Reviews

Having become interested after slowly being drawn in, by the tease of what was to come I battled through poor acting and sets, for the end finale. Of course, what does this say about me? However, reading so many of the comments here about the authenticity of the tape and the characters, I would point out this. At the end, in the credits, it does say that all the characters and events are fiction and any relation to any real character or event are purely coincidental.

The premise for the film is good, based on how voyeuristic we, as cinema goers and a society, have become but it doesn't do itself any favours by being so badly made.

There are many flaws with this film. It is not gut busting funny, irrespective of what the couple behind me in the cinema thought. It is not even toilet flushing humour. It is simply not funny.

It does not contain amazing, thought provoking insights into education, relationships or manipulation of the public and media.

All it does contain is 6 basic characters / stereotypes. The nasty PE teacher whose methods affect children, the fat kid who has overcome Mr Woodcock's teaching to become good who has become famous, the widowed lonely mother who has found happiness in the arms of the bully, the nasty bitch who drinks and is abusive to all, the nice girl who stayed in the town and is a teacher herself and the loser, a loser at school and now a loser as an adult.

This could have had the makings of a very funny, thought provoking story. By limiting it to a 12A, in the UK, Mr Woodcock is not the devil incarnate, but a "pussy with a whistle". If he had made the kids' lives really hell, and this shown on the screen, it could have been both very funny and yet at the same time a poignant reminder of the responsibility of educators to ensure the welfare of their students.

The ending prevents any clear message or purpose in the film. If Mr Woodcock is such a horrendous teacher / person with a history of such abuse of power, how is it that the mother does not know? Surely in a small town in Nebraska, the local PE teacher, who is single, would surely attract attention. Kids talk all the time. If this mistreatment was occurring in every lesson, a teacher would have seen something, a pupil would have said something. Why did no parent see any bruising from the impact of the balls on their child's body? At the award ceremony for 'Educator of the year' numerous people stand up to sing the praises of this supposed monster. The fact that he is the best educator, despite his flawed approach suggests that every other teacher in the town is useless or the way to motivate students to achieve is to throw balls at them, or make them do pull ups in their underwear, or to stand on their backs whilst they perform press ups.

In writing my report on Mr Woodcock, it would have to say that whilst potential was shown, the end result is a disappointing overall effort. Must do better!

A very funny production, causing consternation for all die hard Star Wars fans, stating that "Girls don't get Star wars". The inquisitive ones then ask "is that why we don't have girlfriends?"

From the opening scenes to the 60 second blitz of all 6 movies, it is a roller coaster of spot on impressions, 'improvised' skits and catchy songs. My favourite being "I'm Yoda, I'm Yoda, I'm greener than a toader".

The George Lucas Appreciation Society (GLAS) have put together a really entertaining show that all fans (or sceptics) of the movies should watch.

Without meaning to, or maybe it does, it does go some way to explain the appeal of the series, showing how they and the audience grew.

Its very funny and it should, no it MUST be made available to buy.

As always the good guys wear white wear the bad guts wear black. or do they? Once again, viewers are asked to decide whether law and order are naturally the good guys, or whether it is okay to cheer for the bad guys, especially if the good guys are the bad guys, representing the good guys who are really the bad guys. Confused? You shouldn't be.

Adam Sandler makes a decent job as portraying the all-American superstar gone wrong in this remake of the Burt Reynolds '70s movie. Sandler, like Reynolds rarely stretches his acting and it felt like a vision of what Sandler's life would be like if he had not made a living making movies.

The difference between the two films, for me, however, seemed that the original attempted to educate people about the complexities of American Football. The remake assumed a knowledge about rules and scoring systems, yet at the same time decided that keeping the scoring system simple made for an understanding. The original had missed kicks etc. This one keeps the more technical aspects such as the drop goal and the safety kept back in the locker room.

The sports clips are well made and the convicts feel more realistic. The original tough guys lacked a certain menace, whereas people liked Dulip Singh bring an all too real physical presence. In addition, the guards are more physical and commanding.

