hoax. No one would exploit their audience that much would they? Pretend to document a legitimately mentally ill person? So where does my confusion arise from? It's the way it was filmed.

At the beginning we are told this is a dramatisation with the patient being played by an actress to protect her identity. We are also told everything else is documented as it happened. The only other people to feature in this are Ruth's 'Psychiatrist' Rufus, and the voice of the film maker, Leo Regan.

The story is of a young woman who used to be a doctor but was suspended due to depression. She now has a voice in her head that disrupts her daily lifestyle, telling her to hurt or kill herself and also to kill others. Despite this, Ruth is trying to get re-employed as a doctor (!).

While we are aware the character of 'Ruth' is played by an actress, Leo Regan talks as if the scenes with her in are not dramatised. So he will say things like "The next time I saw Ruth her voices had got worse" and then show a clip of Ruth arguing with herself. But it's fake, right? It's an actress. But Regan talks as if what we are watching are the actual events as they unfold. But we know they are fake. So it's and odd relationship between the viewer and the film maker then. On one side we are being told it is drama, on the other we know we are watching a documentary (as opposed to fiction) and the narrator (the actual film maker, who is 'real' and not an actor) talks as if the events are also 'real' and happening in the present, and not something that happened in the past or something that is being dramatised. It's confusing to try to explain, but if you watch it you will understand. It's too hard to tell what is drama and what is real. Rufus is the only other person we see and since it jumps between scenes of him on his own and him with Ruth as if it were all natural, you begin to wonder where the drama ends and documentary begins. Which then has you questioning whether any of it is real at all. Or it did with me anyway.

Rufus, the apparent 'radical' psychiatrist is a strange character too. His controversial techniques revolve around dismissing drugs in favour of talking. It's sounds romantically simple and may have been effective in this case, or at least the documentary suggests this. Watching him though, you can't help feel he doesn't really have a clue what he's doing. He doesn't behave or talk like a psychiatrist. His vocabulary is quite restricted, his ideas incomplete. I'm amazed he is a qualified psychiatrist at all. Then I was curious as to how Ruth came to be his patient and how he has free reign to use these 'radical' techniques on her (not on the NHS, surely?). In all honesty he came across as someone who didn't have any medical background at all and was experimenting on his patient.

It's probably worth noting also that Rufus used to be in a mental home as he was schizophrenic when he was younger. Yet, we never find out how he was 'cured.' I don't know the details of how someone would become a psychiatrist, but if you can't be a doctor if you have a mental illness, would you not expect the same protocols for psychiatry?

Another strange thing is he says some incriminating things on camera (things that he himself admits are incriminating) and yet they still show it. Would his job not be on the line? The documentary continues along in this vein. I had a strange feeling that Ruth would recover and all would be well. Which is exactly what happened. Apparently she 'defeated' the voice in her head that told her to kill herself and others and was employed once again as a doctor. I find this amazing. She (or I should say, the actress) fully admits to lying to the NHS to achieve this (of course, if they know of her mental state she would not be allowed to practice).

But again, this is all admitted on camera….do the film makers not have a duty to let the NHS know they have a schizophrenic doctor in their employ? She is potentially dangerous!

How did they ever find out about her anyway? How did this documentary get made?

What of Rufus? Assuming he was not an actor also (it does not state he was), surely his right to work as a psychiatrist would be revoked after this programme? After all, he encouraged Ruth to lie to the NHS to become employed again. He also practised outside of the normal rules (e.g. not informing the authorities when he thought Ruth had maybe killed herself after she had disappeared for a while). It all seems so unbelievable.

If true, this is an interesting documentary in as far as the subject is interesting, yet I feel (if she is real) she has been exploited. Over all it's not very insightful and (again, if real), surely immoral???

Los Cronocrimenes on paper sounded interesting and quirky and I thought I would love it. The mysterious promo photo of a guy with what looked like a pink towel wrapped around his head just intrigued me more and I was very much looking forward to watching it.

For the first 15 minutes or so it seemed like this was going to develop in to a really good movie. But then you quickly figure out what is going on, and then elements of it become quite predictable! This was unfortunate in that the next half hour or so was really boring to watch because it was obvious how things would happen. It's after this initial predictable bit that things start to get more complex, and the story also begins to fall apart.

It really wouldn't make for an interesting read if I was to simply type out all the loose ends and random actions that the characters take in the film that seem to have no explanation at all. I will just say that it had even more inconsistencies than Primer – a film which Los Cronocrimenes is almost identical to. Primer was also a poor film; out of the two I couldn't decide which was worse so I guess that means they were equally as bad.

