Reviews

The Golden Age has given us such a varied roster of genres so far on blu-ray, and each film brings something unique to the vintage funhouse. For The Diamond Wizard, I was intrigued by the prospect of period location shots of 1950s England. Nothing brings a setting and an era to life like 3-D photography, and the filmmakers didn't disappoint. It's a poised, polished and very enjoyable police procedural with noir elements.

The two male stars (Dennis O'Keefe and Philip Friend) play well off each other and contrast nicely as characters, the brash American (O'Keefe) drawing his Scotland Yard counterpart out of his staid shell, always with a friendly nudge. Margaret Sheridan shines as both romantic interest and a potential lead in the case. She's spirited and playful without being a full-blown femme fatale. The supporting cast is very good, and I especially like how each character, down to the smallest part, is given a little quirk to make them memorable, reminiscent of I, The Jury.

Story-wise, it's solid and well-paced. It's also easy to follow. The quaint forensic and investigative techniques are entertaining and informative. There are a couple of twists, but they didn't surprise me all that much. I liked that the action finale didn't outstay its welcome.

The 3-D is better than I hoped it would be. The exterior street shots are incredibly atmospheric, while the interiors are always set up to maximize the sense of space just in front of and behind the frame. It has an elastic effect on the visual field, making us forget where the actual screen is. That's the opposite of a gimmick; it's immersive because it draws us in intuitively. I was always aware of the 3-D but never distracted by it (apart from a few fun pop-outs), and loved every second.

The English setting makes it a personal favourite, but it would be a top-tier Golden Age 3-D title even without that. The impeccable 3-D is complemented by a fun detective yarn, a polished screenplay, and rock-solid performances. Not to mention another outstanding restoration by the 3DFA, one of their best yet. I couldn't ask for more than that.

Witty and unpredictable, this black comedy-horror plays like a modern-day Vincent Price film. The satire is fun, the pacing tense, and top marks go to the dialogue, which is sharp and often laugh-out-loud funny in ways that keep the viewer on their toes.

The mystery of the meal experience, and what the chef is up to, is cleverly directed as a comedy of manners at first, then evolves into something much more sinister.

Ralph Fiennes is brilliant, while Anya Taylor-Joy continues to impress. The whole film is a five-course treat for those who like their thrillers dark and demented with a delicious serving of skewered pomp.

Highly recommended.

Pure movie magic. I've always liked stories about unexpected connections made between lost souls. This one is lovely - a funny, bittersweet tale of two Americans, one young, one middle-aged, who meet in Japan at a crossroads in their respective life journeys. It's an acquaintance that only lasts days, but will be important for the rest of their lives.

Director Sofia Coppola has a light, ruminative touch that works wonders here. She draws out the subtle emotions and vivid personalities of Charlotte (a luminous Scarlett Johansson) and Bob (a never-better Bill Murray). It's not quite a romance. It's something much deeper, more poignant.

A modern classic.

Gorgeous, atmospheric, and unique. Kobayashi is a master director, and he's firing on all artistic cylinders here. The second story segment is my favourite, but they're all singular and haunting tales of the supernatural. Cinematography is stunning. Editing is superb. Acting is strong. The film plays like a waking dream (or nightmare), combining aesthetic beauty with otherworldly visions of the macabre. In other words, pure cinema.

Cease Fire! is a noble experiment of a film that succeeds spectacularly on some levels and just flat-out doesn't work on others. Paradoxically, in terms of "authenticity", I'd say the 3-D (that so-called gimmick) is by far the strongest element, while the casting of real soldiers is the weakest. If it had been a documentary, those guys would have been riveting; for me, having them deliver scripted lines undermines the effect the filmmakers were striving for. Throw in a couple of stalwart professional Hollywood actors to anchor the drama and give the guys something to play off and, well, you might have had something. But this plays flat for the most part. The artificiality strangles the reality. On second viewing, I did find myself warming to the whole thing a little more, concentrating on the personalities rather than the script. I have a soft spot for it now, but I still don't think the casting experiment works.

