Reviews

When following the films of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg it's hard not to be underwhelmed when you get to this little number. It seems clear that while Frost may be a walking encyclopaedia of pop culture references, the creativity and flair of his more famous movies likely came from Edgar Wright, because this completely lacks either, but it does have a LOT of references in it. So if you are the kind of person that enjoys movies just because they reference other, better movies, TV shows and comics then this will be for you. If not... Maybe give it a skip.

The story itself is a pretty generic by the numbers, protect the friendly alien story. It could be E. T. , *Batteries not Included, even Short Circuit (If you ignore he's not an Alien). Though those movies have a lot more heart to them. It could also be Bumblebee or Monster Truck or any number of similar stories of more recent years. The only thing different here is the Alien looks like a generic grey type alien.... So basically it's a classic trope with a more generic Alien.

That's really the game this film is playing. It substitutes any originality or heart for tired tropes and just out of the blue references that could have been stuck at any time in the film since they are only there to be references. This is exactly the kind of film I'd expect a pop culture junky to make and perhaps in the late 90's to early 2000's when those kinds of films/shows were relatively fresh and popular (I was a fan of Pegg's own "Spaced") they could have gotten away with it, but by 2011 that was all feeling pretty stale. Roll on to 2023 when I'm making this review and it's still being over done by so called "Creatives" that lack any actual creativity.

Of course those pop culture referencing films of that period were also funny, which helped them a lot. Some even had artistic merit (The first Clerks film for instance). This doesn't have either of those. It's just references, tropes and cameos (Well, one cameo, but it's also a reference).

When the film isn't doing pop culture references, it is basically just stereotyping people instead, because making a character that isn't a hundred percent generic would apparently be beyond Pegg and Frost 's writing partnership.

So yeah, below average. It's shocking to see the gulf between this movie and Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz. Both of those also featured a tonne of references, but actually had a good plot, some really funny moments and... well... style!

This is a strange movie with two major issues. First of all the acting of the lead is famously terrible. Most notably in the shooting spree scene (Hence the title of this review). It's a cheap B-Movie so that's not a deal breaker in itself. The second issue though is the film is about 50-60% a retelling of the first film using the footage of that film and this is not a long film (It even has extra long credits to pad it out).

What that means is that if you have seen the first film, what you get from this is a 30 minute story that follows one character played by the worst actor in the film. No good and you can see why it has that reputation.

However, if you have not seen the first film or just don't remember it, then this really does help to lift up the overall quality. The extra pace it gives the story shifts the focus almost totally away from any character other than the two psychopaths, with just the Mother Superior really being the only other character that has any kind of presence. For most genres that would be a bad thing, but in a slasher movie it just lets you soak in the lowbrow joys of absolute carnage instead.

What this means is while there is now way to look at this film and conclude it is "good", it is actually quite fun and for a B-Movie slasher that is all it needs to be. So, if you haven't seen the first one this is a worthy 5/10 level lowbrow B-movie that will entertain you for the majority of it.

But the fact is, the movie is a sequel. When most people watch a sequel they aren't expecting to spend 60% of it watching the first movie again. That drags the core down, but still a 3/10 is higher than what I expected to score it after seeing the infamous "Garbage Day" scene on youtube.

I haven't played the games and as such went into this not knowing it was a video game adaptation. I guessed it was however pretty early on because this really feels like watching a video game play through. This film only really has one character and has a jarringly distinct three acts that would probably have been better suited as part of a movie trilogy or TV series than a one off movie (Don't expect a sequel any time soon).

The films protagonist is whisked from one action based situation to the next with few chances to catch her bearings and does very little with what time she has between encounters to really develop any kind of personality. In the first act she is joined by her army unit who demonstrate a little personality but are never given the opportunity to make us care about them. Pretty much the first act is there to establish our protagonist. The second act is really where most of the film is and focuses a bit more on the movies secondary character who speaks no English and has has about as much personality as our protagonist. He likes chocolate and is a survivor with bad ass ninja skills. At first he fights with our hero but then they learn to get along to fight the monsters. Pretty straight forward writing but no complaints really, this is the only part of the film I actually liked.

In the final act he is barely present and instead we are introduced to a full on fantasy world team (including a random cat pirate) lead by Ron "Hellboy" Perlman. It would have been nice to spend more time getting to know these wonderful freaks but alas we haven't had random action for at least three minutes so it is on to the ending which seems to have been edited by throwing the film up in the air and attacking it vigorously with a samurai sword. The ending isn't even really an ending. It's just one of those moments where everyone strikes a pose while heading into further action. Honestly I feel like I heard someone scream "Mortal Kombat!" moments before the titles rolled.

Still, while the movie was bad I did think it looked good. The characters, the creatures and the landscape in general (mostly desert though it is) all look the part and on a $60m budget this is still an achievement. Sadly though this movies legacy is almost certainly going to be in how badly edited the action scenes are. Anyway, if you have played the games perhaps there is something here for you, but if you have not I would avoid this one.

I had hoped this would be a true to the novel adaptation of War of the Worlds, but unfortunately while it is set in the right time and place that is about all they decided to follow from the source material.