Now, I'm quite sure I've upset a lot of people with my negative comments about this film so far. People always seem to get tetchy over negative reviews of films that for some reason they see as untouchable. Believe me, I wanted dearly to like this film, but I left very disappointed, bored, feeling I had just watched 'Primer 2', wandering why Hollywood have already bought the rights to make this film and more importantly wondering why so many good reviews when it is quite blatantly contrived, predictable and full of loose ends!

Hector, the main character, does so many unexplained things it leaves you feeling frustrated and, as another reviewer has stated, there are many moments of unbelievably in this movie that requires the audience to leave reason at the door on the way in. Although the other reviewer did state these moments were made acceptable via humour, I did not find much humour in this movie myself.

If a film maker is going to take on a time travel movie then they should at least have the integrity to make sure it all 'works'. However, as usual all this seems to have been looked over by people who insist on giving this film a great review. There only seems to be a minority of people who are willing to point out that there are too many loose ends to make this film work. And if you have a time travel movie that doesn't work then what good is it?

Truly awful film that I made the mistake of purchasing. The film is a confused mess of bad scriptwriting, bad acting and bad directing.

There really isn't any good qualities about this film at all. It's not like you could even say "well at least they tried, they just didn't have the budget for it". No budget could have helped this poor excuse for a film.

The plot of the movie doesn't make much sense and isn't explained very well. I doubt the writers were even concerned about the plot and character development and just went for trying to make an exploitation movie. Only one problem - there's barely any gore or nudity! The actors are really, really pathetic. Beyond belief. Even Rod Steiger is pretty poor in this. He must have been so desperate. Like, even more desperate than when he agreed to do Amityville. The death scenes are so uninteresting because you just don't feel anything for the characters at all - neither love nor hate. There was only one good death scene and that's because it was so ridiculous it made me laugh out loud. I do not believe it was intended to be funny.

Honestly, as you watch this you feel embarrassed for the actors playing the mental 40 year olds who still think they are children (a point in the film that is never explained - along with everything else). I really do think all the actors over 30 in this film must have been so desperate to take a role on this. It's pure humiliation. The younger actors most likely thought it was their big break. Shame they couldn't act at all though.

Truly, truly awful from beginning to end.

I'm giving this a 3 out of 10 because I enjoyed the beauty of Oregan. However, literally any Joe off the street could take a camera out in the woods there and bring back something that looks incredible.

In fact, a less pretentious director could have probably done it better as there are too many close-ups, obscure angles and shots of tree tops when we could have had a better view of things.

Some incredibly boring and pointless scenes take place in this film. At one point Mark gets out of the car and takes a phone call. The camera remains stationary. We can not hear what Mark is saying. Half the screen is of Mark's back in the distance, and the half of the screen is taken up by the back of Kurt's head. This lasts about a minute but seems like forever. It's not even a nice shot. The film is plagued with scenes like this and if it wasn't for some really nice shots in the woods & towns then I would consider that the director was taking the pi** out of the audience.

I don't know what the relevance of the political broadcasts on the radio are, whatever anyone says they have nothing to do with the diminishing friendship. Bush-era or not, all people grow up, drift from old friends, make new ones. It is not the Bush-era that has separated these friends but their totally different lifestyles. Lifestyles caused by choices and circumstance, not political beliefs.

There isn't' any real storyline. The two characters barely speak and when they do it's not worth listening to. I couldn't have cared less whether these old friends drifting apart or not, or the reasons behind it, I didn't like either of them.

Fascination is a really poor quality predictable murder mystery that is very forced and contrived. There is no character development and both the script and acting are over the top college fodder. It gives the impression of being written by a rich boy who wants to be a film maker and uses all the clichés in a very unintelligent and uninteresting way

No one in this film seems to have true feelings. It is like it is written by someone who doesn't have any feelings themselves. The characters are ill-defined and they chop and change from being nice, to nasty, to nice again for no reason other than to confuse the audience so we aren't supposed to know who the killer is (though it is still very easy to work out anyway).

Dialogue and acting style is melodramatic, the characters are clichéd - a wicked step-father, an uncaring mother, the mandatory best friend who only appears when the writer needs and extra character for, say, grave robbing.

The guy who plays this 'best friend' character is so bad at acting it's like he's not even in the same movie, his acting style as well as his costume and general demeanour is just completely out of kilter with the rest of the film.

The screenplay is so poor that you realise the writer has no integrity at all. He just doesn't care! Bad structure, two dimensional characters, ill-fitting scenes. It had that whole 'first draft' kind of feel.

For example, the main character, Scott, bumps in to a girl called Kelly in one scene. In the very next scene they are sitting in a restaurant with Scott's mother and her new boyfriend. It's only about half way through the scene that you realise Scott isn't introducing Kelly to the parents, but that the mother's new bloke is Kelly's father and they are announcing their marriage plans. So the two main characters have developed a relationship and none of it was shown to the audience. And by sheer chance Scott's new girlfriend happens to be the daughter of his mother's new boyfriend. It's scenes like this that make the film come across as a jumbled mess.