The 3-D, though, really is superb as a window into this specific period, as is the sound. It's definitely worth watching for the gorgeous stereography and the sheer immersive power of that format unleashed on a real battlefield. In terms of bringing history to life, of evoking the visual feel of a time and place, I can't think of a better way to achieve it (photoreal VR is some way off). I feel like I've had an intimate glimpse of the Korean War, and that's not nothing.

Alita gets a thumbs-up from me, both the movie and the 3-D. The story is not as sophisticated as I was expecting, but it's well done and reasonably exciting throughout. Parts of it are horrific, enough to give younger viewers nightmares, while Alita herself is a peppy teen heroine ripped straight from a comic book. The world-building is epic, more vibrant and colourful than the usual sci-fi dystopia. The story takes some dark turns in the second half; the mix of techno-body-horror and pulpy action adventure won't be to everyone's taste, but I think Rodriguez and Cameron pulled it off. As advertised, the film does have a lot of heart. Alita is a perfectly realised and acted sci-fi robot heroine.

I enjoyed the 3-D quite a bit. At no point did I feel truly wowed, but likewise I never felt cheated. There are strong sequences, particularly on the giant cable to the sky city and the brilliant Motorball circuits. Objects and characters protrude from the screen frequently, but the effect is subtle so they don't seem like pop-outs (apart from the metal tentacles that shoot out). It's a very good, varied use of native 3-D that, while not as striking as the best Marvel conversions, is definitely worthwhile.

Safe. Pleasant. Uninspired. Pretty much every aspect of the film falls under those descriptions, especially the 3-D. The only surpassing element, for me, was the stunningly photo-real CGI, but even that brought its own baggage in terms of the characters' emoting. Animals' faces can't express human emotion; animators have always had to anthropomorphise them to an extent (it's what Disney was always great at); but here they don't. The lions' faces are blank. Their mouths move to speak human words, they sing to one another, but they're stuck in that too real/ unreal paradox, and it kept distracting me. There's just something a little "off" about the whole approach. I didn't have that problem at all with The Jungle Book, probably because the animals all had Mowgli to interact with. But here it kept me at a distance, emotionally. Didn't spoil the film for me, but it did make me question what I was looking at.

The 3-D was immersive at times - it added dynamism and tactility to some sequences. It definitely wasn't a waste of time. But after the impressive 3-D in Aladdin and Dumbo, I felt it was a step back into the timid, afraid-to-be-noticed approach we've seen so often from Disney. The extended sequence with the clump of lion hair reminded of the floating ticket scene in The Polar Express. But while Zemeckis worked the Z-axis overtime - in IMAX, it's still one of my favourite 3-D sequences - here they stay comfortably in the Goldilocks zone, and it's all a bit shrug-worthy.

Oddly enough, the 3-D conversion of the original cartoon was also a let-down.

Parasite is a dopey, ropey little grindhouse schlock-fest that wouldn't be much fun in 2D but is an absolute blast in 3D, and that's exactly what it was meant to be. The extreme pop-outs rival those in The Bubble and Jaws 3, while the layering and depth and use of 3D space are always eye-catching.

I like the way Band and his stereographer experiment with foreground/background separation. It's like they're figuring out a new visual language for the Z-axis, but unlike most modern meddlers in 3D, Band, like Arch Oboler with The Bubble, relished the negative space "outside the screen" as well. I love that. I think it's fabulous for this kind of film. The metal tray in the lab and the steel pipe with blood dripping out are easily two of my favourite 3D moments ever.

I didn't know the story was post-apocalyptic, so that added a little interest. And to be honest I've seen a lot worse. The lead actor is so bad his performance ranks below that of the parasite. The rest of the cast is decent. I didn't find the film scary or jumpy in the slightest, but it is icky. As others have said, the 3D restoration is superb - more than up to the 3D Film Archive's unfailingly high standards.