Now I say this out front because some may still enjoy this series, but if you were hoping this would finally be the faithful adaptation of H.G.Wells classic you likely will not. You will also be disappointed if you were expecting much in the way of action, science fiction or quality effects. This is instead a tale about survival. A very slow, plodding tale of survival. The biggest problem for me was that it makes a very strange narrative choice by mixing in a time jump to many years later where certain characters are no longer around and the survivors basically just stand around and act depressed. This unfortunately robs the main portion of the story of it's stakes.

On the effects side the tripods do look good, but all the other effects on display are rather cheap and the sound design, music and pacing don't help back these effects up. Indeed I find myself pining for the 50's version with effects over half a century older than this and yet applied in a far more impactful way. Take for example the excellent sound design in the 60's version that ramped the tension up so much that as a child I had nightmares for a month after I first saw it (and that was in the 80's).

Sadly this plays out more like an episode of Doctor Who and no, not RTD era or classic who but more like the last couple of regenerations where the budget has been minimal, the politics obvious and the plot barely able to fill the back of a postage stamp. Is it as bad as their adaptation of Day of the Triffids they did ten years ago? No. It's not that bad. But I do think it is time the BBC gives up the ghost on Science Fiction.

Okay first of all if your a big fan of one particular artist or more in the story and are expecting their role (or even their personality) to be fleshed out, chances are you will be disappointed. They are all (aside from the Dead Boys) limited to cameos and as such some people find they are a little generic. I'm not sure how much depth people expect in what often amounts to less than a minutes screen time, but there you go. It is not a long movie and it would have been impossible to do justice to everyone involved in that music scene in such a short time. In the restraints they had, I believe they did well enough.

Secondly there are some liberties taken with the actual music. It didn't matter to me as it was all great music, but if your picky on such things that may irritate you. An example of this is that the Ramones don't actually play any Ramones tracks, instead they player a Joey Ramone solo track that was released later. I don't really understand why they made those choices, but that is the way it is. Some people may feel the "live" sound isn't gritty enough. Again, I had no problem here, I wanted to hear good music and I did.

Perhaps those that get the most out of this films are those that like the music but aren't huge fans of anyone in specific. This is where I fell and I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. I laughed and I cried and when it finished I was happy. Alan Rickman is the centrepiece of this film and that I think will make this enjoyable to the majority of viewers (as the IMDb average suggests) as he is as solid as ever. The rest of the cast is reasonable but no one stands out. The sets look very accurate (from what I can tell at least) and the whole thing is quite believable.

Taken out of the historical context this is basically a light hearted comedy about a growing music scene and a guy with passion, kindness and absolutely no business acumen. It feels like a "British Comedy" which for many will be fine, but given the topic is a New York club some may feel it inappropriate. If you read this review and still want to see the film then you will no doubt enjoy it as much as I have (or more).

John Carpenters return to directing a feature length movie after such a long break is, to be honest a little disappointing. It's still relatively good, but after he made such strong steps back towards the genre with his two "Masters of Horror" episodes I can't help but feel this is a step backwards.

Of course you have to consider that his involvement with this is solely as director. He didn't write the script or the score and isn't listed as a producer. The writers themselves aren't greatly experienced having penned only one previous horror film (at least only one that made it to production anyway) so it's not a huge surprise that we see a good number of clichés. The basic story itself isn't the most original either (I could name at least one other well known film with almost the same premise).

Now the directing itself is as solid as you'd expect from the horror veteran and I think I can safely say that he's raised the quality of the film considerably with his involvement. Mark Kilian has also provided a fairly solid score and made a good attempt to make it sound like a Carpenter one. We also get a strong performance from Amber Heard in the lead role. Overall it is quite a mixed bag, with a good number of quality moments. Unfortunately these don't last quite long enough and you quickly find yourself dragged back down to the level of an early 80s slasher flick.

The problem with this film is that for action to work you need to have an emotional investment in it. But when the action is at best a metaphor to the films reality, there is none. With no emotional investment your not on the edge of your seat and it just becomes pretty pictures.

Sad really because the action itself, when not taken in the context of the film is pretty good and the films main plot is reasonable. It just doesn't work when all put together, the whole is far less then the sum of it's parts. When you start to compare the film to ones that are similar in concept, such as Pans Labyrinth or Brazil, you realise just how much this film falls short.

Sure you could compliment the film for being an action film with some depth but that is to largely miss the point. The basic plot is set up quickly and the rest of the film are the long action sequences filling in the gaps and ultimately serving no purpose. The truth is the two sides work against each other and would be better served in a film of their own.

Seems Zombie can take a classic and make a good film (Halloween and House of 1000 Corpses (being essentially a remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre)) but give him an average sequel to a classic to remake and he seems quite lost. He tries to take it in a new direction, much like his sequel to Corpses, but this time (when firmly in a recognised franchise), it backfires. His new angles are lame and annoying and don't really fit with his own first part let alone any of the original series.

