Reviews

The latest installment in the adrenaline fuelled The Fast and the Furious franchise, Fast and Furious is quite possibly the weakest of the quadrilogy, but it does manage to dish up in fairly decent portions what made the first three films such a hit with younger viewers. So in a sense this installment like the others will definitely be well received amongst its legions of eager, young fans. If that's all you want to know- stop reading. If you are a more casual film goers, I urge you to read on. Now of all the "Fast and the Furious" films the only one I actually enjoyed was the first in the series. So really I was not expecting much when viewing the film, but I expected better than what I saw.

Fast and Furious is not a sequel nor is it a prequel, it is an interquel (a film set between two films in a series), in this case it takes place between "2 Fast 2 Furious" and "The fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift". Within minutes we are reintroduced with familiar faces; Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), but we are also introduced with what now seems to be the "cancer" for films- excess CGI. This CGI replaces traditional actual car crashes and replaces them with pathetic CGI representations. One particular atrocious scene involves a bouncing flaming tanker rolling down a steep road towards Dominic and Letty. They avoid the flaming death trap in a ridiculous way, but let's get into that later. Now this sub-par effect is caused by Dom, Letty and others attempting to steal a very large petrol tanker. Predictability sets in and the tanker crashes and one of the large tanks of petrol it was moving rolls down a large decline towards Dom and Letty, who are enclosed on the road on three of the four sides. To the left there is the flaming remains of a crashed tanker cab, and to their left a rock wall and behind them a cliff. They have no choice but to speed towards the bouncing tank and drive under it. Normally this would be a moment of tension, but it's not as the audience is aware that they will come out of it alive and well, I mean it stars Vin Diesel they wouldn't kill him of in the first couple minutes would they? I've wasted enough time on this scene, I had better move on.

The heat comes down on Dom and his crew after the hijacking and they are forced to flee. One of his crew Chan, who fans should remember from Tokyo Drift decides to go to Japan, while Dom decides to move to Panama. In Panama Don is alerted via a phone call that a friend (who I will not reveal) has been murdered in the USA. In a vengeful rage Dom travels to the states to pursue the murder. The Murder turns out to be a drug lord Arturo Braga. Coincidently this is the same criminal who a now FBI agent Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) is after. Dom and Brian initially infiltrate the organisation that traffics drugs from Mexico into the US, by loading them into cars and making them zip through an underground mine at the US/ Mexico border. Now keep in mind this section of the border is heavily monitored, in addition to the mine being relatively dangerous to navigate at high speeds. So why a drug dealer would risk millions of dollars of drugs, by trafficking them in the most stupid way I have ever heard of is beyond me. Perhaps they just wanted an excuse to show off some close-ups of cars and Paul Walkers hand on a gear stick.

As Dom and Brian's time together increase they become friendlier towards each other, similar to how they were through the majority of The Fast and the Furious. Now I was glad to see this relationship develop in the movie, but was disappointed at the way it was handled. I would have preferred it if Dom was more hostel towards Brian in the beginning than he was in the film, as a far better sense of drama could have been generated. This would have attracted some praise from viewers looking for something more than any of the other movies in the series offered, without affecting fan enjoyment.

Overall enjoyment of this movie would be limited only to those who are fans of the first three movies. If a fan of those sees it I can almost guarantee that they will enjoy it. Other audiences will probably not feel the same way leaving the cinema, instead they will probably notice the absurdity of the plot, its poor effects as well as its often flat acting (from Diesel in particular). Hence Fast and Furious receives a 4/10 from me, and I am being quite generous as I think it is still able to appeal to its age group.

Quote: "Dead Man" is not a conventional western. Instead of containing cowboys and saloon shootout's it opts to deal with psychological and philosophical concepts. While this may seek to scare western fans away from the film, in a way it manages to draw more casual movie goers towards it. Now the reason why I actually decided to watch the film was because initially it was initially banned for possession, sale and distribution in my country- Australia (for a rather stupid reason). I was pleasantly surprised top find a film so rich in thematic discussion I wished I had the pleasure of experiencing it earlier.

"Dead Man" stars Johnny Depp as the broke down-on-his-luck accountant William Blake, who travels by train to the industrial town- Machine for a job. Upon arriving at the town, Blake is told he is one month late for work, and that his position has been filled by another accountant. Angered by the decision Blake confronts the owner Mr Dickinson to allow him to work there. Mr Dickinson behaves as his name would suggest and forces Blake out at gunpoint. Depressed Blake meets up with a woman and makes love to her. At the worse possible time the woman's fiancé comes in, shoots her and wounds Blake, before Blake guns him down. Bleeding Blake flees the town on a stolen Pinto.

Luck continues to be against Blake as it turns out the man who Blake killed was Mr Dickinson's son. Angered by his son's murder (and his stolen horse) he puts three bounty hunters on Blake's trail. Blake is saved from death by a plump Indian who is referred to as- Nobody. Throughout the rest of the film Nobody serves as Blake's spiritual guide through the "Purgatory" that is the American West.

Now I wish to emphasise the word "Purgatory". The world the film presents to us is disgusting and depressing and boring. From the first scene which feels like half an hour the film manages to make its audience fell bored- normally this would be an obvious flaw, but to create a boring world with meaning is not a flaw; but a skill. Murder, cannibalism and attempted rape also infest every corner of the west. Such decisions manage to enforce this sense of depression on the audience (this is partly exacerbated by the black and white colour of the film) so that we feel as if we are actually in a form of purgatory whilst watching it. Purgatory can also be brought up in a more literal sense in the film. From when nobody refers to Blake as "a dead man" I pondered whether Blake was a "dead man" or if he actually is dead. After contemplation I began to believe more in the latter as it linked more strong to the idea of purgatory. It feels in movie if Blake actually died prior to arriving in Machine and that what he is going through is actually a purging process, before he is allowed to enter heaven and that Nobody is his spiritual guide through purgatory.

