www.UselessCreations.com - Useless Reviews

In my endless quest to escape from reality I see a lot of movies. And I review them so you don't have to!
These reviews take almost minutes to write, but their uselessness will echo thru the ages...

( 27/05/07 VG C5 F12 - Official Website )
Title: Sunshine
Worth it for: The lesson you learn about taking one too many sessions in the solarium...
IMHO: I'm a big fan of sci-fi stuff and was waiting to see this movie for a long time. From Danny Boyle, who directed stuff like Trainspotting and 28 Days Later, and I heard him talking about this flick and just couldn't wait to see it. And I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed! It's a cool flick with a cool twist, so I don't wanna say too much. But it's nifty and it messes with your head a little bit. It's sci-fi-ish, but it's more about the people, and the nasty/weirdness at the end. One thing that really bothered me tho: this flick has a wicked international cast. Great folks from all over the planet, and it's funded in the UK isn't it? So why the hell do they all have to put on fake American accents? Very, very lame. Let them all speak naturally and show us that the future is friendly and international. Give us some hope, dagnabit! Anyway, I liked this for the most past, nicely creepy and cool in general. Good effects, and a better story. Good performances, aside form the stupid accents. See it.
It's abit like: Well, everyone will say 2001 but it's not really...
4.1 out of 5.

( 22/05/07 HR C8 - Official Website )
Title: 28 Weeks Later
Worth it for: Fast n furious zombie style action!
IMHO: 28 Days Later is an instant classic if you ask me. And no, I don't mean the flick with Sandra Bulloch in it, altho that's a great prank to play the next time your girlfriend wants a chick flick... So I mean the one with all the infected dudes running around London trying to chow down on any folks who wander past. Danny Boyle did an outstanding job breathing new life into the Zombie-esque movie genre. But then what else would you expect from a mutated monkey virus? It did well round the world, so it was always going to have a sequel. That's the rules. But the sequel is being handled by someone else. It's still set in London, which is cool, and still has some cool Brittish actors in it, altho I'm a little baffled as to why Robert Carlisle would choose to play a role which is pretty much just head zombie. This thing is nastier, gorier, and bloodier than the first, but it's less scary. It's going for the more usual scares than the more tricky style of the first flick. This is just a full on zombie assault. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it just doesn't have the same effect as the first where you were wondering what was lurking in the shadows, or about to nibble on your ear from behind. Anyway, this is just another disposable popcorn flick, as so many sequels are, which is just nothing like the instant classic the first was. Maybe the next 3 sequels will be better?
It's abit like: Other horror sequels that don't live up to the first.
3.2 out of 5.

( 01/05/07 Roppongi Hills, Tokyo - Official Website )
Title: Spider-Man 3
Worth it for: All the bizarre plot happenings that are just oh so convenient...
IMHO: I love Tokyo. I'd never been before, but I can't wait to go back. Japan is just one of those places it's just easy to fall in love with. Anyway, I think Tokyo got Spider-Man 3 before the rest of the world, and I happened to be there on opening day, so I just had to go see it for a taste of the whole Japanese cinema experience... Wel that's what I told myself anyway but I'm really just trying to justify missing key sights to go see a movie instead. But I'm still kinda glad I did! This was a pretty cool cinema, and it was just weird to see how polite the Japanese are, even to their movies. They all sat and waited til the very end of the credits before anyone moved at all! It was strange to see. In Dubai, almost everyone left before the credits started, and here in Australia is varies, but it's rare for people to stay thru the credits. These guys all stayed til the very end. Unfortunately, I had a seat in about the 3rd row from the front, and I hadn't slept, so I dozed off abit in the middle and the action sequences were so frenzied I got a little sea sick and truly had no idea what was going on most of the time. I need to see this movie again, but I can tell you for sure it's not as good as the other 2. The story had some very stupid elements. How convenient that the asteroid landed neat Peter Parker! How convenient that the black stuff latched on to Spider-Man! How convenient that the sand man dude stumbled into some science experiment?! How convenient that the evil photographer went to the church where Spider-Man happened to be ripping off the black stuff!? How convenient! It was all just way to contrived and silly. Even George Lucas said the story was silly, and his stories kinda suck lately, so that's saying something. There are some fantastic moments still tho! At Saturday Night Fever style bit in the middle is just gold, and Bruce Campbell is still a champion of comic timing. There's lost to like, but it's too long, and too stupid, so it's not much more than average overall. I love Japan.
It's abit like: Other wimpy superhero stories.
3.3 out of 5.

( 22/03/07 HR C7 - Official Website )
Title: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (aka TMNT)
Worth it for: Um.. the turtle power?
IMHO: Another review lost in the crash, but this movie wasn't that great anyway. I remember loving the ninja turtles first time round, now I'm not sure sure. I liked the 3D animation, but I felt like I'd missed something. Didn't April (voiced by Buffy herself) used to work along side Kent Brockman at channel 6 news?? When did she become a Lara Croft type dudette? I thought this would actually be a new telling of the original turtles story, but it's not. It's more like another sequel to the old Muppet style movies that were around way back. Which is kinda cool, but confusing if you're not up with the latest turtle shenanigans. It ends with obvious sequels in mind tho, so I'm sure we'll see more. Good if you're a fan, baffling otherwise, and not as funny as it should be. There's just so many 3D animated animal flicks now, at least the turtles aren't trying to escape from a zoo or whatever the usual story is.
It's abit like: Other movies with mutant animals performing marshal arts...
2.9 out of 5.

( 16/02/07 Deira, Dubai C1 B16 - Official Website )
Title: Ghost Rider
Worth it for: It was filmed in Melbourne! The greatest city in the world! Altho, don't judge it by this movie...
IMHO: Well, I'm finally taking a far too short break after working non-stop for centuries, and I had a short stop over in Dubai. My feet were so sore by this stage from walking around that I decided to go see a movie to give them a rest. The cinema was almost the same as the ones in Melbourne, except that they had Arabic subtitles, which was kinda nifty altho I have no idea what they said. And the people happily spoke on their mobile phones during the movie, which gets you shot in Australia. Weird. Anyway, I went to see Ghost Rider. The local Dubai folks seemed to love it. There was loads of gasping and giggling in all the right spots, but they all got up and left before it ended. And I mean ALL. I was left sitting alone when the credits started to roll. Weird. But when I saw the queue for taxis afterwards I could kind of understand why everyone was in such a rush. As for the movie itself, well, um... yeah. This thing was filmed in my home town of Melbourne, and I remember people telling me about spotting Nick Cage around the place and seeing the fake SWAT vans lined up in Collins St. Kinda cool, but it's also a bit embarassing when the movie turns out to such like this. This thing is cheesy from the outset. It's packed with more cheese than Cheesy von Cheddar the world famous cheese taster from Switzerland. When Cage goes the point at Peter Fonda about halfway thru I felt I could actually choke on the cheese at any moment. It was difficult to breathe. The effects are cheesy, the story is cheesy, the acting is extra-stuffed crust level or cheesy. It's all cheesy. Where is Marvel finding these cheesy comic books that most of us have never heard of? And why do they just keep pumping this crap out? And why do so many people go and see them? If this thing wasn't filmed in Melbourne, I wouldn't have gone near it with a 14 foot block of cheese. Mmmm cheese. Cage is useless. Eva Mendes is still amazingly beautiful whether she's jam packed full of cheese or not, but even she is no reason to go see this flick since she doesn't really do anything interesting. This thing is up there with such craptacular Marvel offerings as Elektra and all the other ones that such. In fact, I think I'll avoid Marvel movies from now on (except for Spider-Man anyway) and wait until they make something thats up to the quality of the DC stuff. Want a good comic book movie? Go rent Batman Begins instead. Avoid this nonsense unless you simply wanna have a look at the best city in the world! And no, it's not in Texas, it's in Australia.
It's abit like: Other cheesy Marvel offerings. Bleh.
2.1 out of 5.