The trouble here started with the change to the earlier remake which opened the door to a sequel. In an earlier cut the film was clearly a one off and made a good go of showing us a more realistic version of Michael. To allow for the sequel however Michael had to escape and the changes seemed to invoke the supernatural elements of the original series (which I felt really detracted from an otherwise solid film). Now following on from this Zombie has tried to continue to show us more of Michaels psychology, but at this stage it no longer fits with the direction the film needs to go. The Shape is no longer a child with a darkness building inside him. What they end up doing makes the film feel much more like the early Friday the 13th films rather then a Halloween.

Sadly it does nothing for the Genre and makes us all cringe as once again we wonder why they bothered to reboot a series just to mess it up all over again. I can't help but feel that Rob Zombie never really did understand the original Halloween.

I was totally addicted to Transformers as a kid and I really wanted to like this, but instead the film just upset me at how wrong so much of it was. If only this was directed by someone with actual talent it could have been the most awesome blockbuster ever. But Michael Bay is frankly an incompetent hack with virtually no respect for his own source material.

Of the many things wrong: * The film was still dominated by the human sub-stories and excessive comedy relief moments that mostly fell flat. The one comedy moment that actually made me giggle involved the "Wheelie" character, which I won't ruin by giving detail on. Almost all of the comedy was juvenile (including the bit I found funny).

* Bay constantly spins the camera round and round during "dramatic" talking scenes. That stuff is what people that don't know how to build tension do to fill in for their lack of actual skill. It just makes me dizzy and want to vomit.

* The Power balance seemed all wrong in this movie. The deceptions pretty much seem to be complete pussies and the big scary "ohhhhhh how can we beat him" Megatron from the previous film has been replaced by a wimpy lackey Megatron that needs help to fight Optimum Prime (who he soundly pummelled in the first film). Even the weaker autobots seemed to be kicking butt while the decepticons seemed to drop like flies.

* The focus for both Autobots and Decepticons seemed to be mostly on the comedy relief bots. Megatron and Starscream had some good moments between them and Optimus was cool as always, but it seemed the other decent characters were pushed so far into the background they were just miscellaneous background fodder. I really don't care that much for a non-talking Bumblebee (that's Wreck-Gar's gimmick anyway) and the ghetto twins (who seemed like superimposed cartoons half the time). Plus there just seemed to be way too many of them to really do any justice (especially the decepticons).

* I really didn't have a frigging clue what was going on at the end with the action. I'm sure I saw the same deception die about 25 times. Most of them look and sound so similar and the action was so all over the place (and of course not really focused on the robots) that I just found myself baffled as to who was fighting who half the time.

* The whole idea of using the Fallen just overshadowed the rest of the decepticons, especially Megatron. I remember in the animated Transformers movie, Megatron/Galvatron always planned to betray Unicron. He answers to no one, at least not willingly. If that version treated the enormous planet eater like that, I find it hard to accept the movie version so willingly serving the Fallen. Not the the Fallen is actually used much as a character, he just seems to be there to make the rest of the deceptions look like Tools.

On the positive side I like the use of Soundwave and Starscream in this and the way they worked Jetfire into it. Overall there was a good film in there but there was a couple of really bad ones mixed up with it. A few bits I enjoyed, a few bits puzzled me, a few bits made me want to cry they were so wrong, but most of it I just found boring.

The only positive thing I can say about this movie is that Billy Conolly was excellent. But one good performance can't save it.

If you can get your kicks out of simply seeing Mulder and Scully on the big screen then you may be entertained. Otherwise you'll be disappointed. For an X-Files movie it doesn't seem very much like the X-Files, nor does it seem much like a movie. I would call that fundamentally flawed.

There is a lot of moralising and a strong religious element, both of which are rammed down the viewers throat. There is also a lot of forced artificial chemistry between the stars (that is to say they go through the motions while seeming quite lifeless, comparatively (to the series and first film) in the meantime.

It is a puzzlement why they would wake the franchise out of retirement simply for this little venture. Had the concept come to fruition during the TV series, it would have been fine if somewhat average. But to use this for the X-Files big comeback is simply going to invite disappointment on to long time fans of the show.

Were this not branded "the X-Files", it would never have been released theatrically.

Okay so with David Zucker attached to this film (only as a producer), a lot of people may have heard the name and mistaken this for one of his actual films. Well be warned, this is one of those cheap nasty "comedies" that try and con people into the theaters and then just spew out regurgitated comedy by numbers while hardly deviating from the plot of whatever movie they have chosen to parody (or rip off may be better). This is not a touch even on the weaker Zucker films of later years and seems to be from the minds of people that have only heard of comedy but never really understood how it works. Shame on Zucker for putting his name on this rubbish.

If that wasn't bad enough, this movie is a parody of the first spiderman movie. Yes the one that came out six years ago and has had two sequels since then. So it doesn't even manage to be topical. Had this come out in 2003 it may have at least scored points for being relevant (which would have still made the film disposable with no chance of anyone remembering it years later, but for the first viewing some of the direct parody may have amused people briefly). Sure they threw in the odd additional hero, but only as quick visual gags with no real depth and most of those characters were direct copies of the characters they parodied and played out the most obvious jokes. Essentially the film is a highly stripped down copy of Spiderman with a handful of jokes thrown in.

