Reviews

The story: Harry Potter has returned to Hogwarts for his third year. However this year won't be all fun and games. A convicted murderer and supposed supporter of You-Know-Who called Sirius Black has escaped the wizard prison of Azkaban and is on the loose, supposedly to hunt down Harry and take revenge. As a result the mysterious Dementors, the wraith-like guards of Azkaban have been stationed at Hogwarts to look for Black and protect the students. But that is only the beginning …

Is this film better than the previous two or worse? I think it is neither – but rather a completely different attempt at translating the 3rd Harry Potter novel to the big screen. Director Alfonso Cuaron has gone for a very different type of setting – gone is the cheery comfort of the first two films and in its place we have a somewhat more threatening, scary and mature look.

Many changes have been undertaken, most notably in the layout of Hogwarts which looks as though a mountain has grown up underneath it. Hagrid's hut is now located down the bottom of the hill (as opposed to being just out the front door as it appeared previously). Similarly the Whomping Willow (seen in the 2nd film) is now out by itself on the hillside and not in the middle of Hogwarts back lawn. Inside has also changed – the Fat Lady looks completely different and the Gryffindor quarters are in a new location. Also Hogwarts now has a clock tower, whose pendulum swings inside one of the hallways (a bit dangerous – what if a kid walked into it?). The end result is that Hogwarts no longer looks as welcome-like as well saw previously, instead appearing somewhat more cold, gritty and down-to-earth, in line with the overall feel of the storyline.

How about the storyline? It should be known by now to all who have read the books that Cuaron did some major cutting of the novel, stating that he would only keep parts that actually had to do with the main storyline. As a result there's a lot of things missing – the Quidditch Cup sub-plot has been abandoned entirely, and the only Quidditch we see in the movie is the scene where the Dementors decide to pay a visit. Similarly the feud between Ron and Hermione appears to have been left on the cutting room floor save for one or two quick comments from the actors. The most notable cut of all is the lack of explanation on the Marauder's Map and the identities of its creators. Even parts that were left in have been altered considerably – Hermione now speaks about half of Ron's lines, leaving Ron with little to do but crack jokes and look scared. The new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Professor Lupin, becomes a sort of guide for Harry but the film curiously has nearly all the information regarding Lupin's relationship with Harry's father James cut and in what little time they have together Lupin instead talks about Harry's mother Lily (certainly not in the book). Only the end seems to have been more-or-less left alone, although again dialogue has been cut short and a bit more action thrown in instead (such as Hermione and Harry running from the werewolf).

So how does it fare overall? I have to admit I'm hard to please when it comes to the Harry Potter films – I felt that the first two probably followed the books *too* closely and probably should have trimmed them up a bit, whereas this time they've cut too much when they should have kept more of the story present. I do believe Cuaron has done well with the way the film looks compared to Columbus's previous efforts, though again I have to ask why Hogwarts suddenly needed to be rearranged after being the same in the earlier films?

All in all I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, but it's not a scratch on the novel on which it is based (regarded by many as probably the best of the Harry Potter books so far), and I'm glad that Cuaron will not be directing the next film. I understand his decision on why he cut so much from the story but the end result is the film seemingly jumps from scene to scene with a somewhat lack of flow in the story until the last hour or so (unsurprising since the end of the film has the least cut out of it). Also while many parts of the novel might not relate to the main overall plot, it's those parts that help add character and style to the story (eg. Hermione's and Ron's ongoing feud helps with the development of their characters and their relationship with each other) which in its absence makes the story seem much blander as a result – we're seeing the individual pictures but not the full richness of the tapestry

I give it 3.5 out of 5. Hopefully Mike Newell will aim somewhere in between Columbus and Cuaron when he does Goblet of Fire – not cramming in every little detail into the film but at the same time not ripping all the novel's guts out and leaving only the barest of details.

Based upon a show with the same title from the 60s/70s (which included, amongst the many 'Beasts' it had over the years, current radio personality John Laws), 'Beauty and the Beast' was a talk show in which a panel of women (the 'Beauties') and a lone male (the 'Beast') responded to letters from viewers, gave advice as well as discussed issues of the day (notably politics - Stan was unapologetically anti-Labor). For a majority of the show's life radio personality Stan Zemanek occupied the 'Beast' role with the 'Beauties' being comprised of noted Australian female personalities. In its last year Doug Mulray took over hosting the show.

As many other comments have noted, the show was at its best when Stan was at the helm. What made the show work was not just the discussions on it but also the arguments that could erupt between members of the panel, and when Stan was around you were always guaranteed at least one spat between himself and one of the Beauties. One problem with Doug Mulray was that he was quite frankly too nice, would always agree and try and resort to cracking jokes all the time, which hampered the debate-like nature of the show.