Not much good seems to happen to Blake during the film; he is shot more than once and appears to be being followed by death. Blake murders several men throughout the film (all of which are in self defence) in rather shocking ways. This takes its tole on Blake and brings him deeper into a sense of physical and metal isolation from others and himself. This strengthens evidence for the argument that Blake is undergoing a purging process.

There are also several more spiritual undertones in the film, which are often very hard to identify in particular the struggle between good and evil, or if you wish to be more spiritual heaven and hell. As I have said numerous times before Blake is escorted by Nobody the good guy, while being chased by sadistic psychotic bounty hunter- Cole (evil black as coal). Both wish to claim his "soul" in this surreal world; Nobody wants to save him, Cole wants to kill him. This classic good vs. evil is also emphasised in Blake's character. At times he is good natured; helping a woman who has fallen in a muddy puddle and at times he is evil; shooting a deputy and a sheriff. But even when he is "evil" we must search for any meaning or beauty to what he has done. The sheriff for example looks remarkable like Lenin and his death at the hands of Blake and his crushing of his head by Cole can very well be interpreted as an act of evil stopping evil- a definite paradox. Nonetheless there is beauty in this act as before shooting the deputy and sheriff Blake says a significant one liner "Have you read my poetry?" This is quite significant as poetry in a sense regardless of its content is beautiful, and as Nobody puts it "You will now write your poetry in blood, not words" (Nobody says this as he mistakes Blake for a poet of the same name, unaware to an ignorant viewer such as myself, Nobody constantly quotes from the poets poems) . Hence in a sense the two murders though evil, are beautiful.

Overall Dead Man" is a remarkable, surreal, depressing and at times a boring movie. But that is exactly what it should be. If you can handle the surreal and the depressing tone (as well as some graphic violence), and can appreciate spiritual and if you interpret it as such "religious" overtones, you will be astonished.

"The Departed" was the first Scorsese film I ever saw and I loved every minute of it. "The Departed" is not quite as good as Scorsese's finest such as; "Goodfellas" and "Taxi Driver", but it comes damn close and more than deserved the best picture of 2006. Out of all the Scorsese films I have had the pleasure of seeing; this one has the "most plot". Where as "gangs of New York" focused on changing relationships between characters and "Taxi Driver" with the crashing mind of a mentally unstable man, "The Departed" focuses primarily on the police force attempting to take down a local mobster Costello (Jack Nicholson). Both opposing factions attempt to out smart the other by using rats or moles. One of Costello's crew Colin (Mat Damon) is sent into the police force in order to assist Costello, to attempt to eliminate the threat of him being incarcerated. At the same time a special branch of the police force consisting of Mark Wahlberg as Dignam and Martin Sheen as Queenan, persuade a recruit (due to his background with the Irish Mafia); into "joining" Costellos crew and rating him out. Tension builds between the two opposing forces and police and mobsters alike meet their brutal ends, as the two "rats" attempt to find each other out.

"The Departed" has all the elements off a classic- the most apparent being a great cast. Scorsese lines up Jack Nicholson, Mat Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg and Martin Sheen and chucks them in a mob movie, and every single one of them gives a damned good performance, perhaps the must surprising being Wahlberg's. Now Wahlberg hasn't exactly given brilliant performances throughout this career as an actor but his performance of the antisocial cop Dignam really stands out in the film. Wahlberg claims he based his performance off police who arrested him as a child, and hence he is able to portray a believable character with emotions and who never appears to be the good guy, or the bad guy. Instead Wahlberg floats between the two, despite his good intentions he at times, (particularly when he first meets William) seems quite unpleasant and rude. His interactions that occur with William later in the film seem to generate drama and conflict between the police force, which creates a rather interesting diversion from cops Vs mobsters. At least twice in the film Dignam cracks it at two police officers (William and Colin) and attacks them. His emotions leading up to the attacks are rather intriguing, Wahlberg doesn't overact at all instead he responds to the situation how everyday people would.

Despite displaying an excellent performance I personally felt the best performance belonged to DiCaprio. I was absolutely mesmerised seeing DiCaprio's character (William) attitude towards being a rat change. At first he was not very reluctant and willing to hang around mobsters, but towards the end he became scared for his very life. This pivotal change in his mental status result him attempting a variety of methods, to convince Costello that he is not a rat. All of his attempts are rather intriguing to watch as viewers have no idea whether Costello will fall for the ploy, or simply kill him. This unpredictability actively engages the audience into the movie, and ultimately they become quite surprised at the outcome.

The structure of the plot is also another standout point of the picture. Despite cramming a complex plot licked to smaller subplots, Scorsese somehow avoids the film seeming too slow. Every seen serves a purpose; some of the scenes advance the plot where as others such as conversations between characters allow for aspects of someone's personality to be shown. For example towards the end of the film; Costello becomes increasingly paranoid of being arrested by the police and several scenes indicate his paranoia. Perhaps the rather interesting structure of the plot was assisted by the editing. Now a few people criticise the editing in the film, the films editing occurs suddenly as to waste no time (due to the need to contain a lot in the film). If a conversation of a meeting for example serves no purpose in regards to plot or characters it ends; and we enter another scene which builds up tension or plot. Now this also achieves in making the movie seem to have a smaller runtime, than it actually does. Instead of looking at your watch (as even the best of us do in a long movie) you will be glued to the screen. And really you should, there is so much in this movie even a bathroom break could ruin the experience- so keep that in mind watching the film.

Overall "The Departed" is a modern masterpiece and definitely ranks amongst Scorsese's best films. "The Departed" is not as good as "Goodfellas" and "Taxi Driver" in my opinion for one reason; and that is "The Departed" does lack involvement of characters other than the leads. This is quite a minor flaw but it does make the film seem less intelligent as Scorsese's other classics, but still most people will overlook this and enjoy every minute of the film. "The Departed" receives an 8.8/10 for me and more than deserved best picture of 2006. Additionally a warning to some people, like most of Scorsese's films there is a quite a bit of violence in the film, mainly in the form of gunshot murders. So keep that in mind for anyone below 14 (and besides anyone below 14 would struggle to understand all aspects of the film).

