Reviews

It amazes me when some films come out, and the critics and public pull out their carving knives to just rip a film to shreds. As far as sequels go, this one's a lot better. Why? Firstly, the plot, maybe it's been done before but at leas it was believable. The performances - does anyone have any idea just how hard it is to make physical comedy convincing? It's harder than dramatic acting and Bullock does in with a lot of conviction. And Regina King was a far better side-kick that Benjamin Bratt.

This is a caper film, and the film delivers exactly what it promises. It's silly, but it's not trying to be anything more than what it is. At least the writers gave a damn about continuity as it follows from the first film beautifully, and the development of Bullock's character makes a lot of sense and actually does feel like a natural journey, not some desperate attempt to make a second film just to make money.

I think Sandra Bullock's a smart cookie, and she saw that this script wasn't re-hashing the first, it was trying something different. Did we really want to see another beauty pageant? Yeah the film's too long but 'Speed 2' it ain't so give it a break. Don't be such a miserable human being, and go see the film for what it is - it'll make you smile.

7 out of 10.

This film doesn't even try to bring anything new to the Disaster Movie genre. Rather it re-hashes all the old cliched ideas but with visual effects that 'yes', look cool, but so what?

It amazes me that audiences can have a film with a bad script, poor direction, one-dimensional characters and hammy acting but still sit in awe at the dazzling computer graphics effects. For Christ's sake! It's CGI! It doesn't even look real and there's nothing that can't be done on computer these days.

'The Day After Tomorrow' started out promising (like 'ID4') as an entertaining pop corn flick but it quickly flat-lines thanks to Emmerich's poor attempt at trying to put some symbolic meaning behind his story with some indigestible dialogue and a very unsubtle warning about out environment. I guess this is his justification for spending so much money on this dog of a film.

1998's 'Deep Impact' did everything 'The Day After Tomorrow' did only better. 'Deep Impact' was moving because it had good performances, real life human conflict and utilized the CGI as the 'icing on the cake'. While for 'The Day After Tomorrow', much like Lucas' newer 'Star Wars' films, the visual effects are the cake while script, characters and all the other human ingredients needed for a film are the icing.

This film is a shining example of what's wrong with film today and it's audiences. People need this hollow form of escapism to get them through their daily lives. If the film had some real life characters we actually cared about, I guarantee it would flop or come under the same criticism as 'Deep Impact' for being too slow. I wanted to like this film but it had nothing to offer and ended up turning into an utter snooze-fest as I watched characters I didn't even give a stuff about being chased by CGI wolves - dear or dear.

SCORE 3.5 out of 10

After all the fuss over 'Lord of the Rings' and everything else out over the the Christmas period - you know all the films that people see in droves to try and escape from their reality? It was so nice to see 'Cold Mountain' a couple of days ago.

Yes it's pretty morbid but does have touches of humour. And when you have a great lead cast and an amazing supporting cast giving some very strong performances, plus some lush cinematography and a compelling story, how can you complain?

I like the fact that there's something deeper happening here with the characters other than the love story. But unlike 'Titanic', 'Cold Mountain' isn't a Hollywood love story, it's a story about survival and Law and Kidman are very convincing here - they also heat up the screen too towards the end. Plus Kathy Baker, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Melone (in a very small role), Natalie Portman (reminding us after 2 'Star Wars' films that she CAN act) and Rene Zellwegger, I came out full filled. This is a film about 'us' and anyone who says it's too bloody needs a reality check because this is what life was like and for all we know could be like it again some day.

I don't think anyone will come out of 'Cold Mountain' saying, "that was just a bit of fun... harmless entertainment" but I think it's impossible to come out thinking that you haven't just seen a film of very high quality both in production values and in terms of story. If you want your movies sugar coated, then by all means, go spend another 3 hours and see 'Return of the King' again.

If you didn't like 'The English Patient' or 'The Talented Mr. Ripley', then you might not like this film as all three are by the same writer/director, but if you enjoy seeing some real characters in real situations, this movie could be what you're looking for.

8 OUT OF 10

Anyone who thought Luc Besson's take on Joan of Arc was biased, think again. Gregor Jordan's film, ‘Ned Kelly' is so contrived and has so many plot holes, it amazed me at how this Australian icon has been transformed into Hollywood's version martyr.

The cast all do their best in the film but Naomi Watts' fictitious character and fictitious romance with Kelly seems forced and unnecessary. And the plot hinges on the fact that Kelly was with her when a cop said he shot at him. So if Watts' character wasn't real, where was Kelly at the time this happened? Due to the screenplay, which wasn't up to scratch, it fails to convince that the situation was so desperate that these people were forced to do this.