Red herrings abound in this movie, particularly in respect of the mother who throughout most of the film comes across as an evil woman who may have killed her husband; she gets married soon after his death and shows no feeling or thought towards her son. Then in a random scene about three quarters of the way through she has a about-turn and delivers a monologue wherein she explains her deep love for her son and how she would die for him. This is not a deep and meaningful confession of love, but a lazy attempt to tell the audience that the mother has feelings. Unfortunately all it accomplishes is to reveal that she has been portrayed as evil up to this point in a very inept attempt to throw an audience off the trail.

Whatever it is you are looking for in this film (suspense, romance, erotic thriller), you won't find it, believe me.

Before anyone else's girlfriend gets fooled by the romantic storyline and positive comments on IMDb, read this review and pay heed!

After suggesting to my girlfriend that we watch 'weepie' films 'Always' and 'Forever Young' (both great films BTW) she quickly became addicted and wanted more more more. So she has done the film-choosing of late.

Unfortunately she got fooled by this Ghost-ish storyline and we were subjected to this celluloid horror for about 23 minutes before neither of us could stand any more.

While I myself prefer indie films, I am not against the odd romantic weepie such as the ones mentioned above. However, when it comes to sitting down at the weekend watching these kind of films, you kind of really need a big budget glamorous Hollywood movie to do the job. You tend to feel a bit ripped off if it's just a kitchen sink drama.

This BBC offering is truly awful to watch. It looks just like an 80's BBC drama. It feels like a TV programme. British/kitchen sink dramas can be OK (Saturday night & Sunday morning, KES) but this is far from OK.

The script was uneventful and was going nowhere. At the point of turning the film off we still had no idea what the motivation for any of the characters was, or if anything was ever going to happen. We had no involvement in the story – nothing to look forward to. The protagonist goes to a psychiatrist, talks about her dead husband, complains to her landlord about rats and not a lot else.

As mentioned it was around the 23 minute mark, when her builder, boss, friend and landlord were all in her kitchen talking about washing up (of all things) that we decided this was not a film for us!

Reading some of the other reviews I almost feel like giving it a chance again. But then I remember how dire it was and the feeling soon goes

There has been such furore surrounding this film that I felt I was missing out if I didn't watch it.

From the few reviews I have read I was expecting a fantastical, visually stunning film.

What I got however was a boring period drama about a girl and her evil stepfather.

The fantasy sections of the film - which I was really looking forward to based on their reputation - were short and pointless, having absolutely no relation to the rest of the film whatsoever.

The young girl, Ofelia, goes on a 'quest' to find a key, then a knife...then nothing much else, all this leads nowhere when Ofelia dies and the results of her quest have no effect on the rest of the film. Thus rendering these fantasy sections completely irrelevant and frustrating.

As for the visuals, well, Jim Henson's 1986 fantasy 'Labyrinth' is far more magical & satisfying - and at least has a point to it all!

Blue. Hmmm. Blue, in case you aren't aware by now is a film with no visuals whatsoever, it is simply a blue screen.

It amuses me no end that reviewers are stating that blue was a better colour to choose over others. As if it's really clever to use the colour blue as opposed to red, or green, or anything. What on earth are they talking about? It's a blank screen. And besides, how do they know blue is better? Have they sat for 79 minutes in front of screens all the colours of the rainbow and afterwards thought "you know, watching a yellow screen just isn't as satisfying as watching a blue one, I'm giving this film a 10"

I noticed a review on IMDb that has stated this film does not even need visuals. What is a film without visuals I ask you? It's a radio play, surely. The fact that this is released as a film but is nothing but a blue screen is just a joke on the audience. However, as with all 'art' there are always people who will take it really seriously and credit such things as innovative, original, new and refreshing.

Film is a visual medium. To stare at a blank screen for 79 minutes while listening to narration is entirely pointless.

Your eyes need visuals and if nothing is happening in front of them they naturally look somewhere else. To have to force yourself to stare at a blue screen is insanity.

Unfortunately I am unable to comprehend why other reviewers state the blue screen is to be appreciated. I would be willing to bet that had an unknown film maker done such a thing it would not get the respect it is getting. Likewise I do not believe said reviewers would stare at a blue wall and wax lyrical about how stunning it is, but should Derek Jarman (were he still alive) come and frame the wall I can imagine they would never be able to stop talking about it.

And that is where this film would appear to get its audience - people who would never normally appreciate such things until a respected artist comes along and tells them how wonderful it is.