"House of the Dead" is definitely one of the worst films of all time and surprise, surprise it comes from one of the worst directors of all time; the dreaded Uwe Boll. Uwe Boll spends most of his time adapting video-games into movies, and like everyone else he fails miserably (perhaps more miserable then the likes of Paul WS Anderson). "House of the Dead" is no different; in fact you will enjoy it more as a coaster for a beer glass rather than in the DVD player. House of dead fails on literally every level imaginable; the plot, acting, character development visual effects, and hell; even the gore are atrocious.

"House of the Dead" has perhaps one of the sorriest excuses for a plot in cinematic history. A group of teenagers are heading to an abandoned island in the middle of a lake for a rave party. Now this brings about the first question- why on earth would a rave party be in the middle of a lake? That's just insane! OK back to the plot, the teenagers arrive late and miss the ferry to the island. So they pay a local sailor to transport them there. This local sailor's name is Captain Kirk (ha….ha…) and has an unusual deckhand Salish. After arriving on the island they find everyone to be gone and peculiar as it is not all of them seem bothered by this. Hmm… it's perfectly normal for a rave party to have no one attending isn't it (another one of these moments where the stupidity of the writing unearths itself). Soon after they are thrown into a melting pot of; explosions, violence and bullets and zombies instead of; horror, gore and charter development which is essentially for a good zombie movie.

Now onto the writing. "House of the Dead" was obviously written by an untalented 12 year old with no sense of what a narrative arc is, or just simply no sense at all. The film is just so poorly constructed each scene seems to be just stuck on to the other. The characters just go from place to place blowing stuff up with no car in their minds. There is no tension built and no real horror built. This results in a bland and unappealing horror movie. Even the characters are poorly developed, all they to is run, shoot and exclaim. Rarely is time spent to develop their relationships and to reveal aspects about their personality. Consequently viewers will dismiss the characters of being any importance and not care if they die. Which brings me onto my next point; most modern horror films try to disguise poor story telling with gore. House of the dead doesn't even do that, and as a zombie film that is quite a striking flaw. All good zombie films have had at least some memorable gore; "Dawn of the Dead" and "Night of the Living Dead" to name a few. The best house of dead offers is some really bad exploding heads, and little zombie eating flesh scenes. The best house of the dead offers is a few dismemberment's that are about as appealing as watching a snail move across your backyard porch.

The acting is another such aspect of the film that is as poor as the writing. Not one of these characters is able to pull of a good act. The actors seem awkward in their roles and present their lines as if they were told what to say and how to say it. You know say "Lets get out of here" in a scared voice. This clearly resembles Uwe Boll's sub terrible direction. Uwe Boll seems unable to even make his actors act, let alone present the scares that all horror movies should have. It seems as if he was more concerned with racking up a body count, then making a good film.

Even the little flaws of the film stick into you like shards of glass. Most amateur filmmakers can even avoid these obvious flaws- I don't for the life of me know how Uwe could have missed these. Towards the middle of the movie the teenagers and assorted others approach a house (which looks more like a shack) and see the area littered with zombies. But we see something else- the ground was covered with red flaws to illuminate the scene. Yep I don't know how anyone could have missed that while filming. But then again no ordinary people made this atrocity.

Overall "House of the Dead" is a terrible film, a terrible video game adaption and a terrible zombie film. With no redeeming characteristics at all, this will make all audiences laugh at the utter stupidity of the film instead of enjoying it. Overall "House of the Dead" receives a 0.4/10 with the only aspect of the film responsible for the .4 being, the fact that some of the zombie makeup effects were quite interesting.

Now after hearing overwhelmingly negative reviews towards "Quantum of Solace", I entered my local theatre with low expectations, but quite frankly I was pleasantly surprised. Whilst "Quantum of Solace" is quite flawed it is still a rather enjoyable action experience. Now the film picks of literally where "Casino Royale". Bond is transporting the mysterious Mr White to an interrogation with MI6. Unsurprisingly Bond is attacked by henchmen, after disposing of them he takes Mr White to Sienna, Italy. The interrogation is interrupted with a shootout and Bond is sent to Bolivia to try and discover information about a mysterious villainous network- "Quantum". After reaching a few "dead-ends" Bond encounters the films villain Dr Greene, whose diabolical plan is to control the water supply of Bolivia- yep I know, that's probably the worst evil plan any Bond villain has ever had.

OK enough about the plot. The real problem with the film is that it focuses on presenting good action by sacrificing a coherent story, character development and all the Bond essentials. The story itself is really rather poor and structured about as bad as the houses be see in Bolivia. Bond just seems to jump from country to country killing people, finding information and killing more people until the finale. The problem with this is it moves to fast to develop a sense of drama. "Casino Roayle" (the franchises reboot) had this. In "casino Royale" tension developed between Bond and the villain of that film Le Chiffre and between Bond and his Bondgirl Vesper. Quantum lacks this, and leaves us with a rather dull action experience, at least from this angle. Even the characters are poorly developed, when really if the film was maybe 20-30minutes longer, more time could have been dedicated to exploring characters relationships and even past relationships. Perhaps spending some time exploring Bondgirl Camille (Olga Kurylenko) past (this included her family being murdered by General Mendaro, another antagonist of the film). But instead the filmmakers over looked this and hence the film failed to make me care about the character receiving vengeance upon the General, or to present the General as a vile, sadistic man.