( 08/12/06 HR C4 J14 - Official Website )
Title: James Bond: Casino Royale
Worth it for: Isn't it always worth checking out a new Bond film? And when there's a new dude as Bond, and a whole new version of the Bond idea, it's even more worth seeing!
IMHO: Whoa. Ok, so forget everything you thought you knew about James Bond. Well, I mean, forget most of it, and remember the bits that you shouldn't forget. And then remember some of the stuff I told you to forget. Ok, so forget about forgetting stuff, and prepare for something new. What we have here is another "reboot" of a classic series. Like Batman Begins and other flicks before it, Casino Royale sets out to reinvent the James Bond franchise, and I have to say I kinda like it. I'm a huge Bond fan, but after Die Another Day I started to lose faith. It wasn't just a bad Bond movie, it was a bad movie in general. Crap story, crap characters (Halle Berry was annoying AND crap!), and another crappy killer sattelite. It wasn't the only bad Bond film, because looking back most have one great scene and a lot of filler, but it was probably the worst in a long long time. After that, they had 2 choices: dish up another average Bond flick with supervillains and sattelites, or take the riskier path of doing something different. I'm glad they chose the latter. I liked Pierce Brosnan, but really they had to get rid of him to be able to restart the series. It was a real worry that so many people were against Daniel Craig even before he had tried on his tux. It's probably the same people who are now singing his praises who were out setting up websites in protest. Stay calm people, please! There's a lot worse going on in the world that which actor plays some movie spy dude. As it happens, he's fantastic, but he's very different. This is not the Bond we know. Gone is the cheese that's been thickly spread since the Roger Moore days, and in some a new, hard edged, nasty Bond. A Bond who makes mistakes, and smiles like a psycho when he's doing something unpleasant. I think we saw a touch of this Bond with Timothy Dalton, but he didn't really get the chance to expand upon it. Let's hope Craig stays around a while, especially when he's got this good material to work with. He has quite a scary look about it, yet a very posh accent. Which is kind of perfect for Bond. His eyes give me chills. He's got eyes like Bill Bixby when he turns into the Hulk... except blue, not green. Find a picture boy n girls, you'll see I'm right! Anyway, this movie is great, for the most part. It starts off at a fantastic pace, and doesn't slow down for much of the first half. Unfortunately, when it reaches the casino it also hits the brakes. The 2nd half is very slow. There are still bursts of action, but after the early thrills its hard to get used to the new pace. There also seems to be no big finish, so it's all a bit anti-climactic. I do like that there is a lot of Ian Flemming's 1st book in this movie, and I really hope they do more of these flicks based on hs books instead of just stealing the title and making up a different story, which I think went on a bit in the old days. Sticking to the book helps to introduce us to who Bond is, and how he got the way he is. That's one of the things I loved about this. It's the story of how a dude names James Bond actually became James Bond. So as the movie goes on we see a few of his quirks and cliques creeping in, which is cool. But there's still so much missing that we can look forward to seeing revealed in future flicks (I hope!). The big thing missing for me was the music. There are hints of it all the way thru, but never the full tune. I expected to be gagging for it at the end, but like I said it's so anti-climactic that it doesn't have the impact it should when we finally hear it. The openning sequence is missing too, but that makes sense when you see it. The song and openning musical bit is quite cool, and the animation is nifty. But is this the first Bond flick to not having dancing girlies in the openning? This movie really did it for me in general. Like Batman Begins is brings a new sense of realism to a series that was becoming surreal. This is a new world of Bond not seen in a long time, with tuff slies, beautiful but intelligent girles, and fast shiny cars n stuff. It left me really looking forward to future flicks and what could be in store for us. Great stuff, it's just a shame the 2nd half is paced so strangely in comparison to the first. go see it!
It's abit like: It's less like old Bond flicks, and more like Batman Begins and other 21st century versions of old favourites.
4.8 out of 5.

( 17/11/06 HR C10 - Official Website )
Title: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
Worth it for: The fight scene. I'm not saying any more.
IMHO: I love Borat. I have since the first time I saw him doing his stuff way back when on the old old UK version of Da Ali G Show. He makes me cringe so much, and yet it's somehow addictive. It's a strange sensation and hard to explain. Anyway, even tho I'm a fan, I was still skeptical about this movie. The Ali G movie was really lame, and who knows how Borat could work on the big screen? Borat's main charm, like Ali G's and Sacha Baron Cohen's other characters, is in his interview technique. Making his target's squirm and show their true colours. The movie has a bit of this, but the official interview parts are actually quite small. I'm wondering if that's because of some sort of legal fears or something. Who nose. Anyway, even tho it looks like a large portion of this movie is scripted, it's still funny! There's still plenty of stuff that seems like it's real, either through hidden cameras, or the guise of a foreign film crew. I always wondered why Borat was from Kazakhstan. The country is shown in such a bad way, and I'm sure it's nothing like that. I always thought he should have come from a made up country, since most of the people he talks too would have no idea it was made up anyway. They're not usually the brainiest of individuals. The people Borat comes across in his travels all seem to show their true colours. Whether they're unbelievably nice and patient with this foreign weirdo, or they're total intollerent racist nitwits. Some of them come across really badly. But it's hard to just say "geez aren't American's awful?" because I'm sure if Borat went pretty much anywhere he'd be able to find unpleasant types to interact with. It's just unfortunate for the normal American's out there (I'm sure they exist) that so many come across so badly. You could view this movie in several different ways. It could be a shocking expose of how intolerant we all are to foreign cultures and what have you. I mean, if Borat was truly brought up to think women were stupider than men, his questions about it might make sense? But I'm not sure how many of the poeople in the cinema I was at were thinking of it that way, and for the most part, neither was I. I was there to have a laugh, and that's exactly what I, and everyone else, did. The cinema was packed with all sorts of different people who absolutely roared with laughter. There were points during this movie where I simply could not breathe. At one point, I saw spots and thought I was going to pass out. Sure, the jokes are all of a highly intellectual nature, and several went over my head, but what I could understand I found quite amusing. Like I said, you can view it seriously and be offended and worry about what's happening to the moral fibre of society, or you can laugh. I guess you could feel bad for the people who are made fun of when all they're doing it trying to be nice, but most of the people who come off looking bad have no one to blame but themselves. I loved this movie just for the guilty pleasure of it, but it is definitely not for everyone. Not by a long shot. But for those of you out there, like the group of brain donors who left the cinema in front of me saying "wow, he must be in prison after doing that to Pam! How crazy!", let me just say: it's not all real! Far out people, wake up. That group of twits were all gravely concerned, but that part, along with others, was all staged. So try not to panic. Now I'm just rambling cos I forgot what I was saying. So anyway, I liked this. Not everyone will. But if you like low brow social commentary, go see this!
It's abit like: Umm.. maybe a bit of a gross out comedy mixed with some hidden camera antics?
4.7 out of 5.

( 08/11/06 HVG C1 K15 - Official Website )
Title: Saw 3
Worth it for: Well, I guess the end is the right side of "not crap"...?
IMHO: And the sequel train rolls on. I didn't actually saw Saw 2, and had no intention of seeing this either. But I went out one night and it was decided a movie was the way to go, and at the local cinema where we were this was the only thing on I hadn't seen. Sometimes these situations lead to pleasant surprises. You walk out thinking "wow, I'm so glad we decided to see a movie, I wouldn't have seen that otherwise". Then there's the other times when you walk out saying "wow, that was so bad I would have prefered to sit at home for 2 hours jabbing myself in the eye with a fork". Unfortunately, this falls into the latter category. The first Saw was fantastic. I loved it. It was clever, thrilling, and nice n creepy. And it was made by 2 Australian blokes who couldn't get funding here in Australia. We only seem to make crap movies here, so it was good to see these 2 go off and do good things overseas. But the first was so popular, and so cheap to make compared to the profit it made, that it's now hurtling out of control in sequel land. I didn't see number 2, but I don't think it matters when you go to see this. I did have some questions but they were soon answered, or simply made no difference to the story. In general tho, this is just a pointless gore fest. Gone is the cleverness of the first movie. It made me wonder if Hostel was partly to blame. That was a really lame movie with nothing but pointless gore and soft porn, and I watched the gore in Saw 3 thinking "They're just trying to outdo that other piece of crap". Two wrongs don't make a right, or however the saying goes, and altho I think this was much better than Hostel it's still not very good. And before you attack me for being a wimpy little gore hater, I'm really not. I've been decensortised since seeing Robocop as a kid. I simply find the non-stop gore quite boring. If there was a clever story behind it, I wouldn't mind so much, but there just isn't in this case. It's a yawn fest. I liked the end, because there was at least a tiny twist, but it doesn't actually end. It just screams at you to wait and see Saw 4 next year. I'm not sure I'll bother.
It's abit like: Other pointless gore-fests.
1.2 out of 5.