Honestly, I can only comment on the first 45 minutes. Why? Because I had to walk out of the cinema from boredom!

I was expecting a really good, fast paced, fun horror movie. What I was subjected to was one of the most boring films I have ever seen.

In this first 45 minutes a family fill up at a gas station in the desert, blow a tyre, then go looking for help. It was so dragged out and the characters were so two dimensional I cared for none of them.

This lack of interest in the protagonists meant it was neither here nor there to me if they lived, died, slaughtered the mutants, or anything.

I couldn't give a damn about the rest of the movie, nothing could make up for something so boring.

Despite all the positive reviews here, and being a fan of SOME slasher and giallo films, I found this to be a bit boring and poorly executed.

In a particularly ridiculous scene early on in the film we are introduced to the killer when a couple of the actresses from the theatre production go to a mental institution to see a doctor as one of them has hurt their ankle (!). By pure coincidence a mental guy breaks free from his shackles, murders a warden and somehow manages to escape trouble free into the back of the car the actresses came in (!).

In this type of film it's unfortunate for the audience to know who the killer is immediately as often that is half the fun. The fact that the killer decides to don a rather spooky owl mask for the rest of the film, and with the claustrophobic setting of the theatre that the group were locked in, it would have been a lot more fun to play 'guess the killer'.

The death scenes were OK by slasher standard but not really worth noting. Apart from a struggle between one of the actors and the murderer, and the girl they are fighting over gets torn in half! Although this happens off-screen, it is amusing when the guy falls over and the top-half of the girl lands on him.

There is pretty poor acting throughout and none of the characters were worth caring for. In fact, character development is so insignificant in this film that I didn't even realise the 'main character' was the main character until the end when she survived. This was also a rather ridiculous scene as the caretaker somehow manages to shoot the killer between the eyes despite being at an angle that from which it would have been impossible to do so, then (perhaps preparing for a sequel?) the killer wakes up! After being shot through the head! Very stupid.

Two scenes stuck in my mind. One was where a girl was was acting out being murdered as part of the theatre show, then as she is repeatedly stabbed it cuts to various members of the group as they realise she Really IS being murdered. You really got the sense that they didn't know what to do next. The second was a nice shot where the killer sat exhaustedly on stage between his victims as feathers blew around the theatre and an excellent piece of music played along. Apart from that, this film can pretty much be disregarded!

I rented this one on the basis that it has some pretty good reviews overall, and the Evil Dead 2 connection (the ONLY good film to come out of Raimi/Spiegel/Campbell).

It was to say the least a great disappointment. I could tell from the opening shot of the moon which lasts about 5 minutes while the credits roll that this was going to be bad. I mean, they could have zoomed in or cut to something else or anything!

Still, I gave it the benefit of the doubt but then we are introduced to the characters and you can immediately see the tackiness of the film. The dialogue is painful, the acting is worse. All the characters' personalities blend into one and most of them look the same (not just the Raimi brothers) making it impossible to give two hoots about any of them and thus taking most of the enjoyment out of their death scenes.

Straight off it tries to be funny but fails, as an old man lifts up his bag of shopping - then, surprise! - the bag splits and his shopping falls on the floor. Hilarious. Another example of this fine comedy script is when the police officers finally turn up and one of them says "Here, take my card....oh no, that's not my card." Then he pulls out a new card "That's my card, yeah, ha ha."

Oh dear oh dear do you see what I mean?! And people like this!??!

I think I know why this has a relatively good rating - It's because gorehounds will give 10/10 for any kind of film that has gore in it irrespective of poor script/acting/film-making etcetera (this is how I explain the unrealistically high rating for Lucio Fulci's God-awful movies and other European tripe like the Demons films)

Now don't get me wrong, I like slashers (Black Christmas, Nightmare on Elm Street, Blood and Black Lace, What Have They Done to your Daughters) I am a big horror fan, and I love Evil Dead II. But this is pure trash.

The only bits worth watching are the gore scenes - which come in quite late in the movie. We see a spike through an eyeball (So how is the same thing in Zombie Flesh Eaters still cut in th UK?!!), a headcrushing scene which is nice, and I must admit, one of the most enjoyable death scenes committed to celluloid (along with the death of Tina in Nightmare on Elm Street and Capt. Rhodes in Day of the Dead), when a guy has is face cut in half with a saw.

The effects aren't as realistic as in those two films just mentioned, or even as good as the ones in Evil Dead II, but more akin to the rubber/foam FX in Bad Taste. Still, enjoyable all the same. However, the total of about 2 minutes worth of gore does in no way justify the tripe that is the rest of the movie. Like the badly done intentional 'scares' - at one point one of the characters turns around and the film cuts to a close up of a magazine with Sting on the cover. I could have passed this off as one of the 'jokes' but Spiegel cuts to exactly the same shot later in the film!! Why?!!