Astonishingly enough, I was able to see past these flaws of the film and appreciate what the films had to offer. There were thankfully great, faced paced and energetic action sequences including; a boat chase, plane chase (which brings pack some of the cheese "Casino Royale" abandoned) and car chase, as well as chase through Siena in similar format to that of the one in Madagascar in "Casino Royale". These action scenes were quite well choreographed, but shockingly filmed, with the shaky camera effect proving to be more of a nuisance, than a visual aid. Another striking occurrence in the film is the level of brutality; this is possible the most brutal Bond film. Bond kills people with no remorse and no empathy. This creative decision makes Bond's quest for vengeance far more convincing than if he had been left as he was pre-"Casino Roayle", more sympathetic and cruel. Now this upset most bond fans but, I myself was never a hardcore fan of Bond so understand that while reading the review.

Now I suppose ill spend some words addressing Craig's portrayal of Bond. Frankly I was "quite pleased with his performance" (as the queen said to Craig after viewing "Casino Royale". Craig portrays a charismatic Bond not on level with the Charisma of Brosnan nor Connery, but still he has some. This entices audiences to attempt to understand this far more complex portrayal, and multi-level of Bond. Craig never feels uncertain in a scene, regardless of the circumstances. He acts fine in the slower more drama orientated scenes and just as well when he is about to be burnt alive in the middle of the Bolivian Dessert. Whilst as I said not as well as Sean Connery; he still is an impressive actor for Bond (my personal second favourite).

One final aspect of the film, which has let forth bursts of outrage from fans, is the lack of gadgets, Q or Moneypenny. Perhaps not the worse flaw of the film it is amplified by the legions of Bond fans. The film contains no gadgets of any sort which sucks some enjoyment out of what should be a cheesy but fun action flick. Hence I look forward with anticipation that the next films will have some, if not simple gadgets. From what I understand the filmmakers tried to do to Bond, what "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" did for superhero movies? But they fail to realise the importance of the gadgets. Removing the gadgets from a Bond film is like removing a superhero costume from a superhero- you just don't do it. If you do do it, then expect severe negative reviews.

Overall "Quantum of Solace" is a heavily flawed, but a fast paced and action filled Bond flick that lacks a few defining characteristics of a Bond film. Overall "Quantum of Solace" receives a 6.5/10. Not the best Bond film, but certainly not the worst.

Now "The Relic" starts of quite intriguing, but like most creature flicks declines in quality steadily as the films runtime increases. After I finished watching the movie I was not in the least bit entertained, in fact numerous times I found myself peeping at my watch and pausing the DVD to get something to eat. The main problem with "The Relic" is it fails to really captivate the audience; the people I watched it with really were not focusing the least bit, even when the creature was rampaging around killing people in rather surprising ways.

Now "The Relic" essentially concerns a strange monster that has appeared in the Museum of Natural History in Chicago. The creature then roams around the premise after night killing people and eating their brains (in particular there pituitary glands and their hypothalamus). Initially the museum staff and the local police force assume the creature originated from crates in South America that contained some unusual fungus loaded with animal hormones. What happens is anything that eats the fungus receives massive doses of the hormones, and it rebounds along the evolutionary tree and creates a monster, which is what we see in the movie. Sounds good- but be surprised, the film contains no elements that even make a creature feature worthy of viewing, just for fun.

The flaws of the film begin with the science. What I have noticed that is becoming more and more common in movies, is for film makers to attempt to make a rather unintelligent film seem smart; by loading it with scientific terms and theories. Most people will actually sit back and admire this, as is science lover I simply can't. Now we are lead to believe that overdoses of hormones generate changes in an organism. Sounds OK but no it's actually quite flawed. First of all the film claims through the plot that ingesting large amounts of hormones can physically change a persons DNA, and turn them into another creature, this could not be further from the truth. For example; say if a creature like a human drinks some dog hormones; he\she will feel quite sick but will not mutate in anyway into a dog, no matter after how long. This is because at a cellular level the human lacks mechanisms to respond to it. This not so obvious flaw makes the film to me, seem really unintelligent. All right enough with the science.

Now the science is really not the biggest problem, the film also suffers from quite bad CGI. Now one thing that bugs me with horror movies is; computer generated monsters. The problem with this is CGI often in these cases is poor, and it often distracts from any horror the director is trying to express. Think Jaws and Alien they had no CGI (yes I know it was not available at the time, but this is still a valid point) yet they were scary. You know why? Because everything happened on the set when they were filming, hence the actors could respond to the creature, and the creatures looked farm more real then CGI counterparts of a modern day era in film-making. Like most modern day horror films "The Relic" fits this new age perspective, for the worst. What we are left with an un-scary creature that looks laughable.

Perhaps the most striking flaw of "The Relic" is its non-coherent structure. The film lacks a distinct narrative ark, this makes the film seem awkward and uncoordinated to watch. The film starts of well all the important characters are introduced adequately, and so is the creature. But suddenly, almost randomly the creature appears in mass about say an hour in and the conclusion happens. The flaw is the fact that it really lacks the suspense to build up to the finale. This assists the film in really achieving nothing more than annoying viewers, especially very critical individuals. After all perhaps the easiest way to make a film flow and seem authentic is to have this narrative ark. A film which has the negative ark enables the audience to look forward to a conclusion of the film, and not as I have said before become frustrated and bored.

One final striking flaw of "The Relic" is the creature design. The creature looks rather awful. It seems as if someone just cut pictures out of National Geographic, glued them together and computerized it. Now the creature appears to be a large lizard, with a horses mane down its back, claws from a bird and finally a face that looks distinctly similar to a Predator (from the Predator franchise) and to top it of; an extendable snake tongue. Yikes, yeah that's pretty creative isn't it; gluing some animals together and attempting to pass it off as a visual treat.

Overall "The Relic" will definitely go down in history literally as a relic, and not as a good film, nor a good creature-feature. Poor creature design, and incoherent story disguised by poor science make the film fail on many levels with the only slightly redeemable characteristic being the occasionally striking deaths and gore- if that fancy's your taste. "The Relic" scores a 2.9/10 in my books. While the film does posses some gore, it never becomes overly disturbing so any children 13 and over should be fine viewing it.