( 04/11/06 HR C10 - Official Website )
Title: Lucky Number Slevin (aka The Wrong Man)
Worth it for: This one is worth seeing just cos of how much fun it is. It's rare these days, but some movies are just generally worth seeing.
IMHO: I never understand this. A movie has a title in one country, and then they change it for another. Sometimes it makes sense, I guess, if the title is a local reference that other countries wont understand or something, but in most cases it's just weird. It's usually insulting to the country with the changed title as well. It's like they think the original title is too confusing for us (like they were scared we wouldn't realise American Wedding was part of the American Pie movies, so they changed it to American Pie: The Wedding when it was released here. How nice of them...). Anyway, like I said, some movies it can make sense (The Rundown is apparently an American football term, so they changed the title of that movie, but it sucked, so who cares?), but in this case, it really doesn't make sense. This movie is called Lucky Number Slevin, and that's quite an interesting title. It makes me wonder what it's about. It gets me interested. But, alas, here in Australia they've held it back for months and changed it's name to The Wrong Man. Which is a very boring, generic, sort of title which I'm sure I've heard 100 times before and does not interest me whatsoever. If I didn't know that this movie was in fact Lucky Number Slevin which I had already heard of and seen trailers of on the net, I wouldn't have bothered seeing it. With the internet being the world main source for movie info, doesn't it make sense to pick a title and stick to it? It might be different if a movie totally blows, and you're trying to hide it under a tricky title to make us mistakenly go and see it, but that's just not the case here. This movie is actually very, very good, so why risk losing any buzz around the old title by changing it to something boring? Idiots. That makes no sense. Anyway, this movie is very good, driven mainly by it's cool story and even cooler cast. Bruce Willis does his thing as always (and he looks like he did in The Jackal when he's wigged up), the fantastic Morgan Freeman is always good, and Sir Ben Kingsley (yes he's got "sir" in the credits) is nicely quirky too, and Lucy Liu is always pretty cute. But the stand out for me was Josh Hartnett, simply because I hate him. I'm just so not a fan, but in this he really does do a good job. He actually had be laughing almost constantly thru the first half of this thing, and altho I'll never forgive him for Pearl Harbor, I do now hate him a little less than before. I wont say anything about the story, except that I liked it. You always sort of know part of what's going on, then there's a bit of a twist and it all falls into place. While it's not actually Sixth Sense sort of stunning, it's still pretty cool. It is kind of strange how this movie goes from being quite comedic at the start, to being kinda brutal towards the end, but I liked it anyway, and I guess the comedic stuff might have gotten old if it didn't change. It kept me interested this way. I really liked this. Go see it.
It's abit like: It's almost a heisty movie with a twist, but also not really. Not really Oceans Eleven at all, but that springs to mind.
4.6 out of 5.

( 24/10/06 HR C6 - Official Website )
Title: Children Of Men
Worth it for: Mmm Quietus.
IMHO: Strap yourselves in and prepare to OD on anti-depressants, we've got a bleak one here! What is it about the future? Why is it always so unpleasant in these movies? Why can't it be all flowery meadows and shoes that don't give you blisters? Instead it's all war and bombings and unpaid parking fines. What's the deal?? In this case, the world has gone to hell except for Great Brittain, which is a bit strange cos from what I've heard the UK ain't too nice right now as it is. Too many people complaining about the cricket and calling people "guvnor". Anyway, it's never really explained why things turn out the way they are, but it also doesn't really matter since that's not the point. The story really is about the hopelessness of it all, and then the hope that shines thru, or something like that anyway. It's a bleak n nasty future, and it's only 20 years away according to this flick, so you better enjoy things right now while you can! It's all very well shot and put together, giving you a sense of realism which is quite nice, or nasty as the case may be. The cast is all pretty outstanding, with Clive Owen getting better with each film he makes (he's still my vote for James Bond, but I can see why he'd rather do less predictable stuff), and Michael Caine is Michael Caine. Always worth watching. The CG baby is creepy as too, in case anyone is nominating CG babies for the "Most Creepy" Oscar. This isn't necessarily an action packed flick, and yet it's also not boring. It moves along at a pretty good pace, and when there is action it's very intense. The scene in the refugee camp at the end is outstanding, altho it does get a little cheesy. This is well worth a look if you like your future to be bleak and devoid of Star Trek style jumpsuits. Check it out.
It's abit like: Other flicks that make the future look like it aint worth living in.
4.1 out of 5.

( 19/10/06 CC C1 - Official Website )
Title: Boytown
Worth it for: That sense of disappointment you get when a movie you're looking forward to sucks so bad.
IMHO: I've been a huge fan of Mick Molloy ever since the old Late Show days. I listen to his radio show each day, and I even have a signed copy of The Brown Album. Crackerjack and Bad Eggs were both very funny movies, and so I've been looking forward to this one for a long time. Maybe that's why I was so disappointed? It's a real shame when you get so much comedic talent in a movie, both in front and behind the scenes, and yet the result really isn't all that funny. It sort of sits at a slight giggle level for the whole time, and only rarely gets any better than that. The highlight is the songs, which are all pretty well done. It's obvious that the songs were what they spent all their time writing, and then just fitted the movie in around them. The story is so basic, it all just happens with nothing really happening, and I know that makes no sense but it's just the way it is. It's like, lets get the band back together, ok the bands back together, now we'll make some records, ok we're done. And the ending? Well, it's kinda funny, and kinda weird. It makes sense, but it's sort of in a we-don't-know-how-to-end-it kinda way. Maybe I just wasn't in the right frame of mind to watch it? Who knows. It's far from terrible, but far from good. Which means it's solidly average. There is far worse than this around, especially when you compare it to other recent Australian comedies, but the Molloy boys, and everyone else involved, can do a lot better than this.
It's abit like: Other disappointing movies. Nothing like Crackerjack which isn't what you'd expect.
2.6 out of 5.

( 11/10/06 GU C5 - Official Website )
Title: The Departed
Worth it for: That fruity Boston accent all the actors are trying to pull off. It creeped me out that they all sounded Australian at one point or another...
IMHO: Jack Nicholson is just so good at being evil. Not that I run into him that often, but I do have nightmares about that sinister smile of his. It must be terrible for McDonald's employees who have to deal with his midnight MnNugget cravings. They'd be far too scared to ask about wanting fries with that. Maybe that's why they're advised to wear rubber pants? Just incase Jack drops by? Who nose. But when I see old Jacky boy (don't tell him I called him that) it really helps me forgive Billy Crystal and co for always sucking at hosting the Oscars. I mean, it must be hard to read lame jokes of cue cards when Jack's in the front row threatening to break out in an evil grin at any moment. Luckily he's got some even nastier pretty boys with him in this movie to draw attention away from his evilness. Well, slightly anyway. Jack still steals the show, but I have to say that Leonardo DiCaprio was actually a lot better in this than in anything else I've seen. I've never been a big fan of his ever since that movie he did with that Celine Dion song. You know the one I mean. It's about a dinghy that springs a leak and 48 hours of cinematic yawndom later it finally goes down? I'm not so sure about Matt Damon on the other hand. I mean, I liked the Bourne movies as disposable spy flicks and all that. But the dude just creeps me out somehow. There's a point in this where he's out on a date being all charming which really gave me the shivers. It's that big cheesy smile he puts on. It makes you want to sock him one. Anyway, the cast in general all seemed great to me. And it's quite an impressive cast with almost every part filled by a big name. And they all do well! Maybe it's because there's so many of them that they're all doing their best to be noticed in the crowd, or maybe it's just working with Martin Scorsese, or maybe they've all been at the fruit tingles. I don't know what it is, but it works. I've probably gone on long enough. I really liked this movie. It wasn't too dumbed down, and it had a few surprises, and some actually laughs. Which is nice, cos often these big deep deals are far too serious. What does concern me tho, and I don't want to give too much away, but wasn't a law passed saying that all movies had to have at least 6 sequels, and then maybe a couple of direct to video jobs on top of that? With how this ends I'm worried they wont be able to pile on the amount of sequels Hollywood requires. It's a real concern. Oh wait. I know what they'll do: prequels! Phew. What a relief. Go see it.
It's abit like: It reminded me of Heat in a big way, with the 2 sides and all that crap. But I could be way off. It does have a similar running time tho!
4.7 out of 5.