In addition to the changing of Beasts, one other item that I believed caused the shows decline in the end was the extension of the panel. Originally comprised of the Beast plus 4 Beauties, in the later years this was extended to incorporate 6 Beauties. In its original format you would often hear the thoughts of 3 of the Beauties with the last remaining one often having to quickly state their thoughts before the commercial break. When the panel was increased however even more of the Beauties had to quickly state their thoughts and opinions in order to try and squeeze everyone into the time allotted for the issue, so as a result the thoughts and opinions given began to be truncated and simplified in order to fit everyone in, resulting in the loss of some of the more extended debates and discussions that used to be more common in the earlier years with the smaller panel.

All up it was an interesting show, but let down a bit towards the end with a changing of the guard from Stan to Doug as well as having too many Beauties trying to give opinions in their limited amount of time. Sad to have cancelled in the end.

This particular Dr Who episode, which screened during Peter Davison's (the 5th Doctor) tenure, was intended to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Dr Who. The plot - a mysterious individual has summoned all incarnations of the Doctor to the Death Zone on Gallifrey for some unknown purpose. The Doctors, unsure of why they are here try to reach the Tower of Rasselon (sp?) to find answers, where along the way they confront various obstacles (a Daalek, Cybermen, a Yeti etc.) Apparently the mysterious individual wants something within the tower and is using the Doctors to get it - one Doctor would not have been enough, but FIVE doctors might be (well 4 really, read below).

It's pretty much well known that Tom Baker (the 4th Doctor) declined to appear in this special episode so the producers were forced to use some old footage from Baker's tenure as the Doctor and then use the plot device of having him 'stuck' in the vortex (or whatever they called it) to explain his absence, so contrary to the title the story from the outset only really involves 4 doctors. In addition William Hartnell (the 1st Doctor) had passed away in 1975 so a replacement in Richard Hurndall had to be found. Hurndall does a good job in keeping to the character as originally played by Hartnell but it's pretty obvious to all that it's another actor, but that couldn't be helped.

As far as the quality of the episode goes, it depends on what you want to get out of it. As an exercise in seeing all of the Doctors (well 4 of them - and 1 with a replacement actor) it's not too bad, especially seeing how each Doctor reacts to the others being present (the verbal sparring between Patrick Troughton (the 2nd Doctor) and Jon Pertwee (the 3rd Doctor) is hilarious). However as far as plot goes its pretty weak on the ground - 90% of the episode seems to be made up of shots of each of the respective Doctors running from something, with the 5th Doctor killing time outside the zone trying to figure it all out and token references being made concerning the 4t Doctor being 'stuck' and thus not present. And the Master has a few scenes too. Clearly for the amount of Doctors involved (not counting all the sidekicks they bring along) 90 mins is nowhere long enough to adequately tell a story involving all of them (or 4 of them)

Worth a look to see all 5 (sorry, 4 ::sigh::) Doctors together in action, just don't expect anything major in the plot department.

I first saw this film back in 1990 (we still have the VHS tape we recorded it on back then) and although I'm now 13 years older the film still makes for an enjoyable viewing.

The story involves the Thompson family, whose farm has just survived a drought and are in dire straits and risk losing their farm if they can't pay the mortgage off. Their only hope lies in their horse - Prince - who will be competing in the New Years Day Cup and if he can win they'll have enough to pay off the debt. Unfortunately 2 bumbling lowlifes called Bill and Sly steal Prince and head off into the bush where they hope to escape and use Prince to make a fortune. Upon realising this the 3 children in the house (Helen, John and their English cousin Michael) set off into the bush after the 2 thieves along with Manalpuy, an Aboriginal who lives on their farm.

The story is pretty simplistic but considering the target audience is primarily children it's decent fun. This film is special being that it was Nicole Kidman's first starring role in a movie (at the young age of 17). Australian TV viewers would probably also be interested to know that also starring was an actor named John Howard (not the prime minister) who today is now well-known for his roles in the Australian TV series 'SeaChange' (which he won a Logie for) and 'Always Greener' - here he plays one of the horse thieves (Sly) and its interesting to see the way he looked 20 years ago (he looks a lot thinner - and taller - but the face has remained the same).

Since seeing the film in 1990 I have never seen it screened again on television, nor have I seen it anywhere in any video store, so good luck to anyone who might want to catch it as it may be another of those 'hard-to-find' films (like too many older Australian films). Still its worth a watch if you can - if only to see a young, teenage Nicole Kidman with curly brown hair and freckles on her face.