Of course we should have suspected. When they were hyping this they talked about it like it was the first superhero comedy, while that is a long way from the mark. My suggestion if you want to see an actually good superhero comedy is to check out "Mystery Men" instead.

Finally a word about Leslie Nielson. You should have figured by now that Leslie will pretty much do anything. While his skill at delivering any line or action with a straight face is second to none, that ability alone doesn't make for good comedy. He needs the right script and like many of his comedies this wasn't it. Having said that, he is still probably the funniest thing in this movie, but then he could have achieved that had he just stood in an empty room and read a bus time table to us.

First of all let me point out that the rouge version makes a hell of a lot more sense then the botched theatrical release.

If you look at the mess that is the Highlander franchise this film is the only addition to the story that actually fits in with what went before. Sure people didn't like the sci-fi angle. It seems most fans would rather have magic then science fiction used to explain things. Fair enough, but still this is a proper sequel. It does something new rather then just rehashing the same thing over and over or messing to heavily with the original classic so as to squeeze it's premise into the story. It was a reasonable concept.

Really aside from the dislike of the sci-fi approach I don't see why people complain about this. It has great action, great humor (especially from Connory) and an interesting and original plot. It also had Micheal Ironside doing a superb job as the bad guy and the only bad guy in any of the Highlander films that has come remotely close to the quality of the Kurgen (indeed I prefer Ironsides character).

The problems with the film were twofold. First some idiot at the movie studio decided the film needed to have the same kind of flow to it as the first movie and so edited it to do this. This involved combining two separate fight scenes together to make the one big one in the theatrical release. Hence his sword magically changing back and forth to a different one during that scene.

The other problem was simply that they had completely failed to understand what most of the fans of the original wanted from a sequel. Truth is they still don't understand that and it's been so mixed up now they never will get it right without a reboot.

Still, the voting on this film has clearly been effected by peoples dislike of the direction it took the franchise rather then the actual quality of the film. How this can score lower then the pointless third movie with it's fluffed out Connery moments and the Fourth movie which destroyed the entire franchise in one swoop, I do not know.

Anyway, get hold of the "rouge" directors cut of the film and try and watch it with an open mind. It's much better then you were lead to believe.

Unfortunately the "Highlander" concept has been heavily tainted by multiple visions from a variety of people and a constant push from the money men to milk it for all it's worth. Each individual addition thus far, while reasonable in isolation managed to damage the overall reputation of this franchise and directly damage the quality of the original classic movie when the whole thing is considered together.

Now what they have done with this fourth movie is created something that can't even stand in isolation and when put together with everything else tears it all to pieces, spits on it and throws it in the bin, just for the sake of giving this particular piece some feeling of importance.

One of my biggest pet peeves with movie sequels is when the writers of the latest piece decide to essentially re-write the whole thing and ignore where others have taken us up until this point. For better or worse, we have been taken to a point and it is just arrogance to assume you can re-write it all better then those that have gone before, while it shows limited skill to not be able to work inside that framework. There are many ways they could have made a tie in between the TV series and all the movies work, but they chose to make this a partial reboot instead.

The Critical mistake they made was to belittle the original film. No franchise should dismiss the reason that it is a franchise. Although it would still annoy me, they could have gotten away with the partial reboot, if they had just ignored the 2nd and 3rd movie. They even would have gotten away with not fully following on from the series. But they couldn't resist messing with the original to the point that they almost totally dismissed the events of film as meaningless and so it's no surprise that this has scored the low rating it has here on the IMDb.

I watched the whole of the series as well as all the films and this movie fails to adequately fit in with any of it. One day I hope movie makers will learn that you either need to do a full reboot or get people capable of working with what they already have. Don't just let the new guys mess up everyone that went before them.

Okay, positives first. The death scenes were well done, the acting was reasonable.

Now the negatives. The plot is basically a rehash of the first film, once again. Naturally they've tried to add something new and it's not a particularly thrilling idea and doesn't add a lot to the films (on the other hand it is better then the angle they took on the second film, but that's not saying a lot). The idea has gotten old now and this even makes the killing technique a little dull and the supposed "twists" incredibly predictable. Anyone surprised by the end of this film obviously hasn't seen the previous two (or just doesn't pay much attention to such things).

Everything pretty much runs like clockwork so you don't really need to care about the characters at all. Just sit back and enjoy the excessively complex but still impressive death scenes and appreciate the fact the film isn't particularly long and doesn't loose it's pace between death sequences.

Even with the positives the fact is this is just a rehash of the first two films and that is too huge an obstacle to get over. The film actually bored me because of this and I hope now they will finally put this idea to rest. The first film had a great concept and good sfx and not a lot else, it was enough for it to be put down as a good horror. However the sequels have now stripped it of it's originality thereby actually managing to devalue the original while not really providing anything to write home about themselves.

At a 4/10 this makes the film a very disposable but not quite pointless horror. Watch it with your more talkative friends and lots of beer and you'll be fairly happy. Watch it alone and you'll probably be as bored as I was.

Okay, this is a B-Movie, Horror by numbers. The good news is it doesn't try or pretend to be anything else. So it just concentrates on being the best B-Movie, horror by numbers flick it can manage. It succeeded, but as you can tell by the rating, that still doesn't make it a good film.