( 29/08/06 C3 - Official Website )
Title: Snakes On A Plane
Worth it for: Do you really have to ask?? It's got snakes, and they're on a plane! How ingenius!
IMHO: Ok, so what we're looking at here is not a remake of the high-brow French classic Ophidians On An Aircraft or anything even remotely classy or snootish, this is in fact an intentionally stupid movie. At least, I hope it's intentional... this movie has an IQ slightly lower than the US president, which is saying something! It's stupid from start to finish, but with a title like this how can you expect anything else? Samuel L Jackson should be considered for an Oscar. Seriously. He just plays his part so damn well, altho maybe he owes a lot to the snakes? I don't know... The snakes are stupid too. They all seem to be either rubber or extra shiny CG, which doesn't look so bad, but it's all a little cartoonish, again probably on purpose. I think the main problem with this, is that it's supposed to be a stupid, funny, horror movie. However, sure it's funny, but it's not that funny. And sure it's stupid, but it's a little too stupid. And sure, it's a horror movie, but... well.. it's not scary even in the slightest. I jumped 4 times when I saw the trailer and then had snake nightmares. When I saw the actual movie I jumped once, just slightly, and the only nightmare was putting up with a moth that was buzzing around the projector and playing shadow puppets. So on the stupid, funny, movie front it's actually disappointing. I expected so much more! Sam does well, like I said, and there are some good laughs, but not enough of them. There's also no big finish, and the story makes no sense. But that last one probably isn't a surprise. So what's next? If this is popular will we get sequels? I can't wait to see Hedgehogs on a Helicopter and Goats on a Gondola. That'd be awesome! Anyway, if you have a bunch of like minded, possibly tipsy, individuals who want to see something stupid, go along and have a good time. If you're seeing it by yourself in an empty cinema, you'll probably end up being ashamed of yourself.
It's abit like: Um... Snails On A Sofa?
2.8 out of 5.

( 19/08/06 HR C8 - Official Website )
Title: Thank You For Smoking
Worth it for: You have to love the speech given to the school kids. Give them the choice to smoke!
IMHO: I knew basically nothing about this one going in, but that's often a good thing. It means you're a lot less likely to be disappointed, unless the movie is called The Greatest Movie Ever or something, then I guess that rule doesn't apply... Anyway, this turned out to be quite an intelligent, and very funny comedy, and well worth a look. We all know smoking is about as healthy as picking a fight with Miss Piggy, but the tobacco companies still claim there's no proof that it's harmful. This movie is about the dude who goes around charming everyone into believing that, amongst other things. Aaron Eckhart is the main focus and does a very good job, but so does the rest of the cast. This thing is very much in the "funny because it's true" category. It pokes fun at everything from the tobacco companies, to the warning labels and the politicians who want to put them there. There's a great debate over the warning labels in this which is very funny. You have to put a big poisonous skull and cross bones so people who can't read know it's bad. Great stuff. Unfortunately, and I'm not sure if it was just me, this thing starts with major laughs, but seems to lose it's legs along the way. It slows down a bit, gets a big nicer, and just sorta dies at the end. When it was so funny early I was sort of expecting a big finish, but it didn't come. The story gets a bit muddled after the kidnapping if you ask me. Like the result from that, and I wont say so I don't ruin it, should have been a bigger story point than it was? But maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm just stupid. Either way tho, it seemed to drift off at the end. Don't let that put you off tho, because this is very funny in general, and well worth a look. It's not a basic anti-smoking movie at all, so it's not like what you may have seen before. Check it out.
It's abit like: I dunno. I'm too tired to think of anything, dammit!
3.7 out of 5.

( 15/08/06 HR C3 - Official Website )
Title: Miami Vice
Worth it for: Um.. the well greased mullet?
IMHO: Wow! A movie based on an old TV show! What an original concept! No wait, it's been done 4,962,253 times before. However, you have to like the fact that this thing is put together by Michael Mann, who was involved with the original, and the fact that it's not another tacky send up. Add to that the very cool style the movie is shot in: it's all filmed on digital camera and looks like an episode of Cops, and you've got... um... 3 things to like about it? Unfortunately, that's where the list of things to like comes to an end because you'll find a better story and much more action at the localold folks home's bingo night. I can't tell you how disappointing this thing is. Michael Mann has made some absolutely fantastic movies, including Heat and Collateral. So why does this suck so much? What story there is makes no sense at all. And there's very little action. Seriously, for the first hour and a half nothing happens. The story is so muddled and just pointless that you wonder why this thing has to go for 2 1/2 hours. And just what is this movie? It can't be a thriller because there's no thrills and no story. It can't be an action movie because there's no action. So what is it supposed to be? And I haven't even mentioned the characters. There is no character development or anything as deep as all that, and to make things worse they all mope around mumbling to themselves like they know what they're saying makes no difference to the pointless plot. If I wanted to listen to people mumbling about drugs, I'd go down the aforementioned old folk's bingo night on Teeth Out Tuesday and ask what medication they're on! There are basically 3 short action sequences in the whole 2 hours+ of this thing, and yes they're quite impressive, but come on, this thing could go for 10 minutes and include all the same amount of action. It really makes no sense. And what's this thing called? Miami Vice? So then why is the Vice squad in Miami never mentioned? They're working for the FBI hanging out in Cuba or Columbia or wherever, so what's the link? It made me think it was written as some other piece of crap, and when they realised it was terrible they decided to stick a well know name on it to fool people into seeing it. I could go on and on. What's with Colin Farrell's greasy mullet? Who in their right mind would walk around in public like that? And what's with Jamie Foxx's weird beard? And why the hell do they have that cool Ferrari when there are no car chases or anything in this whole boring beast? Oh man, the more I think about it, the worse this movie it. It's story-less, humor-less, devoid of action, and as boring as a high school maths class. Yes, there's 2 minutes of cool action (altho the end makes no sense, they moved the localtion without notice, yet the cops are already all at the new location? Hows does that work?), but it aint worth sitting thru the rest to get to it. Steer clear, people. Go and rent Heat instead.
It's abit like: Yet another crappy movie based on an old TV show.
1.7 out of 5.

( 31/07/06 HCC C6 - Official Website )
Title: Confetti
Worth it for: The two wedding planners completely steal the show.
IMHO: I knew nothing about this movie when I went to see it. I couldn't even remember what it was called. But I'd won a free pass and I never turn down a free movie. Never. So I went along with no idea what I was going to see, which is often a good way to go since there's no big build up and no big disappointment. So it turns out this is a mockumentary about a wedding competition, with 3 couples each getting married in a gimmicky way in an attempt to win some big prize. I've heard since seeing this movie that there was basically no script to start with. The actors were left to improvise before they worked out the final scenes. If true, it makes this movie even more impressive, since at times it's extremely funny. One older woman in the cinema sounded like she was going to have some sort of seizure at one point. I had almost dialed for the ambulance when I realised she was just laughing very hard. Of course, I still attempted to give her mouth to mouth and was very quickly set upon by the cinema's highly qualified 16 year old security guard, but that's another story... Anyway, like I said this is at times very funny, but I also felt at times it went a bit long without any laughs. I think it depends on who you are, and everyone may find different things to laugh at. Which means it should appeal to a wide audience. The weddings themselves are quite funny aswell, and I'm a little frightened to think that there are actually people out there who would be stupid enough to get married this way. Freaks. This is well worth a look if you're a fan of Brittish comedy. The cast are all great, and the two wedding planners are absolutely brilliant. Martin Freeman of The Office fame does pretty well when he gets the chance aswell. Check it out if you're a wedding nut.
It's abit like: Other stupid wedding movies. Muriel's Wedding is the one that springs to mind, but it's absolutely nothing like that.
3.3 out of 5.