The story: In this game you played not as Sir/King Graham (the protagonist of the first 2 in the series) but as Gwydion, the slave of the evil wizard Mannanan. To cut a long story short, Gwydion is in fact none other than Prince Alexander, son of King Graham and Queen Valanice (the later rescued by Graham in King's Quest 2 which I haven't played), who must somehow return to Daventry and free the royal family from the clutches of a dragon. To this end you had to master powerful magic that allowed you to do all sorts of magical things such as transform into animals, cause storms, understand creatures and become invisible.

King's Quest 3 was better than the previous 2 games for a number of reasons. For starters it was a much bigger game. The graphics improved a notch and supposedly it was one of the first games to have a cutscene (of sorts). The story was also more involving than the get-the-treasure (King's Quest 1) or get-the-damsel (King's Quest 2) storylines. You began as a young man, not knowing who you were and through the course of the game discovered your identity.

The game retained the standard text command system of the series (it wasn't until King's Quest 5 that this was dropped in favour of the mouse) and the type of graphics used (though this was improved a bit over the previous 2 games as mentioned earlier). The game was also much harder than previously seen in the series, with a time limit being used in the earlier part of the game as Gwydion tried to run around the countryside collecting items to aid him in the use of magic whilst Mannanan was away (items that could be used in spells were marked with an '*' in your inventory and you could potentially lose the game if Mannanan caught you with anything remotely magical). Of course like all the King's Quest games of this time there was a heavy reliance on puzzles inspired by classic fairy tales (check out The 3 Bears from Goldilocks). You were also able to cast spells whenever you felt like it (once you had the right ingredients), sometimes with amusing results - try casting a storm whilst on the pirate ship!

In the end it was a highly entertaining game, and probably ranks as my second-favourite King's Quest game (after King's Quest 5). Worth a good look.

The story: You are Sir Graham, a knight of the Kingdom of Daventry who has been summoned by King Edward the Benevolent to retrieve the 3 stolen treasures of the realm. If you should succeed you will be proclaimed his successor (Edward is old and has no heirs). Graham spends the game searching the kingdom for the treasures and encounters many puzzles and adversaries along the way.

This is the first King's Quest game released way back in 1984 (19 years old as I type this) and unsurprisingly is by far the simplest and most primitive of the series. The game is fairly short (the only necessary quests you need to do are the reclaiming of the 3 treasures - everything else is optional) and practically all of the puzzles you encounter are from well-known fairy tales, including Rumpelstiltskin (did anyone actually spell his name correctly in his challenge?), Little Red Riding Hood (well the wolf at least), Hansel & Gretel, Jack & the Beanstalk and many others.

The game is operated by text commands typed on the keyboard (search, pick up, talk, look etc.) with the arrow keys controlling movement. Simple stuff really, but hey it worked and it would remain the standard control system in the series until King's Quest 5 (which replaced the text commands with an icon-based system using the mouse).

All in all its nothing special by today's standards but worth a look if you're interested in seeing how the entire King's Quest series began. The game was re-released in 1990 with updated graphics and the aforementioned icon system replacing the text commands but from what I've heard the puzzles and the like all stayed the same. A classic of its time.

The story: You're Prince Alexander (Gwydion from King's Quest 3) and you've travelled to the Land of the Green Isles to meet Princess Cassimma (Mordac's servant girl from King's Quest 5 who was rescued by Alexander's father King Graham). However enroute Alexander gets shipwrecked which leaves him stuck there, and to make matters worse Cassimma's parents both died while she was gone and is now being forced to marry the Vizier who has assumed power since their death. In addition to this all the islands that make up the country are bickering with each other over the loss of of their prized treasures (whom each believes another island has stolen). Can Alexander sort out this mess and be reunited with Cassimma?

The 6th game in the famous King's Quest saga was unfortunately the beginning of the end for the series. Whilst the game had a good protagonist and the story was interesting it just never gelled for me. Most of the puzzles on a particular island were often only solvable by doing tasks on other islands that gave no indication of order or logic - usually the only way to get through the game was keep continuing as far as you could on a particular island and then try somewhere else when you hit a dead end (often resulting in major reloads back to earlier points in the game). This coupled with the now infamous 'sudden death syndrome' (ie. a sudden game ending scenario with no forewarning that occurs simply because you forgot to do something earlier in the game) that plagued nearly all Sierra adventure games made it very frustrating to play. Whilst it could be argued that many of the other games in the series are also guilty of this, all the King's Quest games (up until King's Quest 5) relied a lot on classic fairy tales for their stories and puzzles which helped give the player clues on how to proceed. From Number 5 onwards though the writers became more dependant on their own story ideas which just made it more confusing for gamers as they had no known source material to draw inspiration from.