It's not hard to work out who the killer is and the 'surprise' ending is just done so badly it made me hate this film even more.

At the end of the day, you're either going to avoid this film, or watch it just for the gore - but expect the worst!

Sideshow is a good example of a basically interesting idea gone very, very wrong. As far as horror movies go, and especially with the influx of teen movies at the moment, a film based around a bunch of teens attending a mysterious freak show is something you could have a lot of fun with.

However, the writer decided to make a very straight, very boring, very plain tale about five teens who become part of the show when enraged midget Abbot Graves transforms them into freaks using some pathetic machine that mutates them into beasts.

The five teens are picked off one by one until the last guy is left, his 'punishment' being that he is unable to join his friends and thus 'be alone'. What a load of rubbish!

The 'actors' are really poor, this film has no comedy (and it could have been so funny!), no gore (and it could have been so gory!), no action and no horror (and it could have had so much of both!)

The director has failed in his duty to even try to make this a little interesting to watch. His experience in soft-core has obviously disabled any creativity he may ever have had, as all the shots are the same, with very few edits and little movement. The quality overall is poor.

I'm not usually swayed by nudity in movies, but believe me the only high point in this film was a pair of breasts.

What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken!

We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).

The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.

So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.

If you can get past the first 2 minutes – where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise – without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.

Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.

What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).

The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny – TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.

Don't watch it for the gore either – it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al…)

Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean.

For such a well-respected classic I was quite miffed by the last twenty minutes or so. Firstly, Calvera had the Seven exactly where he wanted them but didn't even harm them, even after they had killed 10 of his men. What did he think they we're going to do after he gave them back their guns? The Seven then abuse Calvera's good will and sneakily wage another attack - a rather cowardly approach!

There are the terrible death scenes throughout this film. I never knew what a terrible actor Robert Vaughn was until I watched this and his death is so cheesy I cringed. Bronson's death is equally ridiculous as he actually poses before he gets shot. Yul Brynners God-like ability to dodge bullets without even moving is unexplainable, particularly when Brad Dexter storms in for a pointless heroic 'rescue' and is shot immediately.

Other blunders are blood stains on the backs of characters who were actually shot in the chest and axes and knives that were not only obviously stuck to the actors already and kept out of shot, but also wobbled like rubber when the actors fell down dead!

When the final battle ends the original two - Brynner and McQueen - ride away, in a worse position than what they started in. It's quite a depressing ending, despite the contradictory upbeat music.

I greatly enjoyed the early scenes where Brynner and McQueen ride the hearse through town, and the recruitment process. Unfortunately after that my interest dwindled. I guess I can see why people like this, but its reputation is far greater than the film itself.

My vote of 6 goes directly to the directing, cinematography and set design. The story is semi-interesting; based around a group of immortals fighting for a prize, but is flawed in many ways.

The Kurgan (Clancey Brown) takes it upon himself to bump off all the other 'immortals' (they die if you chop their head off) so he can receive 'the prize.'

He drops them like flies one by one until he has to face MacLeod. There are no prizes for guessing the ending and it was obvious there would be a final battle between MacLeod and Kruger, with MacLeod being the victor.

I would recommend this film to people who appreciate aesthetics. It has some fantastic directing and great sets, most notably the fight between Kruger and Ramirez (Connery) where the castle falls down around them until they are left suspend in mid air supported only by a stone staircase.

The story however, is another thing. Full of holes, like the following;

-Why did it begin at a wresting match that Macleod obviously had no interest in, he then goes into the car park for no reason - where there just happens to be another immortal who attacks him. And how did he ever manage to sit down with a sword inside his jacket??!!

-MacLeod is banished from his village and goes to live in the hills on his own, and not only finds a house to live in but a woman to share it with - though it's never explained where the hell she came from.

-Sean Connery plays a Spanish guy with a Scottish accent

-Ramirez comes to find MacLeod to teach him how to fight (Why? There can only be one immortal - Ramirez should have just killed him!)

-Connery was then killed relatively easily by Kruger - so how has he survived the last 4500 years? And where did MacLeod disappear to in that scene?

-And why it took Kruger until 1985 to have his second fight with MacLeod (his first being about 400 years earlier) is unexplainable.

-And the 'prize' they were all fighting for? Death. MacLeod receives the gifts of telepathy and of omniscience. But he also becomes mortal and has to grow old and die, so when the ghost of Ramiez tells him to use his powers well, what for?!