Great performances and gunfights make "Tombstone" a western to enjoy. Well at least for me anyway, personally I have never been a big fan of westerns. So I may be to harsh or too lenient in my review, as I am vastly unfamiliar with what makes or breaks a western. So I will try to do my best to address all aspects of the film.

The film "Tombstone" concerns three brothers; Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell), Virgil Earp (Sam Elliot) and Morgan Earp (Bill Paxton) venturing to a town called Tombstone (a developing mining town) and settling in. Here Wyatt meets a close friend Doc Holiday (Val Kilmer). Together they attempt to rake in the bucks gambling at a local saloon. Unfortunately several misfits and murders land them in trouble with the cowboys, a ruthless gang of maniacs, who appear to be in control of the town more than the police, or the town Marshall. After a murder of the town sheriff the trouble really begins. This trouble leads Wyatt and his brothers fearing for there lives, and as a result they join the police force. Although Wyatt initially was reluctant (as he was once a law man) he decides to help his brothers. Violence and mayhem persists and a war breaks out between authorities and cowboys, with moral and physical losses on both sides.

Now what everyone man or women seems in my opinion to like about westerns is three things; number one- cowboys, number two- shootouts and number three the presence of the classic saloon. "Tombstone" dishes this out in healthy doses. Some of the memorable shootouts include the; Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (a real shootout) among others. Now these shootouts are quick paced and feature casualties on both sides, and include a great variation in weaponry used. This is mixed in with moderate amounts of blood that don't move interest away from, neither the brilliant sets nor the costumes, but succeed in adding realism and occasionally shock value. Now the sets and costumes are something to really wonder over. The costumes appear authentic and the sets just as authentic. The sets also have a distinct warn down feel; which assists in placing viewers in a corrupt and dusty western environment.

Now aside from feeling like a western movie, the acting and the dialogue is quite authentic and enables you to really soak up the atmosphere of the picture, without being distracted by poor dialogue or bad acting. Now the best acting is given by Kilmer, who portrays Doc Holiday in such a way; you really will believe he existed. Kilmer doesn't overact at all and portrays him as a calm, but an in control man. Dialogue associated with good acting include; "All right, Clanton... you called down the thunder, well now you've got it! You see that?" said by Wyatt and "The Cowboys are finished, you understand? I see a red sash, I kill the man wearin' it!", also said by Wyatt. Now what makes this dialogue authentic is it doesn't seem forced and seems to be dialogue in which someone would come p with on the spot in an actual situation.

What also mesmerised me about the film is the substantial character development that occurs. At first Wyatt and his brothers are to varying degrees attempting to avoid fighting the cowboys, but after a while they literally launch a personal vendetta against them, which historical became known as the "vendetta ride". Not only are changes and conflict intriguing to watch, it also makes successful drama which makes "Tombstone" seem very sophisticated. Now I didn't enjoy everything about "Tombstone", one thing that really bugged me about the film, was the lack of time and detail spent on developing the cowboys. Now this effected my viewing of the film quite substantially. I began to feel as if the movie lacked in presenting villains that has emotions, had motives and had lives. They just seemed to pop up and disappear. The only cowboy who is talked about in some detail is Ringo (Michael Biehn), the motive for his villainous actions are; he is simply a sick, sadistic man. Now this is probably one of the biggest flaws, and won't concern most viewers aside from the very picky viewers (like me).

Summing up, "Tombstone" is an enjoyable western flick that presents believable characters and sets, combined with compelling gunfights and realism that sets it apart from other "action flicks". Overall I give "Tombstone" a well earned 7.3 out of 10. Not the best western I have seen, but pretty damn good for a modern one. Now I mentioned the film does have some blood in it. But the blood is rather quick and occurs infrequently throughout the film and is not very disturbing, so anyone 11 and older should be all right watching this film. Although many of them may find it too slow moving.

Not at the same level of excellence of the first two "Evil Dead" films, but still nonetheless, a small triumph for the horror-comedy genre. The reasons for me considering this film to be below the first two are pretty straightforward. Now while the first two "Evil Dead" films had gore, but this films lacks it (I am aware of the cuts Raimi was forced to make), this film is also not as funny as the second Evil Dead films, and the effects to seem a little cheaper despite the bigger budget of about 10 million.

In the nature of "Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn" the film picks of were its predecessor left off. Ash (Bruce Campbell) is sucked into a vortex after being stuck in the same cabin, for the last two films and arrives in the year 1300AD. Now considering he spent the first two films fighting Deadites (think demons) summoned by the Necromoicon, this film is no different. Ash falls from the sky with his car and is approached by knights. After trying to kill Ash and realizing his power as a hero, they become convinced he is the chosen one said to free the world of the Deadites. Ash is requested to go and recover the Necromoicon from its resting place (a graveyard) so its deadly works can be stopped. Ash agrees on the basis that the book can send him back to his time. Unfortunately things don't go as plan, and once again ash is pitted against deformed monsters from his worst nightmare trying to capture his soul.

Now what "Army of Darkness" succeeds in is creating a daunting and impressive fantasy world roamed by monsters with its limited budget. Despite costing only 10 million to make the sets include a castle, an old abandoned windmill and a ghastly graveyard. These sets look impressive and are accompanied by equally good creature effects. Now remember this film came out before CGI composed creature effects (so keep that in mind). The beautiful yet hideous creatures include a gargoyle like Deadite and a hideously deformed Evil Ash. These realistic and rather daunting effects create an effective atmosphere, which surprisingly still manages to generate some laughs.