( 20/07/06 CC C1 - Official Website )
Title: My Super Ex-Girlfriend
Worth it for: Mmm Uma. But you've also gotta love Eddie Izzard as Prof. Bedlam, and Rainn Wilson (from the US version of The Office) is also very funny. Oh, and the shark is cool too!
IMHO: Ivan Reitman has made a real mix of movies if you think about it. Some are absolute classics (eg Ghost Busters and the well underrated Evolution) and some are lovably stupid movies (eg Road Trip, or Old School) and some are, well, stuff that I wouldn't ever bother watching again, or in the first place in some cases. Actually, now I think of it it's not really a big mix of movies because they all seem to have some level of stupidity, which is not a bad thing at all. This one is really no different. It's got a great idea with a nice dose of stupidity thrown in. Basically, Luke Wilson is a dork who dates a superhero for a short time, then when he realises she's a little loopy, he dumps her. Then the loopiness kicks into high gear, because she's a superhero, and who's going to stop her going all Fatal Attraction on him? Nice idea, with a great cast. There are plenty of laughs all the way thru this, without any real dead spots, however there are very few big laughs. It's all just small chuckle stuff, with no big chortles. There may be the odd snort when a sudden funny hits you, so if you're phlegmy you might want to warn the person sitting in front of you, but really it's all pretty light, small stuff. This lack of big laughs really drags it down in the average area instead of being great. It's still a lot of fun to watch, but there's no real reason to see it again. It's probably a good date movie, since it's got plenty of chick flicky elements. It's also got the most obvious happy ending for a while. Anyway, I enjoyed this, it was just what I was in the mood for at the time, but it's a bit light on in the laugh department for it to be truly great. Gotta love the shark.
It's abit like: Other Ivan Reitman supernatural-fantasty come stupid comedy movies? That's a mouth full!
2.9 out of 5.

( 06/07/06 CC C1 - Official Website )
Title: Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest
Worth it for: Keira Knightley can hoist my yard arm any day! But I have no idea what that means... Actually, Mackenzie Crook (of The Office fame) and his sidekick probably steal the show.
IMHO: Yarrrr! If'n I didn't have a wooden leg before seein' this harr film, I'd be rushin' out to get one fitted right now! Yarr! Err... ok so that'll do with the pirate talk for now, I was starting to annoy even myself. I've been sailing the movie seas since I was a wee lad, and there's a couple of things I've learned along the way, like, amongst other things: Paul Walker shouldn't be in any movies ever (and thankfully he's not in this, so don't panic), and sequels usually suck. And sure, this doesn't suck, but it aint great either. It's 2 and a half hours long, which this year seems to be the running time of choice, and it feels like nothing really happens. You walk in and get blasted with noise and flashing lights, and walk out wondering what just happened and why you bothered. Maybe it lacks emotion? Or character development? Or something else? That's for more intelligent people than I to decide, but as a casual movie viewer it really started to annoy me. The first movie was surprisingly great, and maybe that's why this seems so bad? I mean, Johnny Depp was fantastic, and I guess he still is, but because it's just the same as last time, with nothing new whatsoever, it really doesn't seem as special. He's still good, but just exactly the same. And if he's a salty old seadog of the acting world, then Orlando Bloom is some sort of bilge rat. Here we have an annoyingly talentless individual who rose to stardom by strapping on a wig and some pointy ears and having 2 lines in a 19 hour trilogy. Oops, I think I may have just upset the elf licking folks again. What I mean to say is, he didn't do much in those movies, but the story and effects and the wig meant he didn't have to. Now he's showing up in other movies where he has to actually act n stuff, and he's falling a bit short. When you see him in the same scene as Depp, it's even more obvious that he's so wooden n boring to watch. Maybe it's just me. He and Keira Knightley don't really have all that much to do in this thing either I guess. It's all about the weird monsters n stuff. What's with these weird fish beasts? Somehow the CG effects putting them together just doesn't look any good. They look like you'd get the same result simply stapling fish market left overs to their foreheads instead of spending all that money on crap special effects. The story is pretty muddled too, since there's a few different lines going and you get to the end feeling, like I said earlier, like nothing has really happened. This feels like a filler episode to rake in cash and get you ready for the 3rd movie next year, when really this whole movie could have been summed up in 20 minutes. However, the last 20 minutes or so of this movie I actually really enjoyed. So if you come in 2 hours late, you probably don't really miss anything. It follows on from the first movie directly, so you need to have seen that recently to have any idea what is going on at the start, but it soon starts into a basic go here, this happens, go there, that happens pattern. I didn't hate this, and there are still some moments of magic, but to be honest it just left be so unsatisfied. Yaarrr! Yo ho ho! etc. Yawn. If you're a big fan of this stuff, you'll see this anyway, and good on you cos it's not completely sucky. If you're on the fence, do yourself a favour and go see Superman Returns instead. It's a far superior movie. Yarrr!
It's abit like: Other disappointing sequels?
3.2 out of 5.

( 29/06/06 HR C4 - Official Website )
Title: Superman Returns
Worth it for: The major chills I got when the music started up and the same old title sequence got underway. Fantastic.
IMHO: How long have we been waiting for a new Superman movie now? I remember rumours so many years ago that we were going to see Nick Cage playing Superman as "an alien freak" or something. When I see this new movie, I'm happy to have waited. I wasn't really sure what to expect. So many big movies simply suck so I'm always worried when the hype machine goes into overdrive on something. However, I simply loved this movie. I remember loving the old movies as a kid, but I saw them again recently and, altho there are still some moments of magic, they just weren't as great as I remember. Superman 3 and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace were especially bad, because at least the 1st two were still watchable and enjoyable. So it's nice to see that it's as if 3 and 4 never existed. It seems like this is a sequel to Superman 2 instead of trying to follow on from 4. What a great idea! 25 years later we finally get a worthy sequel. I have to say that when the music started and the same blue writing for the credits started flying across the screen I the hair stood up on the back of my neck like it hasn't done in Episode 1 way back when. It's fantastic that Bryan Singer has decided to really follow the style set by the old movies, and yet make it all new and fresh and modern at the same time. The shot at the very end is another thumbs up to the old movies, it just lacks Christopher Reeve's classic Superman smile. What I never liked about the old movies was the lack of a flowing story, and I think this time round there's a much better storyline. Lex Luthor actually has a lot of evil stuff to do, and really is the star of the show which probably has a lot to do with Kevin Spacey's performance. He's great, and at times reminds me of Gene Hackman, while also putting his own mark on the role. The rest of the cast I'm not so keen on, yet no one was bad. The new Superman dude does his job quite well, but Kate Bosworth never quite made it as Lois Lane for me. She just didn't seem right somehow. But again, she was far from terrible. This thing is long, so get your biolic bladder into gear and don't order the large coke. It's not the quickest movie I guess, and yet I reallt felt drawn into the whole deal. It's actually quite emotional at times, which I guess matches parts of the old flicks too. I have to say it's light on for action, so if that's what you're after you may be disappointed. But what action there is, is pretty damn nifty. This flick is helped a lot by todays special effects. It really helps you believe he's actually flying because he no longer looks like he's standing in front of a blue screen with a standhand blowing on his cape a little hoping to make it wobble. After last years outstanding Batman Begins and now this, I have great faith in these DC Comics productions and I'll be in line to see anything they make. Marvel take note! This is how it's done! I loved this thing, but not everyone will. It'll be a bit chick flicky for some, too long for others, and I wouldn't say the kids will be that into it altho all the kids in the cinema I was in were perfectly quiet all the way thru. If you have any fond memories of the old movies, you must see this. Now I'm off to pin a towel round my neck like a cape and jump off the roof. See you in intensive care!
It's abit like: It's a mix of the old Superman movies and the new style of Batman Begins.
4.8 out of 5.