Finally, I'd like to note this is Star Wars in a kilt:

MacLeod is the 'chosen one' (Skywalker) who will defeat Kruger (Vader/Emperor) in a battle using swords (lightsabers) using the teaching of an old master, Ramirez (Ben Kenobi). Ramirez (Kenobi) then dies after Kruger (Vader) chops off his head. The ghost of Ramirez then returns to Macleod in a final vision at the end of the film after the universe is safe (the end of 'Jedi').

As James Dean imitated Brando, so it would appear Malcolm McDowell imitated Albert Finney. At least, McDowell's performance in A Clockwork Oragne owes a lot to Finney in this. Both characters are undeniably cocky and brimming with confidence and contempt, and both are highly entertaining!

While not much of a story to write home about - I believe this is considered one of those 1960's British 'kitchen sink' drama's - this is however captivating.

Finney plays a working class lout, tired of his factory job and always hoping for more, he goes about his business without care for any consequences. He swaggers around as if untouchable but soon gets his comeuppance when he is beaten by two army cadets, one of which is the brother of the husband of the woman he is sleeping with, who he has now got pregnant! But he is eventually tamed by the gorgeous Shirley Anne Field.

While I'm no expert at this genre, I can see it's similarity to Ken Loach films and somewhat akin to (through it's simplicity) David Lean's 'Brief Encounter', though not as extravagant.

A nice afternoon film with philosophies that still ring true today ("Whatever they say I am , that's what I'm not." Arctic Monkeys anyone?). Even if you don't like the story you'll be in awe of Finney's cock-sure performance.

This film sets the standard for simplistic stories, thrills and action. Character development and story setup are fantastic. In my opinion this film is just perfect. There are no slow bits, no plot holes, no padding, or a scene out of place. Everything just works.

Starting at the start this film looks SO good. The cinematography is perfect, the shots are perfect, the pace is perfect.

I might be ranting on, but it's rare to get a film that just works from beginning to end. Duel opens with a point of view shot from the bonnet of a car, and the radio is playing. We drive through a busy town out onto the highway and keep going into the desert. This is done so well as it starts us off in in busy urban areas and then slowly taken out into the desert, the amount of people and cars becoming less and less until we are alone with the main character. This is a perfect set up of isolation. It makes us feel vulnerable. From then on we travel the protagonist's journey as things get out of hand.

Dennis Weaver plays David Mann, a simple guy terrorised but a truck on the lonely desert roads of California. The chase begins when Mann takes over a large 18-wheel truck in all innocence, but the truck driver decides to target Mann for the rest of his journey and try his hardest to kill him, but first he wants to play.

The character set-up is so subtle but so great. For example if you pay attention, we learn Mann is a bit of a wimp, as when he phones his wife at home she mentions an event where she was practically molested by some guy and is angry Mann did not stick up for her. Mann on the other hand plays it off as nothing. This tells us he is not a brave man and his duel with the truck driver all the more profound.

The directing of this film is also amazing, every shot looks good. To think the producers wanted Spielberg to shoot this using fake backgrounds and superimpose the actor in a car afterwards is scary. The simplicity of the story is thrilling, kudos to Richard Matheson who based this story on an actual event he encountered. Almost the entire movie is shot outdoors and is constantly moving in this dangerous game of cat and mouse. I don't think a more simple film could be made but this has everything a film should have and is so basic in it's execution it's astonishing.

When you read books about how to write a movie, this is the film that has everything it should have.

The effects are better than any CGI used today. Why? Because they are real. No superimposing, no blue screens. Just real effects with real stunt men. Like the final shot when the truck falls over the edge of a cliff, it's real and it's all shot in slow motion and it's a breath-taker. The scene where Mann is in a phone booth trying to call for help and the truck drives up in the background, then smashes into the booth just as Mann jumps out - it's all filmed in one shot from many angles with the actor really in the booth. It's hard to believe and unfortunate to think these days those kinds of scenes would just be done with CGI, which completely takes the excitement away.

Duel's influence can been seen in the opening scenes of Jeepers Creepers, which is almost an exact copy of shots from this film, and practically the whole of Breakdown is an inferior rip-off, the similarities in The Hitcher are indeed vivid, and of course, Spielberg's own JAWS is Duel with a shark instead of a truck (after all, the best film makers find a formula and stick to it).

This film is almost too simple to believe, you actually get excited and feel relieved for Mann when he reaches a slope, as he can finally manage to out-run the weight of the 18-wheeler. But then Mann begins to run out of petrol and he can only hope to reach the top, then use the downward slope as momentum. So, so simple yet so, so tense!

In Duel David Mann goes on a journey, mental as well as physical. He is a changed man, perhaps for the better, perhaps now realising it is better to stand up than to back down. As he sits on the cliff edge at the end of the movie, out of breath, out of energy, we too feel exhausted and relieved. The film grabs you in, it does what every movie should, make you feel like you went through what the main character did, then feel the relief that it is over...only you want to do it again!