The Kelly family's ordeal seem to be blown way out of proportion and if this is how it happened (which I'm sure it isn't), I couldn't believe that these so-called outlaws were reduced to their actions at the end. I also didn't by into the fact that all police back then were sexist drunks.

The look of the film also really annoyed me - so much for sunny Australia. The constant shots of indigenous plants and animals grew tiresome and seemed like it was straight from an Australian tourism brochure as a way of telling overseas audiences of a nice place to plan their next holiday. Anyone who's seen 'Titanic' more than once will recognise a huge similarity with the musical score in this film – it becomes very annoying.

I tried really hard to like this film and I wanted to, but it was just so over the top, you couldn't take it seriously. By then end, I had so distanced myself from the characters, I felt nothing in the final shoot-out except for how the filmmakers were desperately trying to get some tears from the audience - they failed. ‘Ned Kelly' is a major disappointment.

4 out of 10.

This was a very different Star Trek film mainly due to its dark tone. Despite mainstream belief, I think 'Insurrection' was a beautifully written film and despite the simple story, it worked nicely as the characters were having fun.

This film is very serious and although I don't like action films, this movie was pretty intense thanks to its villain. The characters aren't having fun at all which I think detaches the audiences a little cause it's not a fun adventure. The stakes in this film are more personal to the characters so there's no time for the regular jokes once the story kicks in as there's too much at stake.

That aside, this film is handsomely produced with a great production design and has some exciting conflict between Picard (Patrick Stewart) and his nemesis, Shinzon (Tom Hardy). The face off between the two characters in the final 30 minutes is very exciting.

The performances where all brilliant in the film and I hope to see the full version of the film on DVD as I think the mind rape suffered by Troi (Marina Sirtis) could have been further explored.

Why this film failed at the box-office was the timing. You don't release a Star Trek film 5 days before Lord of the Rings. L.O.T.R. is more popular than Star Trek right now but this film could have re-ignited the franchise if people went and saw it. Delaying its release in Australia was a good idea as this has given it a no. 1 spot on opening weekend which it deserves despite an almost non-existent marketing campaign here.

It wasn't a bad film by any means and I think the critics didn't like it because it was so dark and that there's little sense of fun.

I think 'Nemesis' is a very worthy chapter in the Star Trek franchise. It took a while to reach Australian audiences but most of us believe it was well worth the wait. 8 out of 10

This is probably the best of the recent Trek films. Honestly, I don't know why many people don't like it when production wise, it couldn't have been any better. Each scene is nicely constructed and utilizes all the necessary ingredients of film making.

OK, the story was simple but for what the story was, screen writer Michael Piller, wrote a screenplay that is so polished, that every one-liner was perfectly timed and the dialogue was very sharp. The drama and story unfolded not too slowly and not too fast. The characterization was fantastic particularly the conflict between Piracy and Admiral Ross. It's a story about fighting for what you believe in, which every character in the film, even the bad guys, does until the bitter end.

There is no rules that says a science fiction film or Star Trek must have a complex storyline, but a storyline that tells a story and tells it well is what Insurrection does perfectly

I don't enjoy action films and I think 'Star Trek: First Contact' is one of the most overrated sci-fi actioneers in years. Insurrection had a very human story and is also very audience friendly for those who have never seen Star Trek.

I think people need to take another look at this film and ask what is wrong with it apart from the story being too simple? Production design looks great, the film is beautifully shot, Jerry Goldsmith's score was perfect, and the energy from performances from the entire cast comes off in the film like no other Star Trek movie.

'Star Trek: Insurrection' is a very underrated film, and a film that deserves way more credit.

SCORE: 9 out of 10

I can't help but moan (or scream) when I read all these reviews. People (like I did about 3 years ago) are STILL asking 'Why?', 'Why was this made?', 'what's the point?' Why don't you all go and look for the answers as they're around. Search the net, watch the DVD commentary with Gus Van Sant. Watch the documentary film 'Psycho Path' and you'll get your damn answers. I have written about three reviews for this film explaining it and yet the next posted review still, asks 'why?'!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe people are condoning what is essentially an experimental film! I love this movie because it was bold and I am a lot happier Van Sant didn't take the original 'Psycho' and make some kind of 90's slasher film. All you narrow minded people, please, open your eyes, or don't, just use the brain you've been given and find the answers you're looking for, I found them a month after the film was released! Rating: 10 out of 10.