Okay, so the positives. The acting is pretty reasonable and this lot, including Kane can probably do much better horrors in the future. The special effects, while simply being generic for this day and age were also pretty reasonable. Nothing ground breaking or stand out impressive for either of these. Probably the most notable thing was Kane himself, but it's not a great surprise seeing as his day job is to play a Psycho.

On the downside however the whole plot was so incredibly bog standard you get bored with it early on, stop really caring who's going to live or die and just try and enjoy the visuals. The story naturally revolves around a couple of young but tough women (like that's new) who have a tendency of getting all the men around them killed. The older characters are very peripheral and somewhat wasted. But that's part of the hangover from the "scary movie" sub-genre, which fortunately seems to be slowly fading into the distance and morphing into marginally better films such as this.

The worst part of the movie was the supposed plot twist. This was something that if you were to ask yourself what the most obvious, generic thing that could happen would be, you'll have guessed it long before it happens.

Anyway, as I said the film is at least honest and for a short disposable hack and slash horror it's pretty reasonable. Having said that, there are better films even in for B-Movie slashers. So really, unless your a WWE fan, or you really like this kind of movie, I wouldn't bother.

Tongue in cheek pure action no-brainers aren't what they used to be. I think the addition of excessive CGI is what has lead to their downfall, at least that seems to be in evidence here.

It came off as something about on Par with Batman and Robin. It made me wonder what it'd be like if they made an A-Team movie with a tonne of CGI thrown in. It also made me wish I hadn't bother seeing it.

I couldn't help but think the film could have been a lot better. The premise (what there was of one) wasn't too bad and Jovovich was a perfectly reasonable choice to star. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking it looked better then the Aeon Flux trailer (which turned out to be a much better film BTW). But aside from the source material and the leading lady everything about this film was wrong.

The dialogue is all over the place. Sometimes attempting to be serious, sometimes overly tongue in cheek and whenever someone says a kind of cool tongue in cheek line, it's followed up by something that ruins it. The action too is like someone with very few ideas decided to make up for it by repeating ab-nauseum. The plot could have been written on the back of a bus ticket, the editing is also pretty shabby and the flow of the film is kind of disjointed all the way because of it. Indeed the lighting, camera work and CGI itself are all pretty second rate.

Finally, this film has perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in a film. The music chosen for tense scenes and action scenes work about as badly as can be against the visual. Although to be fair it is may be just that the composer was trying to make music as unsure of it's purpose as the film itself seemed. They were probably asking for something part way between Star Wars and the Benny Hill theme.

The only positive thing I can say about this film is that Milla Jovovich, for what it's worth, did her best. But then maybe that is part of the problem because she seemed to be trying to play a serious role in a less then serious film. Did she make a mistake trying to take the film seriously? Who knows. Other then that all I can say (positive) about the film is that I've seen worse.

I remember this game. When I played it I never knew that the movie scenes were actually from the film (or indeed that they had done a sequel to Pumpkinhead at all). Sad for the film because the acting stinks, but was kind of what you expected for interactive movies in those days.

The game was kind of a first person shooter, but more in a (simplified) puzzle sense then a mass combat type. Really it felt to me more like Dungeon Master then Doom. You are walking around various dimensions trying to find out the secret to Pumpkinheads rage. You have to collect energy which you then use to open portals to "our world" which is where you see the movie scenes. The movie scenes give you information and allow you to collect items that are lying around in those scenes which you then get to use later.

At some point, after solving all the basic puzzles you actually get to face Pumpkinhead. He's too hard for you to fight but by then you should have found his secret, where you have to present him with a key object where upon you win the game (and get another cut scene).

Pumpkinheads secret is pretty obvious and it's a bit sad you don't get to see much of Pumpkinhead in his computer game. But the game itself was pretty playable, about the right difficulty and kept me interested until the conclusion. Pretty much no replay value though.

Okay, first thing I'd like to say is that having your protagonist smoke a lot, making shallow and obvious references to "Double Indemnity" and having a Femme Fatale does not instantly make a film a modern Noir. Not by a long way.

As it happens I've been watching a lot of classic and modern Noirs lately and this film really doesn't fit in with any of those. I've watched Chinatown, L.A.Confidential, Grifters, The Spanish Prisoner and probably most similar Body Heat, all recently. They all come across as having enough Noir elements to justify the tag and having watched those mixed in with the likes of The Big Sleep, Double Indemnity, Scarlet Street and Sunset Blvd (all over the last month or so), I feel like I'm in a good position to make that judgement . This film just doesn't fit in with those (and not in a good way either). It's not the only film wrongly labelled as Modern Noir IMHO, I'd say "Bound" is too, but at least that film was half decent and didn't seem to be making a pitch for that tag.

Okay, so the Femme Fatale in this film is also the protagonist. That's fine. But she is so transparent and so obviously a total bitch that she's not doing a very good job of it all. Certainly not compared to Femme Fatales from the classic Noirs. It's not that Fiorentino's performance is bad (or that of any others in the film) it's just the whole story is so terrible and unbelievable the best acting performance in the world couldn't save it.