The thing that really hurt this game (and the series as a whole) however was the competition that was now coming out. Games such as the Monkey Island series, Day of the Tentacle, Sam & Max, Alone in the Dark plus a little game called Myst were bringing fresh ideas to a growing-stale genre and Sierra was still stuck in the past (most of the King's Quest games - and most of the other Quest games for that matter played a lot alike each other). King's Quest 6 did try to branch out a bit by supplying a few different endings and 2 different routes to the end but this was a bit too little, too late for many gamers.

All in all, the game held promise but was unfortunately out of date with the times in which it was release and most gamers knew it. The next King's Quest game (King's Quest 7: The Princeless Bride) was released 2 years later in 1994 and flopped, and when the latest (and last) King Quest game (King's Quest 8: Mask of Eternity) was released in 1998 it abandoned most of the standard elements of the series in favour of a more action-oriented game with a 3D engine to try and draw in new fans.

In the end, play if you're a big fan of the series, but adventure gamers may be better of looking at some other games from around the same time (see previously mentioned games in the 3rd paragraph).

The story: You're King Graham (hero from King's Quest 1 and 2) the ruler of the kingdom of Daventry. Whilst on a walk your castle gets stolen with the rest of your family by an evil wizard named Mordac. It turns out that Mordac is the brother of Mannanan (evil wizard from King's Quest 3) who was turned into a cat by your son Prince Alexander (Gwydion the hero from King's Quest 3) and wants Alexander to return his brother to his original form. Fortunately with the help of the old wizard Crispin and his pet owl Cedric, Graham is transported to the kingdowm of Serenia where he must overcome great challenges to locate Mordac and free his family.

The 5th game in the now legendary King's Quest saga was probably its greatest in terms of graphical achievement and storyline. It saw the return of the original King's Quest hero Graham (who had taken a back seat to his children Alexander/Gwydion in King's Quest 3 and Rosella in King's Quest 4) and featured a great variety of locations - deserts, mountains, towns, forests, seas etc. The graphics were the most advanced of any King's Quest game thus far and the new icon control system replaced the old text based command system of the previous 4 games.

The biggest downside to the game however (and it has been already mentioned) was the lack of any real fairy tale inspired quests, with the writers instead favouring their own inventions. Although this may have leant some originality to the game it somewhat hampered the puzzle-solving as there was often a lack of order and logic in solving some of the problems (this existed in earlier games as well, but by those being primarily based on fairy tales it helped lend an idea to players on how to go about solving the puzzles).

Still it was a thoroughly game for its time and probably represented the series at its height (though it would quickly come crashing down). Definitely recommended for old adventure game fans.

As the title for this show suggests, this show was set on the 10th anniversary of the main cast's graduation from high school in 1993. In a nutshell what this documentary involves is having most of the main cast from back then talking and discussing the highs, lows, favourite moments and other things that occured during production.

It sounds pretty much like your typical documentary of a now-finished TV series, but unfortuantely this one never seemed to do much beyond us seeing most of the old cast again. The biggest problem is the decision of making it a 'high school reunion' - in other words only cast members who were around in 1993 are here, so bad luck if you want to see someone who joined the cast at a later date. In addition to this Tori Spelling and Brian Austin Green were curiously not present either, so its not even a reunion of the whole original cast.

Another thing that I felt let this down was having all the people in the one room together and discussing their experiences with each other. This is fine for seeing some jokes between the cast, but Luke Perry and Shannon Doherty seemed to dominate around 90% of the discussion which appeared to result in other cast members not getting as involved.

Finally by having them all together in the one room results in an overly-nice, all-friendly atmosphere (as mentioned in the previous review) when in reality we know it wasn't necessarily like that when the show was being made. No mention was made at all of Doherty's infamous split from the show back in 1994 which came partly as a result of bad vibes between herself and some of the other cast members, which was a real pity as I'm sure its those kind of behind-the-scenes occurences that people want to find out about rather than jokes about how bad someone's hair looked back in the early nineties.

Recently I've seen other TV show documentaries for Gilligan's Island and the Brady Bunch. In my opinion these were much more successful because they were proper documentaries looking at the history of those shows and not simply 'reunion specials'. They interviewed the cast members one on one (as opposed to being in a group) and thus were able to get some private confessions from them concerning the show and sometimes even concerning cast members - something this particular reunion lacked.

All in all it was an interesting show to watch for an hour but it could have been so much more. Here's hoping a more serious attempt at looking back on the show is attempted sometime in the future.