Now I said some laughs, as personally I think the film was not as funny as the second "Evil Dead" film. The first film had Ash being beaten up by his own hand, which really was one of the funniest few minutes I ever saw. Now "Army of Darkness" has laughs, but not as many as many as Dead by Dawn. The laughs of this film include Ash forgetting what he has to chant when collecting the Necromoicon, and instead he coughs the last word, and takes the book. This results in him being b****-slapped by a bunch of skeletons. And of course results in a massive siege which almost destroys the people Ash is trying to save. And before this ash is also attacked and beaten up by a fake version of the Necromoicon, and another nearly sucks him into another vortex. Unfortunately it also seems that Raimi tried to hard to create humor, and hence some of it really stinks.

For example one scene I found particular tasteless, was when ash is attached by several miniature evil copies of himself, which arise from his reflection in a broken mirror. Now this mini Ash's beat Ash up in ways which seem unfunny and rather stupid. He is tied down by them and one of them jumps in his mouth (it later grows out of him), and they also ram a fork into his backside. While most people will find this funny personally I did not.

Now before I conclude, I have to mention the closing battle. While the first two "Evil Dead" films had a low body count this raps up one above 100. The closing minutes of the picture feature a siege on a castle of people (whom Ash saves). Fans of the first two will be happy to see Ash rip apart Deadites with his shotgun and improvised vehicle-of-death, as well as knights smashing apart and blowing up hordes of skeletons. Although some parts of the battle are quite cheesy, the siege is still quite impressive considering it was conceived with such a low budget and without major known effect artists.

Overall I give his film a 7.3/10, the lowest of the "Evil Dead" trilogy, but certainly in no way a bad film. Now for the parents, despite "Army of Darkness" R- rating the film is a very light R (in fact it was almost rated PG in Australia) so anyone about the age of 13 should be OK. But still watch it with your children as the Deadites at times are quite disturbing and there is one brief scene of sexual assault.

Not even brilliant direction or brilliant creature design can save this creature flick from de-evolving into an abundance of clichés and predictable occurrences. And it's quite a shame to, as I have loved all of del Toro's other films; from the action packed comic book adaption "Hellboy" to the mystical masterpiece that is "Pans Labyrinth". Now I was hoping the film "Mimic", would kick-start my interest back into creature-feature films, how wrong I was. While the film does deliver some impressive and new takes on the genre, it does unfortunately seem rather bland and failed to mesmerize me.

The film is essentially about mutant bugs running amok in the subways of New York killing and eating who ever they can get there hands on. Now they weren't always like this. These bugs were once genetically modified cockroaches. They were released into sewer systems around the city to kill of cockroaches that were spreading disease and killing the cities children. What was supposed to happen is the bugs were to die after six months and leave no offspring as they had been bug castrated. Now like all other films of the genre. This doesn't happen and it's up to the bugs creator; Dr Susan Tyler (Mira Sorvino) and her partner (and lover) Dr peter Mann (Jeremy Northam), to stop them from consuming the entire city.

There are many reasons for this. First of all as previously stated the film hosts a squirming and menacing evil other then the mutated insects who serve as antagonists for this flick, and they are clichés. Now like most horror movies (in particular modern films) "Mimic" provides a host for clichés that really distract and bury any enjoyment of the film. These clichés are so noticeable they are almost laughable. For example we have a character sticking her hand in a dark place and pulling it out before she is attacked by a creature- cliché number one. We have the scientist whose creation (the insects in the film) intended for good, revolt and attack humanity- cliché number two. Now I could go on but the majority of the most prominent clichés occur at the climax of the film, and believe me you will know what they are. Not only the clichés pose a problem for del Toro's first Hollywood picture, but also illogical science.

Now this might not be a problem for all viewers, but it is for me (a bit of a science lover). Now we are led to believe that the bugs evolved from being bite sized cockroaches to mammoths of the insect kingdom in about four years. Now the film attempts to explain this by claiming that in evolution changes occur over generations not years. While this may be true it is not only the factor. The other is selection pressures. Now these are the factors that influence change. For the creatures to become that big there must be a reason for it. Now cockroaches and insects are small for a reason; there prey is small and hence so are they. Now the sewers in which these insects live should be loaded with small play, hence the insects should remain small and definitely not increase in size, as large size would not be selected for in an environments will small prey. Hence despite being genetically engineered this really impossible, even in a movie sense.

Now enough of the negatives, thankfully the film contains some positives that to a degree prevent the film from being a disaster. The creatures in the film look amazing- del Toro's brilliant imagination comes to life through there design. Now these creatures look like cockroaches except they have the ability to mimic humans. What they do is parts of their exoskeleton fold over their body to look like a rather intimidating and powerful human. Such an adaptation allows for the creatures to hunt for humans on the surface. I must say this really is a refreshing surprise compared to the ordinary giant critters most horror films contain. But unfortunately it is not enough to save this film.

One more positive to note is the acting, which surprisingly is above average, not great but not poor either. The actors such as Northam and Giancarlo (who plays a shoe shiner Manny) provide good performances. There response to nearly being eaten by bugs really is believable and both of them were able to behave scared and at times strong without over reacting.

Unfortunately these positives cannot save this film from being a sub-par horror film. Overall I give the film a 4.7/10. Now a word for the parents, the film is actually relatively low on blood and gore for a horror. Despite its R rating in the US, only two scenes show significant amounts of blood, and only one of which actually shows a bloody human wound. Hence it is more appropriate for younger audiences then most modern horror films (even a few PG-13 films). So anyone at the age of 11and older should be fine with the movie.

Hmmm let's see where should I begin… arr..hmm, let's start with the plot. Searching, searching, searching…. Oh I finally found the sequences of poorly constructed events, which very well could be considered a plot. The latest Blade installment takes all the flaws of the first two films and expands on them, include in the lack of a plot. Pasting together a few scenes in the film, I think I've figured out the "plot" of the film.