Definitely one of my favourite movies of all time.

For some reason I was quite excited about a re-make of Kong. Though initially I thought 3 hours too long for such a simple story, it did not feel so long and with the popularity of these lengthy films that Jackson is producing I wouldn't be surprised if he has started a trend (what with other recent films like Chronicles of Narnia, Batman Begins & Harry Potter being over 2 hours).

I'm not a fan of Jack Black but thought he was very good in this role. Ditto Brody. I think Naomi Watts is a pretty cool actress.

One of the best & worst points in this film are the special effects. Some scenes with Kong and the dinosaurs are pretty amazing. Kong's death is fantastic. But what really irks me is the amount of praise given to these effects. I mean everyone goes on about the amazing effects that we have in this day & age but they're not that good. Superimposing techniques have been used for decades and they always look bad, the actors are lit differently to the background and there is always that black outline around them. Well, in this film there is the same problem, you can clearly see the black outline and quite often the actors are lit very differently to the background. I don't mind this, like I don't mind the lesser effects in earlier films, but to rave on about modern FX when they are clearly no better (in some instances) than FX from older films, is a bit dumb. Also I wonder how many other people noticed in the sequence where Kong was being attacked on the Empire State Building, that in one of the long shots the bi-planes appeared as big as Kong, despite being only about the size of his hand.

On top of this there were some embarrassing moments, I cringed both when Kong & Watts went ice skating, and when Black delivered the final lines (I don't care if they came from the original or not).

Then there was the obvious plot holes that almost destroyed the movie for me, like when the boat crashes on skull island, I found it hard to believe Denham & his entourage stole the lifeboat & went to the island. While this was very much in Denham's character, I didn't think the characters of Ann Darrow, Bruce Baxter or Jack Driscoll would have done such a thing. Then there was the whole missing sequence of how they actually got Kong to New York (on a damaged, sinking boat that only a few moments ago they had to throw off-board anything that wasn't nailed down?). Then there were things like when Kong tore Darrow from her prison, her arms would have left their sockets long before the ropes broke and all that leaping around with her in his hand, she should have been crushed to death.

These are quite major points that I feel Jackson should have paid more attention to. They are quite blatant and silly things to overlook. But it's as if he doesn't care and has assumed the audience will never notice. You can only push things so far before people stop believing, but I guess he's got away with it as I don't see many complaints.

In conclusion, some FX are good, some not, there are some cringe-worthy moments and some plot holes, but if you can look past all that the film is action packed and amazing at points. It's worth watching once I guess, but I don't have any intention to view it a second time.

I am a Romero fan, but not to the extent where I am blind. The Romero films I have seen post-Day of the Dead are missing something that made his earlier films unique and special. Dark Half is terrible. Monkey Shines is fairly enjoyable but is like a Channel5 movie (you'll understand if you're from the UK).

LOTD is much better than those two, but still without character. While no-one can deny they cared about Roger, Peter, Stephen & Fran in Dawn of the Dead, I found little empathy with any characters in Land. There was some interesting gore scenes, but when Tom Savini is so good at his job, why use CGI?

I still find Day to be the goriest zombie flick ever, and why do they save Director's Cut for DVD's? It should be the other way around. Dawn is and always will be the best. It's the most entertaining zombie flick made. It has great characters and great ideas, and it's a lot of fun. Day is a much more serious film, and while not as good, it is very sinister and scary. Land almost seems to be trying to capture elements of both, but it doesn't work. It's neither unsettling or scary, nor funny or well scripted.

First and foremost this movie was too short. For such an apocalyptic tale 93 minutes is a bit hasty. There never seemed to be any sense of foreboding throughout the film. The zombies were there, but there was never any real fear they would take over. It seemed obvious that they would be defeated. The fate of Hopper was all too plain to see and was not near as interesting as the deaths of the bikers in Dawn or Capt. Rhodes in Day (Possibly one of the best death scenes ever).

The diminutive time scale of the movie affected the story also, as the only zombie that managed to learn – Big Daddy (all the rest just followed) learned far too quickly for my liking. It's like the zombies had obviously been around for a very long time, but then Big Daddy decides to suddenly start to learn in these 93 minutes? I prefer the idea of zombies learning en masse, like what was suggested in the original DOTD when it is discovered the zombies are able to use things as basic tools or weapons, or learning at a slower pace, like Bub in DOTD. I just found it a bit hard to accept this one intelligent zombie out of the millions(?). Although the rest of the zombies following the leader is more 'acceptable' and also keeping in-line with Stephen in Dawn & Bub in Day.