On the negative side, Cloris Leachman should have not stooped so low for a paycheck. She's better than that. Why Rob Schneider suddenly appears is also a mystery? I guess he replaces Chris Rock as the comedy provider.

In the original, Paul Crewe spends time in the swamps before caving in, whereas this time, it is time in the hole. In the swamp, you really felt the punishment, whereas the film failed to portray the hardships of the hole and the desert in which he was detained.

I am always critical of remakes. Why? because they often fail to produce anything new and often detract from the vision or the impact of the original. Fortunatly, this is a remake worth making, if not to put the abysmal Vinnie Jones' Mean Machine into the relegation zone.

I like casino, even though I am not a great fan of any of its principal players (De Niro, Pesci or Stone). The film is good in places, drawn out in others and sometimes just takes my breath away.

However, my lasting memory is the killing of Nick and Frankie by the mob, to the tune of The Animals' House of the rising sun still stuns and shocks me. Even though you see it coming, the end result is graphic, simple and well acted, even to the point where the hoods get exhausted from the beatings they administer.

I sit there, watching this scene and I wonder what, apart from the baseball bats, would be going through their minds, especially Nick knowing that his brother is going to be killed and he will soon join him. I hope I never find out!

I didn't get it. It was a film I saw as a teenager and I remember how bad it was.

It seems that everyone was enjoying an hedonistic lifestyle, the upshot being, however, that you ended up dying because of it.

My lasting memory is of Richard Todd (what was he thinking) walking quite happily to the firing squad, just to impress the girl.

Plan 9 from outer space might be a bad film, but this is so much worse. This will never have the cult following of Plan 9 and I hope, in a perverse sort of way, that this film gets deleted and is never seen again.

The third and final (?) installment of the Saw movies lead me again through a roller-coaster of plots, subplots and red herrings. My assumptions, based upon Saw II, were proved wrong in a matter of moments and I found myself itching, and occasionally squirming, in my seat. This was partly due to the length of the film, but mainly due to the visual and audio battering my senses took during some of the painfully and stomach churning 'games'.

Indeed, in the cinema, 2 couples left, never to return and several more left and returned looking worse for wear.

I wanted more, but also wanted less. I wanted more torture, more blood and guts and more dialogue.

I wanted less stop / start photography and X-file style movement. This is my only gripe. Without this cinematic style, it might have been nice to see just how big the warren of rooms and traps ran.

The ending surprised me. After three films, you would think that I would know better! However, Jigsaw's final piece might be a clever 4th episode from beyond the grave. The magic now of these films is that so many recipients of his style of crime and punishment could be locked away in the belly of the city that the floodgates could be wide open for an ever expanding franchise of films.

I hope so. Jigsaw has left me annoyed, frustrated, impressed and ever so slightly nauseous.

I like it, I want more. I want to play, a final, final game!

We all like the Scary Movie series. They are funny, witty and well acted, mainly because the actors are funny and do not take the role too seriously. Well not all of them, SM4 is ruined by Craig Bierko and Leslie Neilson (wash my mouth out with soap).

Mr Neilson has made some very funny movies (Airplane, Naked Gun) and some shockers (Mr Magoo). However, he brings nothing to SM4 and his address to the United Nations is both insulting, hammy and, worst of all, simply not funny! Craig Bierko has the dubious honour of being the lead man, pushing the prettier, but, more importantly, funnier Anna Faris to the sidelines. He might be the lead man but his performance was more like lead (a little homophone for you to work on). The final scenes, where he guest appears on 'Oprah' is truly embarrassing and, at times, he looks as if he is equally embarrassed. He does not give a good enough performance as either the straight man or a funny guy.

SM4 does provide another game of 'Spot the movie' and the acknowledgements towards The Grudge, War of the Worlds, Brokeback Mountain and Saw, amongst others, is good. It remains a mystery why they ignored the Zombie opportunity, especially with the reincarnation of Brenda.

The writers and producers need to ensure that the next movie (if there is to be another) is not rushed, and endeavour to produce a film that is as funny as the original and its 2 sequels. If they fail, the Scary Movie franchise may end up a parody of that other great, but finally embarrassing series, Police Academy.