The film concerns a group of vampires who have summoned the world's first vampire (Dracula or Drake) back from his slumber in Iraq (or whatever the he was doing there) in order to kill the one thing that is stopping them from controlling the human race, Blade. Now Blade is your typical poorly developed action hero, who rarely shows more emotion then the Statue of Liberty on a rainy day. After summoning Dracula the vampires persuade him to find Blade. Meanwhile without much sense of direction Blade mercilessly fights his way through legions of vampires. After leaving over 1000 bodies the FBI locate Blade and arrest him. He is then saved by a group of kids calling themselves; the "Nightstalkers", which consist of; the attractive female and the usual group clown. Now these guys plan to use a virus to kill all the vampires in the world once and for all, but to do this they need Drakes blood. Blade reluctantly helps the Nightstalkers, yadeyadeya, whatever you get the point.

Now the problems with Blade Trinity are not only the clichéd plot, but also some extremely stupid and mind-boggling scenes and continuity goofs, that really stand out and ruin what could have been; a mindless popcorn movie. OK here is the first one; Abigail the attractive female I mentioned before primarily uses a combat bow for her hunts. What's wrong with this is the bow tends to vary in its power throughout the movie. When the bow is fully drawn back it either; hits one vampire in the chest and stays there or shoots through more than five at once, from the exact same distance away. Not only does this scene question the movies intelligence, it also disrupts and distracts from the action scenes, which are also quite poor.

Additionally one other scene occurs in the first half of the movie in which heavily trained tactical police officers (or whatever), raid Blades hideout. What appears to be laughable here is an old man defending it is able to shoot about six of them with a shotgun, without any of the officers moving out of the way or shooting him first. I mean, what's completely illogical here is the fact that some of the best trained officers in the world struggle to even raid a warehouse successfully and kill an old man who can't even hold a shotgun properly. Aside from being a relatively stupid film at the basics the film fails to deliver the essentials. The film has poor dialog such as; "I was born ready mother******!" said by Blade. We have terrible acting all-round from Snipes to Dominic Purcell (who plays Drake). This really makes you laugh instead of trying to care for them. Despite this caring for the characters is also hard as the characters are very poorly developed. This development consist of a simple statements said by Hannibal (Ryan Reynolds, when Blade Meets the Night Stalkers.

Even the visual effects are terrible, as when the vampires die they explode into a cheap special effects consist of a burning skeleton. And believe me I have seen better effects in video-games. Speaking of video-games, even the action sequences and the gore (there is literally next to no gore, which was very well present in the first two) are worse than watching someone playing a computer game via a leaked video on YouTube. The fights always consist of a vampire jumping at someone and Blade or whoever shooting them back. The same formula is repeated throughout the movie. And this raises are further question how are mere humans such as Hannibal and Abi able to literally take on dozens of vampires at once, that are supposed to surpass them in strength and in speed.

Overall "Blade: Trinity" is a poorly planned and executed film, with no redeeming qualities at all. It's better to use this DVD in place of clay targets at the shooting range then to watch it. This gets a strict 0.4 out of 10 for me, but unfortunately I can't rate below a one on this site. Hint, hint IMDb.

Pan's Labyrinth This film in my opinion is the greatest film ever created. From a critical perspective this film is almost absolutely flawless. In ever aspect the film successfully gives the audience everything it could possible deem necessary. And may I add it was robbed of an Oscar!!!!! I could watch this beautiful artwork to the end of time and I would never ever become bored of it.

Every single thing I could possible list which makes a perfect film, is present in this masterpiece. The plot is excellent and original, and focuses on a young girl's quest to reveal her true identity in the midst of the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. The plot is as I said just before original and is well written and paced and gets to the point in each scene. All the scenes in the film serve a purpose and not one of them is used as a filler to rack up a few extra minutes, which is a rarity in almost all films. Aside from having a flawless plot the characters in the film are well developed and distinguished from one another. Each character is rather unique and contributes a substantial amount to the story. The performances were excellent, despite the fact that these actors were relatively unknown outside Spain I felt happy in seeing them give wonderful and at times inspiring performances. Aside from acting the evil characters (Vidal and his officers) are accurately and successfully portrayed so that they portray the dark of the world where as other characters such as Mercedes and Ofelia provides the light of world. This essentially gives the film the perfect contrast that separates evil and good. It is such as shame that the film was criticized by many people on the basis that no character had a shade of grey. These people are completely ignorant as this was the entire purpose of the film- to show that there can be good in evil.

It is not only the characters that portray this contrast the plot does as well. The plot blends a violent reality with a beautiful and perfect fantasy world that the main character: Ofelia longs to be a part of. This type of filming will be very unique and intriguing to a large amount of audiences. The plot manages very well in keeping audiences engaged until the bitter end, which I must say is the most powerful and beautiful thing I have ever scene displayed on the big screen.

Another positive aspect of this film is the setting. And I must say the sets and cinematography are absolutely outstanding, some of the best I have ever scene. For example the scene early on in the film in which Ofelia confronts a faun (not a baby deer, the fantasy creature) the camera-work in it was absolutely outstanding. If I were to see such fantastic sets in real life I would say they were real. This outstanding cinematography is accompanied by outstanding makeup and magnificent visuals.

As with the sets, the fantasy creatures looked extremely realistic. One character the pale man, had astonishing make up that he looked like something out of a nightmare. The monster essentially looks like a man, but has pale white skin, very thin legs and eyes in his palms!!! This character was designed and executed with an excellent amount of care and skill.

The only thing I can possibly think of that is negative is the length. At around two hours I felt the film was a little too short. Although I am sure others can find criticism I simply cannot provide any other fault this masterpiece.

Summing up I would recommend this film for anyone. Whether they love or hate fantasy. However this film does contain some graphic violence, torture and emotion intensity that may disturb some viewers. I personally would not show this to a child below 13 years of age. Summing up this beautiful film receives a 9.8/10 for me. The highest rating I have every given a film. And one of the 6 films I have every given a 10, the others being; "The Godfather Part 1", "The Godfather Part 2" and finally the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

Saw III I honestly believe it is such as shame that this so far good franchise was damaged by this pathetic excuse for an entry into film series. The first two films of the series relied a lot on suspense and scares, but disgustingly this film does not. It transforms itself into a mindless gore-fest that seems to be trying to make people throw up rather than provide them with suspense and scares. From the word go the film will disappoint many fans from each turn, the ones complex and intriguing plot is replaced with a B-movie story.