( 02/06/06 CC C3 - Official Website )
Title: Mission: Impossible 3
Worth it for: There are a couple of bits where Mr Cruise gets punched in the head, you gotta love that. But the highlight is Philip Seymoure Hoffman as the bad guy.
IMHO: I make no secret of the fact that I'm not a Tom Cruise fan, and I think at one stage I swore never to see any of his movies ever again. But the fact that JJ Abrams was involved with this made me want to see it. In the end I waited til it was showing at the local budget cinema and then snuck in disguised as a Tom Cruise fan. I felt quite unclean, but in the end I was glad I made the trip. This movie is actually a lot of fun, which if you remember how bad the previous M:I movie was, is quite a surprise. The last one was slow, boring, and just plain lame. Even the first wasn't great, which only a couple of memorable scenes in the whole thing. But this new one is fun, nowhere near great, but fun to watch and then forget. This is, however, a Tom Cruise movie, and he won't ever let you forget it. He's in pretty much every scene, and every scene has a big cheesy close up of his stumpy nosed self. It's a real shame because Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is far more interesting, but he gets a lot less screen time. But old Tommy has to be the one in the spotlight the whole time. Do you remember the old Mission: Impossible TV shows? I sure do, and I'm pretty sure it was a team effort. There is a team in this movie, but it seems that with each situation it came down to the Magnificent Midget himself, Mr Tom Cruise, to come and save the day. He did all the important bits, and I couldn't even tell you another team member's name! It's good to see Ving Rhames back, and he has a little to do, but not much. It's all Tom. So it was quite unpleasant to watch, not being a Tom fan. However, it's been so long since I saw a good action movie, that I really enjoyed this more than I expected. There's plenty of action, and altho there's plenty of stupid bits and it's not very believable and all that, it's still fun to watch. And the process of doing the old M:I mask making and all that is very well done in this one, better than any of the others. I'd definitely say this is the best of the 3, but that said, it's no Bond film. I know the Bond flicks haven't been that great lately, but they always have something that sets them apart, something cool. Cruise's Ethan Hunt character just doesn't have that sense of cool that any of the Bond's have had. So while I can't wait for Casino Royale this isn't a bad little action/spy flick to keep me going until then. Check it out if you can stand staring at Tommy for two hours.
It's abit like: Other movies with short little, religious cult loving, nutbags in the starring role...
3.8 out of 5.

( 25/05/06 HR C6 - Official Website )
Title: X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Worth it for: I really loved the very last second of the film, just before the credits...
IMHO: I loved the first X-Men movie. I think I went and saw it 2 weeks in a row. So when the 2nd came along, I rushed out to see it. But I ended up being quite disappointed. It just didn't have the same excitement of the first, and seemed like a bit of slow going. So now the 3rd has come along, and I decided I'd rush out and see it before hearing anything about it. It seems strange to me that I really haven't heard anything. I've seen a couple of ads on TV, but have not seen the trailer a single time at the cinema. I guess it's been swallowed up by the over hyping of The Da Vinci Code and Tom Cruise 3. I'm sure this thing wont be overlooked by fans tho, or by fans of comic book type movies like me. I think this one is a lot better than the previous, but possibly not up to the standards of the first. It's quite short, when compared to other big block buster types, but I guess the idea is to make it all shoot along quickly. I'm not sure it does, however. Since there are still plenty of slow moments. There's also quite a bit of excitement, but it comes in short bursts really. Somehow, I just never got thrilled or excited during this thing. I enjoyed it, but it feels kinda of disposable. There are no big scenes where you go "Wow! I have to see that again! I have to tell random people at the bus stop about it! That's amazing!" I struggle to think of any big action sequences like that. Unlike in the previous movies, where I still clearly remember several great scenes, and I haven't seen either of them for years. I saw this less than an hour ago, and I'm drawing a blank. However, once again, I enjoyed it while I was watching it. It seems these X movies are getting more brutal with each sequel, which is nice if you're a violence fan. This is probably the most juicey so far. The story is quite good, and I don't want to give anything away, but there's plenty of main characters who wont be back for the next sequel, if there is one. Which brings me to the big question: Will there be more X-Men movies? They make a heap of cash, and they are nice and watchable, but this one is called the LAST stand, and the way the story unfolds you kind of think that this is meant to be the last. Until the very last second of the movie, anyway... I know I'm always complaining about sequels, so I'm not saying there needs to be more, but there are worse things they could, and do, make sequels of. I should just mention the cast, because with the likes of Sir Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, and the great Kelsey Grammer who's been blued out and beefed up to play The Beast, you just can't complain about the talent in this thing. There's almost too many big stars, since once again they don't all end up with a fair share of the screen. Altho I would say they each get more of a go than last time round. In all, I enjoyed this, and would probably see it again when it's out on DVD, but it just didn't blow me away like I hoped it would. Not that I expected it to be as good as Batman Begins, but it just kind of felt like "just another sequel". Let's call this the entre, and let's hope Superman Returns does the job.
It's abit like: Well it's the 3rd in a series based on one of the most popular comics ever, so if you don't know about these super freaks by now, it's probably too late.
3.6 out of 5.

( 18/05/06 RC FREE - Official Website )
Title: The Da Vinci Code
Worth it for: Well... the book was good! And I got chills when I heard the respective James Bond and Superman themes when they played those trailers! And.. um.. Audrey Tautou is beautiful beyond words.. now as for the movie itself... well.....
IMHO: I have to say this right off the bat: READ THE BOOK! It's very rare for a movie to be as good as the book it's based on. Even the most rabid of elf lickers will have to admit that the LOTR books are so much better than the movies, and it's no different here. The amount of detail given in the book is what makes it work, and there is just no way to cram all that stuff into a movie. I'm not saying the movie sucks, because it doesn't. And altho I didn't find it boring, many people will. There are large chunks of it where the characters stand around talking. They talk fast, and they use big words, and they have fruity accents. It makes it hard to work out what they're on about. In fact, they talk so much in this thing, that it's as if they're reading the book to you! It's like they've cranked up the book on tape. Again tho, it doesn't suck. In parts it moves very quickly and is quite thrilling, but then again, in parts it isn't. I really wonder if you haven't read the book if any of it will actually make sense because it's not easy to follow. If you've seen the movie, but haven't read the book, drop me a line and let me know! The cast is quite good, with actors that I imagined playing most of the rolls, which is kinda cool. The magnificent Sir Ian McKellen really steals the show, as he always does. Audrey Tautou is always worth staring at for 2+ hours, altho I personally prefer her to speak french. However, I'm not so sure about Tom Hanks. He seems here to be spouting his lines like he's not quite sure what he's talking about. He just didn't convince me. Paul Bettany was quite good as the albino monk, and I'm going straight down the corner shop to get me a barbed wire garter belt! I just don't think I limp enough in general, and could always use some more unnecessary pain in my life. I really liked the book, but I'm not so keen on the movie. I'm not religious at all, so none of the stuff mentioned means anything to me, it's just an interesting story. And that's how it should be read/viewed. It's a story, people! So relax! We have enough wars and whatever caused by religion, there's no reason to start another over a story some dude made up! I can't recommend this, it's ok, but far from the great movie it should have been. I was invited to what they were calling the World Premiere, even tho it was already shown earlier in the day. We got the movie a day earlier here in Australia, but I'm still pretty sure I wasn't at the world premiere because I was sitting in the dank local cinema... Anyway, I'm sure if you've read the book, like me, you'll rush out to see it just to see all the art and locations and whatever, but if you haven't read the book, once again I have to say: READ THE BOOK!
It's abit like: Other disappointing book to movie conversions!
3.1 out of 5.