Fortunatly for her character all the men she is surround with (aside from a lawyer she only phones) are so mind numbingly stupid, naive and gullible that she can still control them to her ends. The trouble with that is it's not terribly believable. The worst of these is her new boyfriend Mike, who bring stupidity and naivety to a new level. This is made worse by the fact that we are meant to believe he is a competent claims adjuster for an insurance company. He must cost the company millions! The worst problem with this is that you are left with absolutely no sympathy for any of the male characters in the film and in some cases you kind of feel they deserve what they get for being so dumb. For me that makes for a bad film.

This film came across to me like a film that was trying to be a modern noir, more specifically a modern version of Double Indemnity, but no one involved had ever seen that film or any other noirs and so were just trying to base it all on vague plot summaries and the well known aspects of Noir (smoking, femme fatals, murder). It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.

What does surprise me is how high this films rating is. I can only presume it's because of Fiorentino. She did a good job with what she was given and she was sexy. Not sexy enough to make you think for even the slightest moment you'd be suckered in by her. But certainly sexy enough to get a reaction in your pants. But then all the sex scenes in this film are very much modern, non-noir ideas. Which leads me to my penultimate thought - if the film wasn't down as being a modern noir and was just some 90's seduction flick would it be rated anywhere near as high? My final thought however is on the music. This film has a terrible cheap sounding soundtrack that doesn't really work with the film. Again it's like they wanted something that sounded a bit Noir, but didn't actually want to put much effort into it. That really sums up the whole film.

I can sum this film up quite easily. The previous Halloween sequels provided exactly what the trashy horror audience of it's day expected. Generic Slasher flicks (well, 4 onwards anyway).

This film provides exactly what the trashy horror audience of it's day expects. A generic "Scary Movie" genre flick.

It also does what too many modern movies have decided to do which is to pretentiously presume itself to be better then it's peers. Taking such actions as pretending the previous films didn't happen and to do a "ultimately-finally-unchangably" ending, which of course we all knew at the time and have been proved right since, wouldn't be the end of the series at all. So why do it? The Scary Movie genre elements detracted a lot from the film. Of course the modern audience is more willing to accept that then slasher flick elements so many of them say this is the best Halloween for a while, but I think when people look at this in another 10 years time they will say it was poor and stereotypical and really didn't deliver.

This was perhaps the most excessively hyped up horror I've seen for years and that is all it was - Hype. Sure it was nice to see Laurie Strode again, but it wasn't directed by John Carpenter and it didn't have anything like the atmosphere of the original Halloween and anyone that says otherwise really needs to watch the two back to back. It's not a return to form or a return to the original style. It's just trading in one trashy generic element for a more current but just as trashy generic element and then patting itself on the back for doing it.

Really between the pretentious elements and the scary movie elements I counted only one good Horror scene and a couple of bits with a reasonable "cool" factor.

Overall this is perhaps the most disappointing Horror I've ever seen. Not the worst, but most disappointing because I am a fan of the original and I did buy into the hype before I watched this.

Okay, here's a review that just let's you know if the film is any good rather then listing all the background and what the actors previously did and stuff (I kinda feel, your reading this on the IMDb, so I don't need to say all that).

Aeon Flux is not a ground breaking film, but it's well worth a watch. The plot twists are all obvious but if you can forgive the characters being a little slow on them that's not a big problem for the film. Visually the film is excellent and the action is good too. The dialogue and acting is all pretty reasonable. So if your after a bit of excitement and a good visual experience you won't be disappointed. However, if your after a clever sci-fi film that makes you think, you probably should avoid it.

I think that explains the surprisingly low voting this film is getting. As I said it's not ground breaking. It's no contender for the top 100. But it is entertaining and with that in mind I cannot call the film a failure.

History is in the making with this series. Some of the greatest horror directors of all time (and some that while not legendary are very good and know their art very well) have been given free run to direct their own one hour movie for a TV series. We've all seen horror series' before, some quirky, some scary, some forgettable. This is what a series of horror shorts should be what future series' will aspire to.

The episodes have had their ups and downs and surprisingly some of the downs are from the more legendary directors. For example so far the weakest two episodes (in this viewers opinion) have been directed by Horror legend Dario Argento and ground breaking director John Landis (though his story was only let down by poor acting). Meanwhile there have been a few surprises (most notably Don Coscarelli, a less well known director but well respected by those that have seen films such as Phantasms and Beast Master). I'll do a review of each episode after the series is complete. The episodes have been pretty consistent with only one so far (Argento's) being a disappointment.

Pretty decent independent film. Some acting is better then others but overall the quality is high and the production is pretty reasonable for such a project too, with some of the more artistic scenes (images and music) being quite moving.

The two cops aren't very believable as cops but everyone is believable enough as people and that seems to be what the movie is about. People and mortality. So pretty much true to the title (with a touch of apathy thrown in for a bonus). In many ways the film doesn't go anywhere, but it is about people and not events so the journey is much more inwards.