Aside from providing the viewers with a good scare and of course a good time, I believe this film also fails on many levels including; writing, pacing and character development. The writing in this film is filled with cliché and predictable dialogue that seems to be used in every horror film. For example some of the conversations between Amanda and Lynn seem bland and as I said earlier cliché. The characters in this film are developed poorly and seem to be very uninteresting and unrealistic. This is scene with Jigsaw's apprentice Amanda. On many occasions Amanda will suddenly become angry and seconds later start to cry and then revert to a neutral emotion! I mean come on! That is unrealistic even for a movie. Aside from Amanda the character of Jeff is developed hardly ever and if he is I think it is rather done poorly. As the only real development we see of him is in some crummy little flashbacks that I think are rather forced into place rather then carefully placed in.

Aside from issues with characters the film also possesses problems with the plot. The plot is developed very poorly and seems to jump forward prematurely. As well as plot pacing issues the very simplistic plot which does not do justice with the plots of the first "Saw" or even "Saw II".

Aside from these negatives there are thankfully a few positives that unfortunately are smothered by the horrible negative factors of the film. On the light side the film does have some very good gore, which will satisfy gore hungers (but not me) and also does have some rather different and far more complicated traps then seen in the first two films. These traps did provide me and I suppose everyone else with a sense of progression with Jigsaw's and Amanda's work and of course there engineering skill.

In conclusion I would recommend this film only for hardcore fans of the series and lovers of gore. It is also fair to note that this film is far more violent than its predecessors and I would not recommend it for anyone below the age of 14 as they may be disturbed by the violence and torture. Summing up I will give this film a 3.3/10.

The Quentin Tarantino film "Kill Bill" unfortunately never appealed to me. To be honest I was never a fan of his films and I honestly don't think I ever will be which is why I have given this film a poor review. I am not being stereotypical just because Tarantino's name is attached to it I just felt the film was to out there and over exaggerated, as all of his films i have scene are. Although i should add i actually loved Pulp Fiction!!!

The film in my opinion has many flaws which resulted in me giving it a poor review. I personally feel the film failed to engage me, I felt like I wanted to see the film just as how many others (especially on IMDb) see it- as a good and unique film. However I was unable to achieve this. I wouldn't say the film was boring or too quickly paced, if anything the pacing was good but it just felt a little to quirky and weird for me. For example there is one scene were a man is decapitated and the blood pours out like water from a fire hose. I suppose many people would have laughed at this and see it as black humour, but I for one did not. I felt it was just weird. This is a shame as i was hoping to love the film. Aside from the film feeling a bit weird and exaggerated at times, I also felt the characters were too weird and just unrealistic. For example the whole idea of a women seeking vengeance for the loss of her baby among others by hacking them apart with a katana just seemed beyond me. As well as having unusual characters the plot was also quite terrible. I mean don't you think that whole "GRRRR I WANT Vengeance" plot has been overused. It just seems to be in way too many films. I personally feel the only film in recent years that has pulled it off well is "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street". Due to the simplistic and cliché plot I honestly feel this film does not deserve a spot on IMDb's top 250. Although I do understand that the film is loved by a lot of people, I accept and respect there opinions but unfortunately can not relate to it.

Aside from having many flaws I have to point out the positives. As always Tarantino films have an amazingly brilliant dialogue, and this film is no different. He manages to pull of dialogue that seems realistic and well placed and occasionally witty. Also another positive point to make is the scenes were shot from angles that I would have to say perfectly matched the mood and purpose of the scene. Unfortunately these positives are not enough to save this film in my opinion.

Summing up I would recommend this film only for people who enjoy Tarantino's unique films and of course fans of anime. Overall I would give this film: 4.4 out of 10. Not good but not awful. If you are a fan of Tarantino, raise my score to 8 out of 10 and sit back for a bloody, fun ride as you will not be disappointed!

The fairly well known horror movie"Saw" has been unfortunately crucified by the majority of critics. This is one of the few occasions in which i say- they are wrong. The film "Saw" in my opinion is easily one of the best horror films this century. Unfortunately it has spawned a number of sequels that honestly are no where near as good as this one.

Saw has many unique and appealing qualities which i believe make it an exceptional modern horror film.First of all the films focuses is of a serial killer (nicknamed Jigsaw) who forces people through horrific tasks(which often result in death or blood) who he believes are not worthy to be alive. Thats right a serial killer who does not actually murder! Aside from having a very unique plot the film also has many multiple plot lines that keep the viewers exhilarated and mind-boggled. The special effects are done rather well considering the very low budget. And the ending i must say is absolutely brilliant and will please almost everybody. As well as these many positive qualities the film has many many questions and puzzles that will keep you guessing to the bitter end.

Unfortunately the film is not perfect. Due to the low budget a lot of the sets and props look at times fake and out of place, and at times the film can be awkward as a majority of scenes take placed in enclosed areas such as; houses and warehouses will little images of the outside world. Also seeing how the film really is an "amateur" film the acting at times is not too crash hot, but better then most low budget films. Same as the acting, the writing does have some flaws but when compared to other film makers first work is surprisingly good. Character development on the other hand is also surprisingly good, the characters are developed gradually and the changes they express happen realistically in response to the many situations they are plunged into.

The film itself would appeal to a variety of audiences from gore hungers to lovers of psychological thrillers. However i would not recommend this film to anyone under the age of 13 as it does have some graphic violence and can be extremely tense and disturbing. Overall i would give the film a 7.6 out of ten. Well done James Wan a perfect example of how could a movie can be, regardless of it's budget. It is also a shame that this film was to some degree ruined by mediocre to terrible sequels.