The premise of the movie was essentially good (the zombies realising they are under attack from 'norms' and retaliating), it just happened too fast. Perhaps Romero would have been better off plagiarising himself and having a zombie who used to live in the city and wants to get back (much like Stephen in Dawn).

I didn't like Hopper as Kaufman, he just isn't scary enough. I didn't hate him as much as I should have and so I wasn't looking forward to his death as much as I would have liked, I also found it unlikely he would be in such a position what with his rather cowardly attitude. Kris Kristofferson would have been a wiser choice (I recently saw him in Silver City – he can be very scary!)

I also felt this film was a bit too self-aware and Romero seemed to be deliberately making 'social commentaries', evidently because of so many people discussing what is being said, and what is really being said, in Dawn.

Something is missing that I can't explain. In Dawn (and Day to some extent) I love the lads taking pot shots at the zombies, running them over, killing as many as possible. In Land (and the Dawn remake) I didn't find it so exciting. Maybe it's something to do with the original Dawn seeming like fun whereas the others seem more serious. I dunno.

Despite this, Land was not un-entertaining and the 93 minutes flew by. Asia Argento was pretty good, Simon Baker was OK if slightly two dimensional, John Leguizamo has an annoying lopsided mouth and reminds me of a young Williem DaFoe. No one else has much of a part in it. The ending left a few loose ends – considering the world was meant to be taken over, and out of all the zombies that were lined up on the pier – there wasn't many to blow up at the end. Any regular army could have taken them out. And they also seem to have forgotten about all the zombies that were actually still inside the Kaufman's complex.

Cronenberg takes a seemingly more mainstream story this time round and does OK with it. Not many trademarks in this film though – the usual bodily (dis)functions, grotesque apertures and make up are gone, replaced somewhat by sparse but intense and fairly graphic violent deaths.

The trailer for this film was very good, so I had high hopes and was left feeling a bit let down.

The film begins with some extended shots with minimal camera work, boringly focusing on a couple of killers who have no further role to play in the film except to get killed by Viggo Mortensen. We are introduced to the protagonist and his family via his daughter waking up from a nightmare. Mortensen comes in to calm her down. Fair enough. But then the son comes to join in and tell her about the shadow monsters and it's getting cheesy and is an all too blatant attempt at displaying a well-rounded all-American family. The scene becomes frankly embarrassing when the mother then decides to join in and put in her ten cents. I couldn't help laughing at its ridiculousness.

Mortensen does well in this film and is convincing, as is Maria Bello. John Hurt is very entertaining in his brief appearance. The rest of the cast are dire. The son, Ashton Holmes, I hope to never see in a movie again. His bullying sub-plot was also clichéd and pointless, neither progressing the story nor adding any depth, but seemingly merely to pad the already fairly short film (at 96 mins) out. And there's no way that girl would be dating him.

Ed Harris is type-cast and unconvincing. From the scenes between the family & the sheriff we are led to believe Harris & his henchmen are exceedingly bad, scary people. However, on screen Harris is jocular and non-threatening and parades around with a kind of nonchalance that conflicts with the character his is meant to be portraying. Kris Kristofferson would have been a better choice (Just look at him in Silver City).

The 3 main scenes of violence are well shot and choreographed, being quite convincing and just about gory enough to satisfy any Cronenberg fan. The 2 sex scenes are also erotic & somewhat unique, but the focusing on the bruises on Maria Bello's back after the encounter on the stairs was unclear in its intention. Unfortunately it's the in-between bits that let the film down.

The breakdown between the family is too rapid and therefore quite unbelievable, as is the laid-back demeanour of Harris & his goons as well as their careless inability to be discreet. The interactions between the characters, especially towards the end, seemed incomplete and poorly written, and the ending itself was a poor one for a movie, in fact the entire story seemed rather on the weak side for a theatrical release.

The camera work was nothing to speak of (Sorry, I've just spent the weekend re-watching Spielberg's Duel - the camera work for which is fabulous) and there were no scary sex diseases, spooky TV channels, morphing body parts or alien-like creatures that so often set Cronenberg in a category of his own. One thing left to mention is the highly suspect (verging on the ridiculous) scene where Mortensen runs home - on an injured foot - for what seems like miles, in the amount of time it takes his wife to load a shotgun. Oh please.

If you're a fan of Cronenberg's early work, like I am, then this isn't really for you as it seems aimed at a more mainstream audience.

This short blew me away when I first saw it because the 'twist' is so good. This is a very well made animation. It doesn't really seem to make sense until the end, then it all becomes clear.

It follows a mosquito through various settings as it falls in love with a vampire.

It's hard to say what's so good about this without giving anything away.

I saw it at the Kinofilm festival a couple of years ago, I don't know where you would be able to see this, but it's definitely worth looking for.