This obviously isn't Hollywood (despite many of the actors being people you'd not be surprised to see in a Hollywood film), so there is an absence of "polish", but don't let that put you off. It's good to see a film that is actually American and not Hollywood American (if you see what I mean). I can't speak for how well it reflects real life in America as I'm not from that country (and I've never even been to New York), but to an outsider at least it does feel more genuine.

This film can currently be watched for free at Mo-Freaks web site (along with a few others). Worth a viewing IMHO.

Both Cruise and Spielberg are big fans of the old film, and it shows. The only trace of the actual book that has overtaken their determination to tribute it's first movie incarnation is the change of the Martian machines from flying lampshade type things to actual tripods. Other then that the entire film is just an attempt to put a marginally different perspective on the 50's version.

To be fair, it does start out well (and there are some good cinematic moments throughout). Some claim it continues well for about 2/3rds of the film, but I think in truth it is only the first 3rd that works at all. It doesn't take long for clichés and overly predictable plot elements to creep in and there is nothing daring or risky about anything attempted by Spielberg after about 20 minutes in. It's all very well for people to go on about the focus on the main Character. But I don't think that is particularly groundbreaking. There are a good number of other directors I think can bring off a personal perspective much better so I don't think Spielberg is even playing to his strengths on this one.

Plus, when you have an astronomical budget, one major star and material a good 80% of the audience will already know pretty well (anyone not know how it was going to end?), it pretty much goes without saying that people are going to want to see a lot more of the invading martians. It's all very well to point to the rules of good horror and claim not seeing stuff is suspenseful but is it entirely appropriate for this particular film? I would say not. If Spielberg wanted to do a film like that, why not come up with something fresh rather then doing a remake of a well known film based on a well known book. When you already know what is going on, there is nothing gained by not showing it.

The film didn't need to worry about action clichés as in actual fact this film should never have been an action film. Humanity can't defend against these invaders, so why show anything but futility. Perhaps because that wouldn't be very Hollywood, and for all the good intentions of the film it descended into pretty standard action by the end anyway.

What I would have liked to have seen would have been more dramatic spectacles, barren landscapes, shocking scenes of destruction, etc. More of the martians and perhaps show how the governments totally failed to stop them with everything they tried. They actually achieved that in the 40's film, so one of the things Spielberg did leave out was the one aspect that really gave the "not killed by man" aspect. As a result the very end leaves you cold, and as a big slap in the face to the book they include a voice over copied directly from the 50's film putting everything in a religious point of view (the one thing that really let down the 40's film). The book was to a large extent very anti-religious and there was no need to ignore that very important aspect of the original story. It's not even comfortably put on the end, because with the (totally unnecessary) heroic triumphs achieved by Cruise minutes early it seems like we've suddenly cut to the end of a different film.

Perhaps the influence of the 50's film was too much for him. After all, anyone ever notice how similar ET looks to the aliens in the 50's film? If you were to take those aliens and make them cute, you'd end up with ET. Certainly not a co-incidence. This is very much Spielberg remaking what must have been his favourite film.

One thing with Spielberg I always found annoying is his obsession with getting certificates that let kids see the film. For a start no other director could release films like this and like Jurassic park (where someones arm is ripped off his body) and get such family orientated ratings. But even with his ability to manipulate censors, he still has to hold back from making what the film should have been just for the sake of letting the kiddies see it. I guess at the end of the day it's all about money and ego and not just about making a really good film.

So there you go. I gave this a disappointing 4 out of 10. It had a lot of potential but there are so many flaws and so many mixed up ideas that are never fully realised I just couldn't give it a good score. I couldn't even give it an average score, because with Spielberg, Cruise and the special effects budget I have to compare it to what I think should have been possible with the money spent and talent involved. This film is one of the great underachiever of the modern day. Compare that to the 50's film, which for the time period had stunning effects, a compelling plot and flaws that were all to understandable given the time of filming. It way ahead of it's time and is still a reasonable watch even five decades later. Can anyone honestly say this will last so well?

I just got back from the late night screening of White Noise. I wasn't sure the film would either turn out really bad or really good and just to prove me wrong it turned out a bit of both.

The film seem pretty well influenced by the following:

1) "Final Destination", where preminitions and a battle with an ultimately unstoppable and non-corporeal entity that acts somewhat like a serial killer. 2) John Carpenters "Prince of Darkness", where a dark message from the future is received via EVP. 3) Nigel Kneals "The Stone Tapes" where it is discovered that certain stones can be used to record ghostly images, and where the man obsessively investigating it ends up as one of those images itself.

Of course there are also a tonne of ghost films that could also have influenced this as well as good amount of Blair witch. All this is making the film seem pretty unoriginal, and were you just to read the script you would probably feel this was the case. However, the film is put together brilliantly and a lot of creepy effects and decent acting by Keaton helps to raise the basic level of the script considerably and make for a very creepy and quite jumpy horror film.

I wasn't left with a huge amount of sympathy for Keatons character due to his apparent stupidity (really down to the needs of the plot rather then Keatons decisions in playing the role). But maybe as a Horror fan I've just become too cynical about these things. You'll see what I mean when you watch it. The real star of this movie is the brilliantly creepy static from the tapes and TV and the messages hidden within. Good job that is the focus of the hype really because as far as that goes they have done well. It is just a pity about some of the other aspects of the film.