( 18/04/06 HR C2 - Official Website )
Title: The Inside Man
Worth it for: Like Angel says: "Who doesn't love Denzel?"
IMHO: With so many movies just plain sucking these days, be they pointless sequels, stupid remakes, or starring Paul Walker, it's easy to lose faith in the whole cinema industry. So when something like this comes along that is actually really good, it really stands out and it's hard not to go into shock. Is it me, or does Denzel Washington just make good movies? I'm probably wrong, because not everyone has a perfect record, but unlike someone like, say, Tom Cruise who makes plenty of stinkers just because he's in them, it's a struggle to think of any of Denzel's movies that suck. Maybe John Q. Anyway, this is another in the long like of good stuff. He's one watchable dude. Throw in the man who should be Bond, Clive Owen, along with Jodie Foster, Willem Dafoe, Chiwetel Ejiofor and the great Christopher Plummer, and you have a cast that simply can not fail. Or if they do, there should be an independant enquiry. Great cast. Great story with some great twists. Great direction with some really great shots and angles. This movie just stands out for being simply a great thriller. Not boring for a second and altho it seems like a standard heist movie, it's far from it. I know I'm going a little overboard with how great this thing is, but when so many movies suck it just stands out so much. This is one you have to see. And if you're like me, and your best idea for robbing a bank is to queue up for 45 minutes and hand a note over the counter saying "oi! fill a bag with unmarks bills", only to then lose all your hard stolen cash due to the endless freakin' bank fees involved with a bank robbery, then this movie is a great how-to guide! Go see it!
It's abit like: Other heist flicks, but with a nifty twist or 2!
4.9 out of 5.

( 31/03/06 HR C7 - Official Website )
Title: V for Vendetta
Worth it for: The style? The story? The lack of multiple big Hollywood names? You decide.
IMHO: Does anyone remember the 5th of November? No offense, but I wasn't sure Americans, or anyone else outside of the UK would really remember it these days. It's strange that this movie turned out to be about a dude dressing up as Guy Fawkes, to be honest I wouldn't have guessed that from the advertising at all. Strange how they sold this movie in a certain way, and it ended up being quite different to what I expected. That's not necessarily a bad thing tho, since this flick turned out to be quite good! But if you're looking for a Matrix style action fest, you may be disappointed. It's advertised as from the makers of the Matrix, but it's not really that similar. This is more about story than action, so don't expect a slugfest. It could actually be a little slow for some people, but I liked it. It's dark and nasty, which is kinda nice. Hugo Weaving has the perfect voice for the part of V, but is it him behind the mask at all? Could have been Tom Arnold for all it matters, since you never actually see his face. The rest of the cast is great too, and I'm just a huge fan of Stephen Fry, who I didn't even know was in this thing, so that was a pleasant surprise. I'd definitely say this is worth a look for anyone who enjoys a good story. The hero is a bit of a terrorist, which makes it hard to be on his side, but at the same time the government is kinda evil. But does that make it right? Not too sure, and the movie doesn't really say it is, but let's not take it all too seriously. Go see it and decide for yourself.
It's abit like: Other movies with girls with shaved heads and dudes wearing masks. Sounds kinda sick when you describe it like that...
4.1 out of 5.

( 21/03/06 RV C1 F19 - Official Website )
Title: Match Point
Worth it for: Two words: Scarlett Johansson. Altho, to be honest, the rest is pretty good too.
IMHO: Firstly, if you're going to see this movie, don't miss the start. Don't wanna say too much, but it'll make a lot more sense if you're not still queueing for popcorn when this thing gets rolling. Written by Woody Allen this is very different to what you might expect. It's a bit of a thriller, altho it takes a while to get thrilling. In fact, to begin with I was wondering where it was going, and whether it was going anywhere at all. It starts off slowly, but there's also some subtle hints along the way to let you know what's going on. This is basically a movie full of characters that you wont like unless you're as snooty as they are, in which case I'm sure you'll relate to them. Apparently Woody couldn't get funding to make this flick in the US, so it's all set in London, which makes a nice change. It's kinda sad tho that the film companies in the US wouldn' make such a great movie, and yet they leap at the chance to produce another chokingly bad sequel to The Fast And The Furious. What's wrong with the world? It's hard to say too much about this movie without giving stuff away, so I wont say much more. I will say that I really liked it, altho I found it slow going for a most part. It reminded me of the theory put forward in Adaptation which was something along the lines of give them a great ending and it doesn't matter what the rest of the movie is like. This thing has a fantastic ending, but the rest isn't all that bad either. I'd say it's must see, but it wont appeal to you action fans, it's a bit more thinky that you might like. But come on, even if you hate it, it's worth sitting and watching Scarlett for 2 hours! This is great stuff. It's a little different, and it's kinda surprising. Go see it.
It's abit like: It reminded me a lot of The Talented Mr Ripley, however I found that boring as bat spit, so this is much better.
4.6 out of 5.

( 14/03/06 HR C4 - Official Website )
Title: A History Of Violence
Worth it for: Ed Harris is great, so is another cameo performer along the way.
IMHO: I think I have a history of violence myself when I go to the cinema. I can't help it. Whenever I see a crap movie, and lets face it most movies are crap these days, I just have to punch the ticket ripping kid on the way out. But I'm not the only one am I? I mean, we can't punch Hollywood for creating so much crap, so you have to punch the next best thing. Sorry ticket ripping kid, but that stupid waist coat means it's you! Luckily for him, he only copped a slight clip round the ear for this one, since it's not all that crap, but not great either. The whole thing just comes across as so fake, and I have to put it all down to some really bad acting. Half the cast is taking it extremely seriously, and the other half aren't. It's as simple as that. So you get this weird contrast and are never sure whether to laugh at it or not. And the kid who plays the son, oh man, if you were a ticket ripping kid you'd be spending 6 months in traction. How annoying is this guy? He passed is Over Acting class with flying colours! Apart from that, this thing is ok. It's based on a graphic novel, and a lot of the shots have a real comic book feel, which is kinda cool. It also has bursts of extreme violence that don't quite fit with the rest, which is kinda cool aswell considering the movie is about a quiet bloke who's prone to fits of extreme violence. It makes sense. It starts with a great scene, and there are a few great scenes a long the way, but it comes back to the acting for me. Like I said, with half the cast not taking it seriously and the others taking it way too seriously it just doesn't all fit together properly. Not for me anyway. Thankfully, it's an extremely short movie, and it ends after a nice climax which it's been building too for a while so on that front it is put together well. I dunno what else to say, the son just annoyed me so much that I found it hard to like the rest of it. Average stuff if you ask me. Some will love it, some will hate it. I didn't quite do either.
It's abit like: I'm thinking Sin City, but it's nothing like that at all. I think I need a lie down.
3.3 out of 5.

( 09/03/06 HR C6 - Official Website )
Title: Syriana
Worth it for: If you don't squirn during the fingernail scene, then there's something wrong with you.
IMHO: Mmm oil. From powering our automobiles to polluting our penguins, we just can't seem to live without it. Or perhaps more accurately, we're not allowed to live without it. This flick is basically a story of how the governments and big businesses will do pretty much anything to keep the oil flowing, and to keep control of this juicey black goo they love so much. Everyone is expendable to these people, as long as they keep control of the oil, it just doesn't matter. Or so it seems anyway. It's really kind of depressing. We all know the US government is evil, so that's no surprise, but I did find it kind of surprising just how many lives are effected by this whole oil deal. It's basically everyone. This flick is basically Traffic but with oil instead of drugs, which makes sense since it's made by the same dude. George Clooney earns his Oscar pretty well in this thing, as he continues to make movies that are a little more interesting than the normal Hollywood drivel (altho Ocean's Twelve was a complete waste of time, and I'm guessing the upcoming Ocean's Thirteen will be too). While I enjoyed this movie, I also found it a little confusing. There's a lot of muttering going on so I think I missed some important dialog along the way or something like that. I was left wondering why people were doing certain things, so I maybe didn't get as much out of it as I could have. It's quite slow at times, but never really boring. However, if you're looking for action, look elsewhere. You have to love how all the different storylines work separately, and then come together to kinda make sense at the end. I especially liked how the whole suicide bomber deal went down, showing that they aren't all complete nutbags, just most of them. Like I said, I enjoyed most of this, but found parts of it hard to follow. It could be that I'm just not clued up enough on some of the current political nonsense that's going on, or maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention because the floor was sticky. Who knows. Either way, it's worth a look if you like this kind of thing.
It's abit like: Reminded me heavily of Traffic, with good reason.
3.7 out of 5.