'Return to Paradise' is one of the most underrated films of the last few years. It deserved at least three Oscar nominations. Best actress: Anne Heche, Best supporting actor: Joaquin Phoenix and best original score: Mark Mancina. Was it because this wasn't a big studio film that it was robbed of these nominations? After reading other reviews, other people feel the same way. Even some Golden Globe nods would have been warrented.

This film wasn't released at the theaters here in Australia and went straight onto video and I understand it was a flop in the states cause most people were busy paying money to see the regular trash that comes out of Hollywood. This is a shame cause I would have made the effort to see it a couple of times at the cinema.

Anne Heche (Psycho) gave such an amazing performance in the film (maybe the performance of her career), my heart was aching at the end for her and the rest of the cast including Vince Vaughn (Psycho), David Conrad (Men of Honor), Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator) and Jada Pinket Smith (Scream 2) who you'll hate once the movie's over as she's pretty good as the bitchy/power hungry journalist are all so convincing in their roles.

Everyone should have a pretty good idea of what the plot involves but even if it isn't your cup of tea, the film is worth seeing for the performances which unfortunately have pretty much gone unrecognized. Check it out. Score: 9 out of 10

It was nice to have to sit through a lecture today at my University that was for once not about the original 'Psycho'. It was actually about the controversial remake by Gus Van Sant - a film that I've always been amazed at the negative reaction by older filmgoers around the world.

From the reaction in class today, it's nice to know that like me, there are plenty of people my age (in there mid 20's) who liked the original but like the remake even more just for trying something knew and appropriating a classic for the younger generation. So maybe in 40 years time this film will become a classic once the backlash has died down. After all, the original 'Psycho' was panned upon it's release and didn't achieve cult or classic status until the late 70's.

This really is not only an interesting film but also a very good one. Yeah, yeah, Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins but who said he was supposed to be? He does a great job at re-interpreting the character as does over cast member in the film.

After watching the original film a few weeks ago, as much as I still like it, I find every character in the film - with the exception of Norman Bates - to be flat and very uninteresting.

John Gavin's performance in the original 'Psycho' was terrible as he was nothing but a man there to solve a mystery while the same character in the remake is a laid back cow-boy thanks to Viggo Mortensen. Julianne Moore's aggressive performance as the gay sister Lila makes Vera Miles' performance look like it would be better suited for a soap opera. Anne Heche makes for an interesting Marion Crane and comes across as far more 'human' than Janet Leigh did.

Take the amazing performances and add some surrealistic colour that is quite unique, plus some clever cinematography from Chris Doyle, Bernard Hermann's groovy score (in stereo!) and the result is a film that is creepy from an entertainment point of view and a fascinating film from an analytical point of view.

The original 'Psycho' was way before it's time and it's nice to know Van Sant was able to shoot some scene's off Hitchcock's original story boards that he wasn't allowed to film in 1960. This remake was never meant to be better than the original 'Psycho' but it was supposed to re-create something that cinema has lost these days and it pulled it off beautifully.

All those people who detest this film for simply being a remake of 'Psycho' really have no idea what film making is really about and should be very pleased that Gus Van Sant didn't turn 'Psycho' into a tacky 'slasher' film. He stuck to the original ideas and at the same time challenged us to open our minds a little. For these reasons, I love this film and am more than happy to give it a 10 OUT OF 10 (not that it will make much difference to the score of the film on the main page).

It took guts for Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting) to make this film. More so than a horror movie, the film works as a thriller and even as an art house movie. I love the look of the film - the use of color is overly saturated and makes it look so cool (the abstract imagery during the murders really ads to the scenes).

The cast all go out of their way to deliver a performance that is different to the original. Even using the same lines, they create characters who are different. Vince Vaughn had the hardest job and makes a goofier Norman Bates (but he's still creepy) while Anne Heche makes for a very 90's acting Marion Crane. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore add two stellar performances in the second half of the film.

Would everyone give this film a break! It was an experiment and a very clever one. It even had the blessing of Pat Hitchcock. It was never trying to be better than the original or threaten it either so whats the big deal. Why didn't everyone have a problem with 'A Perfect Murder'? That was a pretty bad remake of 'Dial M For Murder'. It would have been worse if Van Sant took 'Psycho' and made a 90's style slasher film out of it - thank God he didn't.

All those people still asking 'Why? Why? Why? Why?' - why don't you go try look for the answer yourself. The answers are all on the DVD commentary and documentary (see 'Psycho Path'). Gus Van Sant's 'Psycho' rocks!!