My initial feelings after watching this was to give the film a 7 (which is generous for me), but it's one of those films that seems less impressive as the effect of the film wears off the and weaknesses of the plot become more exposed in your mind. So while examining this in review I've dropped my rating down to a six. Still it is one of those films that leave you feeling creeped out and a little afraid as you leave the cinema and I still find myself glancing at the clock while I write this review (again you'll see what I mean when you watch it). So as a horror, I'm happy to say it's achieved it's objective.

If you don't like being afraid, and tend to be very critical of plots with holes then you'll hate this film. However if you go to watch a creepy ghost story to be creeped out, you'll get exactly that. I would recommend watching this on a home system with surround sound as the audio effects are just as important as the visuals in this and the flashes of static (full screen ones, outside of those Keaton is witnessing himself) would be more effective on TV's then cinema screens (or PC's for that matter). Having said that, I saw it in the cinema and enjoyed it.

The film is a little slow to start and predictable in places, but that really doesn't stop your enjoyment of it once it get's going and I felt very satisfied at the conclusion. I think this film is worth a watch.

As for how it compares to the three films I listed earlier. Well I'd say it's on par with all but Prince of Darkness which is better, but not drastically.

Bill Hicks once pointed out that people got too wrapped up in the moral discussions about Basic Instinct to simply realise it was a very bad film. I'm seeing a very similar thing happen with this film.

There have been a lot of people giving this film a 10/10 and pour a load of praise on the film in IMDb reviews. Interestingly most of the comments have been defencive rather then actually positive, and they have been far too concerned with the ethics and morals of the film rather then it's function as a piece of historically based entertainment. Any film on the IMDb has a higher number of people giving it a ten then 7-9 and sometimes any other number, even those with weighted average ratings closer to 3 or 4 and it very sad that people do that. I've noticed that when there is a bad film made by a trendy (and usually much better) director it seems to get a load of 10 ratings before most people would even have had a chance to see it and this is no exception.

Anyway I think it needs to be explained to those that praise the film and go on about people not liking it and how they don't understand the morals of the film and that the bisexuality is okay, etc, etc, just why the majority thought this film was rubbish. It's nothing to do with Alexanders orientation or how that was portrayed or the morals of the film.

There are only two things you need need to know about the film:

1) The casting was terrible. Some of the minor characters were cast reasonably but the choices for Alexander and his mother was disastrous. Not because of either of those character acting skills but because of the following reasons.

1a. Colin Farrell was incapable of dropping his Irish accent or putting on a more sensible accent for his role. As such the supporting Macedonians were all forced to wear Irish accents as well. It's also been noted that he didn't make a very successful blonde. Sure the guy can act, but when casting you have to consider *suitibility*!

1b. On that note, why on earth cast a woman only 2 years older then Farell to play his mother? Totally bizarre. I love Jolie as an actress, and like most men think she is gorgeous, but she was just not suitable for that role. Also because she was one of the few cast members that chose to put on an accent other then Irish she stands out like a sore thumb.

1c. The rest of the cast too have been blatantly chosen for their stature as actors rather then their actual suitability or capability to pull of the particular roles they were chosen for. The cast list is impressive, but that seems to be it's entire reason for being. It's almost like Stone is showing off the names he can attract (and the studio can afford) for his film. That is not, in my mind, they way to cast a movie.

2) The film has terrible pace and is nightmarishly long.

Alexander is someone that has fought more battles then I've had pizza's (and I've had a lot of pizza's). Yet if you were randomly skipping through the movie you'd really struggle to stop it at a point where an actual battle is going on. Visually these rare battles are impressive, but because of the poor build ups and the way the excessive scenes of long theatrical style monologues kill off any excitement you may otherwise be feeling about the battles it is very hard to appreciate these scenes.

Of course as I'm sure you've all noticed it's very trendy to overshoot films these days. It seems rare to see a film under 2 hours long and so many directors seem to be making films long apparently just for the sake of it. They want to be as epic as lord of the rings or Gladiator and figure that all it takes is to make the film really really long. Well the first thing you'd noticed about those two films (or 4 films technically) is that they don't seem anywhere near as long as there running time (even the 4 hour special edition of return of the king kept me interested for the duration, and I wouldn't normally compare films to LOTR but with so many people suggesting this is worth a 10 I think it has to be done). This film however seemed about twice as long as it's excessive running time and that is a very bad thing. People gave up and walked out with at least 40 minutes still to go! Now all those monologues may not be intended to come across as such, but all the actors seem to have adopted a theatrical style of reading their long long lines as if they were reciting Shakespeare. If this was a play I could live with that, but this is a film and it needs the right kind of pacing.

So in summary - terrible casting, terrible pace, excessively long. Bi-Sexuality and ancient morals are irrelevant in evaluation of this film, terrible casting, terrible pace, excessively long. QED.

Oh yeah there are also a good few cheesy clichés and terrible lines (like the one about "of all the Alexander's he is the greatest" what moron wrote that!). But really, overshadowed by the pace/casting.