( 26/02/06 VC C6 Q12 - Official Website )
Title: Hostel
Worth it for: There's nothing worth seeing this movie for, unless you're desperate for some average nude scenes in the first half...
IMHO: Everyone involved in this piece of trash should be ashamed of themselves, but none more so than Mr Quentin Tarantino. From what I've heard, he had very little to do with the making of this thing, but the advertising uses his name heavily. Basically it seems like he's just whoring his name out to fool his fans into seeing inferior trash like this. Great way to treat your fans there, Quentin. Nicely done. But it wont work again. This thing is just pitiful. Weak to non-existant storyline, with even weaker acting from a very weak cast. It starts off as softcore porn, and switches about halfway thru to pointless gore. Yawn. There's just nothing new or original here that makes it worth seeing. Sure, I know you folks love any kind of porn, but this is just boring. And the gore starts off as kind of amusing, but quickly become repetitive and stupid. What annoys me most is that this thing is advertised as a horror movie! But where's the horror?? It's not scary for even a nano-second, just stupid and lame. I can't think of anything positive to say about this tripe at all. I don't remember the last time I checked my watch so often in a movie, it's just that boring. Now, I've seen pointlessly gore filled flicks before, and I've seen flicks who have a dose of softcore porn to try and give a cheap thrill. That's all fine. But films who resort to such tactics usually have a healthy dose of humour, or tension, or something to break up the monotony of it all. This has nothing. If I didn't get in with a free pass, I'd have demanded my money back. Pointless rubbish. Worst thing I've seen since 2 Fast 2 Furious and that was just terrible. Avoid at all costs.
It's abit like: Other crap that leaves you wishing you had those 2 hours of your life back to do something constructive with...
0.2 out of 5.

( 23/02/06 NV C2 - Official Website )
Title: Walk The Line
Worth it for: If you're a Johnny Cash fan I'm sure you'll enjoy the music, even if it isn't Cash himself producing it.
IMHO: Biopics. Why don't we ever see a biopic about someone who had a happy, care free life? Actually, that's a stupid question. The answer is cos it'd be boring. Oh well. It just seems that all these biopics are kinda similar. There's a talented individual who has a tough childhood, grows up and makes it big, gets hooked on some drug or another, over comes great hardship, lives happily ever after. These things are supposed to be based on true stories, so I guess all these people are living to the biopic movie formula?? That's handy! There is a lot to like about this one, and it's mainly to do with the cast. Joaquin Pheonix does a great job as Cash, and actually sings all the songs himself, which is nifty unless you're a hard core cash fan and would prefer to hear the real thing. Reese Witherspoon does the same for June Carter, and there's cameos from a lot of other people doing impressions of ye olde rock stars. I guess I liked this because of the performance of the main actors, but I didn't love it. Like I said, it feels like it's going to formula somehow and there were really no surprises. And altho I can appreciate his music, I'm not a huge Cash fan which may mak the difference. Worth checking out if you like the whole biopic deal.
It's abit like: Ray and other flicks about famous folks.
3.8 out of 5.

( 14/02/06 HR C6 - Official Website )
Title: Jarhead
Worth it for: The sing along in the cinema is just classic.
IMHO: Ahhh war. Where would movie makers be without it? They must sit around, in between making crappy remakes and sequels, just hoping for a new war to come along so they can make 20 new movies about it. Here we have yet another about the first gulf war, but I have to say this one is a little different, and it's really quite good. However, if you're an action movie fan, just keep walking, chester. This isn't for you. In fact, there is almost no action in this movie whatsoever, but that's kind of the point. It's more about the effect the endless state of readiness had on these soldiers as they waited for something to happen. It's that whole tightly wound coil ready to spring thing where they train and train and get ready to go, and then they're just left to wait. And basically, they start to go a little nuts. This movie is actually very funny in parts, and yet quite tense in others. It has a smell of realism to it, but there is a bit of over the top style acting which may take away from that a little. I really liked how it showed them being trained as if they came to love the idea of war, it was drilled in, and the scene in the cinema shows it well, and it's very funny to boot. I enjoyed this a lot, and it made me appreciated the boys and girls who serve in the armed forces a little more, because it shows that even without being involved in battles or whatever, they're still always ready to go, and it has a lasting effect on their lives. Check it out.
It's abit like: Other war flicks, but minus the war.
4.1 out of 5.

( 31/01/06 HR C5 - Official Website )
Title: Munich
Worth it for: Forget the old Terrorist's Handbook, this thing is a how-to of blowing unsuspecting folks up.
IMHO: I'm shocked and ashamed by the fact that until recently, I hadn't even heard of the incident at the 1972 Olympics around which this movie is based. I didn't go to a school that taught anything useful, and history, even recent history, was never on their agenda. I'm also of neither Israeli or Arab descent, so I don't really understand what the deal is between these 2 sets of otherwise perfectly friendly peoples. And because of that, I think it's good that the odd movie like this is made. It reminds us of these past nasty events, and I would hope it means new generations learn from the mistakes of previous generations. But who the hell knows. Movie wise, this is ok, but far from great. But when was the last time Spielberg made a movie that was better than average anyway? Probably, Saving Private Ryan is the last good one I remember. Some will say War of the Worlds but watch it again folks, it's crap. Anyway, this movie is long. Possibly too long. And it never really ends. It had the chance to end several times, but then it goes on a little longer each time. You end up with no real sense of an ending, or of what actually happened, or what the point of the whole thing was. But somehow, I think that pointlessness is the point of the movie. It mirrors the whole futile battle between these folks. Each person that is killed on each side is replaced by someone worse, then the other wants to knock them off aswell, then someone is knocked off in return, and they're all replaced by someone else. And on it goes. Endless, pointless, killing. Of course, I could be wrong, I often am, but that's the message I got. That's great n all, but this is a movie, and as a movie I'm just not sure it works. Too slow, too long, too repetitive. For a while it's great, and you can tell Senor Spielbergo is trying to make an epic masterpiece. But it's a fine line between an epic masterpiece and a long, boring movie. This is probably balanced on that line, but it's not a clear winner. It also doesn't suck. So I guess the word for it is: "average"? There's also nothing to say any of this stuff actually happened, besides the main events we all know about. Is this true or what?
It's abit like: Other long flicks packed with peace messages.
3.2 out of 5.

( 17/01/06 HR C8 - Official Website )
Title: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
Worth it for: I know it's completely unsuitable for a kiddy film, but you just have to say: Hey, nice beaver!
IMHO: Back in World War 2 times when this flick is set things may have been a little different, but these days you can see Lions, Witches and Wardrobes, along with weirdos and wankers, on any day of the week just by catching public transport. Sure, the witches ask you for spare change, and the lion gets arrested for not having a valid ticket, but it's almost just as magical as this old tale. Almost. But I guess back then, these things were far less common. This flick will be heavily compared to Harry Potter and I guess you can see why. Both converted from famous books, both with magical tendancies, and both jam packed with annoying kids, both on screen and in the audience of any showing you go to. I have to say tho, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected, and definitely more than Harry's most recent outing. I can't quite put my finger on why I enjoyed it more. I guess I'm not a huge Harry fan, so just the fact that it's not HP might make the difference. But I think it's more than this is more of a new story that's just starting out, not the 5th in a repetitive series. That said, there are actually 7 books in the Chronicle of Narnia, so I'm sure by the time they stop making these movies we'll all be well n truly sick of them. Especially since I'm sure they'll pump them out quickly so that the cast isn't in their late 30s by the time they reach the 7th. This thing is more violent than I expected, and a lot more "kiddy" than I would usually like, but I just found it overall to be quite enjoyable. It's not always nice, but it's fun. The voice work is top notch, the CG animation is more than good enough, altho on the wide shots that goat legged dude looked to be walking a little suspiciously, and altho it's a bit slow to start with, it soon reaches a nice quick pace. If you like talking beavers n other beasties, and kiddies with annoying english accents, you'll love this. Check it out.
It's abit like: I'll say Harry Potter, but I thought it was a bit better than that.
3.9 out of 5.