8.5 out of 10

Anyone still wonder why Gus Van Sant remade 'Psycho'??? Well this short documentary film directed by DJ who was allowed to document the making of 'Psycho' will answer that question and a whole lot more. The film also has many interviews with Van Sant, the cast, film theorists and other people who were involved with the original and the remake including Pat Hitchcock who gives the remake her blessing and support. All of them voice their opinion and ideas about this experimental film and as you may have guessed not all of the coments are positive.

If anything, this documentary isn't long enough and I find myself watching it over and over fascinated by all the opinions and ideas people had when 'Psycho' was being remade. It's so much more than a 'behind the scene's' documentary - it's more of a critical look at why Hollywood re-makes classic movies and how the new 'Psycho' is a firm example of the post-modern era we have entered in the last few years.

The documentary gives accurate comparisons between the original and the remake as well as showing subtle differences between the two films. 'Psycho Path' is available on the DVD of the 'Psycho' remake and it well worth a look. I bought the DVD just so I could have a copy of the documentary.

So anyone who's interested in film or the ideas behind one of the only movies of the 90's that had people scratching their heads as to why it was made - give this 30 minute film a look and then you will understand - "we all go a little made sometimes".

'Six Days Seven Nights' took a lot of flack upon it's release mainly due to the fact that Anne Heche (Psycho, Return to Paradise) had just outed herself as a lesbian and audiences thought it to be inappropriate and unbelievable for Heche to be paired up with Harrison Ford. Looking at the film now, one must wonder what all the fuss was about as Heche puts in a very convincing performance.

Directed by Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters, Kindergarten Cop), the film tells the story of Robin Moore, a successful magazine editor (Heche) who is going on a dream vacation with her fiance, Frank (David Schwimmer - TV's Freinds). The holiday becomes a nightmare when she has to return to the mainland for a photo shoot and her plane crashes on a remote island leaving her stranded with pilot Quinn Harris (Harrison Ford).

From there on, the two battle to survive not only each other but a band of pirates led by Temura Morrison (Once Were Warriors, Speed 2). Robin and Quinn's love / hate relationship soon blossoms into a lot more over their time in this remote paradise.

This is such a great film that is not only entertaining but also genuinely funny as well. Among the funniest scene's is when the plane is crashing, we see Heche take a large amount of Zanex to help her relax as well as a some great one liners from Harrison Ford. The only thing that really holds the film back is David Schwimmer who becomes quite annoying by the end of the film. The two leads are both great in their roles despite the fact that Harrison Ford looked a little old for Heche. There is also some superb photography as well as a great score from Randy Elderman (Toy Story).

'Six Days Seven Nights' is a nice piece of light entertainment for those who enjoy something with a bit of everything like action, adventure, comedy and romance. SCORE: 7.5/10

Firstly, the remake of Psycho is not trying to improve on the original and as for those who are still wondering 'Why?', it is all made abundantly clear by Gus Van Sant on the DVD release of this film. Psycho (1998) not only is a technical masterpiece but is also very well acted and possibly even better acted than the original. Each actor in the film does their best to make the character their own as it would have been more of an insult if they'd imitated the original actors.

Vince Vaughn was never supposed to be like Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates. He is genuinely creepy in this role and does a fantastic job. Julinanne Moore also shows how good an actor she really is by giving her character a totally different presence in the film compared to Vera Miles' performance. Anne Heche and Viggo Mortensen are also good leaving William H. Macy who seems to be the most out of place.

Psycho manages to translate well to the 90's as when I saw this film, I had seen the original along with a friend on the left side of me. While another friend of the right hand side who hadn't seen the original was terrified and thought it was fantastic. It seems the only thing people have against this film is that it still actually is Psycho. If Gus Van Sant had made this film a modern slasher, it would have lost all credibility. Van Sant pays tribute to the original film by keeping it exactly how it is and should be.

So with improved acting, up to date technology, this is an interesting way of taking a modern look at a classic. Hearing the score in digital sound was brilliant and the shower scene still packs a punch with those more realistic stabbing sound effects. This film is not a bad movie, it's just different to anything we've seen before. I thought A Perfect Murder was a very poor take on Dial M for Murder yet that film got away with it.

People are forgetting about the 'Psycho remake bashing' that took place when the film was released and are now watching the film with an open mind on video and DVD. Slowly this film is getting more popular and is already being included in some film studies subjects at Universities.