This might be the best example yet of 3-D transforming the viewing experience of a particular film. Gothic horror mysteries are all about atmosphere, putting you in the cinematic head-space of someone going through a dark, off-kilter, traumatic experience. Shadow and light tell the story as much as the actors and the dialogue. Director Menzies draws us into the eerie world of the castle and its maze by using all the tropes of the genre-mist, candlelight, ominous set design, stark lighting, secret passages-but with an especially immersive use of 3-D, the atmosphere is that much more palpable.

I found myself watching the background of the frame quite a few times, not because there was anything going on there, but because that sense of space-the depth or "back" missing from background in 2-D-opened up the possibility that something could conceivably happen there, in the shadows. That's what might happen if we were really there in the castle, standing alongside these people, with strange things going on. Our eye would naturally explore the shadows and the corners of rooms. In 2-D, we're well aware any illusion of depth is an illusion-we're more content to be passively directed to watch this flat actor or that flat space. In 3-D, a sense of reality spills into the illusion because it's so close to how we see the real world. I believe it makes us, as viewers, more participatory in each scene; our eye can wander from the main action and still be invested in the scene and its storytelling, but with greater nuance. It's like deep focus, except we really do get the depth. We can see all the way to the backs of sets and feel every inch of that distance between angles and objects. It's this extra layering effect that Menzies absolutely capitalizes on in The Maze. 3-D isn't just an enhancement here, it's integral to the way he designed and shot the film, and to the genre itself. We're living in a Gothic nightmare.

One of my favourite sequences is when Kitty finds the hidden passage leading out of her room. It's full of cobwebs (and the usual iffy bats flapping about). He lingers on the dimensions of that staircase, on its sense of height, and the shadowy mystery leading us up to...a crucial view. It's so creepy in 3-D, that passageway. Menzies is having a good time teasing us. Inside the maze itself is intimate and immersive because he mostly keeps the camera on the two women, but leaves us just enough space to watch the hedges behind them and around them.

The ending was always going to be divisive. I think it deserves points for originality, but I didn't completely buy the explanation.

For me, the acting was very good all round. Veronica Hurst convinced me every step of the way. I enjoyed the mystery, the setting, the exquisite photography, and most of all the splendid use of 3-D to bring a Gothic horror to life. The restoration was so good, the picture quality and 3-D were genuinely jaw-dropping throughout. I've watched it twice and liked it even more second time around. It's a must-own for fans of 3-D and/or Gothic mysteries.

Adventure n. 1 an unusual, exciting, and daring experience. 2 excitement arising from danger or risk.

While you could argue that Alice Parker's (Rhonda Fleming) initial journey to the Amazon trading outpost to reach her fiance meets the above requirements for an adventure, that part of her story isn't shown on screen. In fact, the only real adventure here takes place in the final twenty-five minutes. But what a glorious twenty-five minutes! A rope bridge over a raging river, dense jungle foliage with all the layering you could dream of, windswept ruins, hostile natives shooting flaming arrows at the camera: it's exactly what I wanted when I first heard about Jivaro.

The preceding hour-and-a-bit, quite frankly, isn't what was advertised. In fact, it's dramatically quite anaemic. The superbly underplayed romance between Alice and Rio (Fernando Lamas) would be perfect as a secondary plot element if the main story-her quest to find her fiance-had any weight. But it rarely does. And the conflict, provided by lascivious prospector Brian Keith, peaks during a bruising fist-fight but then gets swept up in the final expedition and promptly loses its steam.

As with several of these Golden Age 3-D films, I had to watch Jivaro twice, the first time for what it wasn't, the second time for what it was. On second viewing, I surrendered to the leisurely pace and found I could luxuriate in the sumptuous stereography, colourful production, fine acting, and the imaginative evocation of this Amazon setting on the studio backlot. You could say I jived with Jivaro and became a fan. Plus, I just love the 1950's Technicolor feel.

The 3-D is wonderful throughout. You're always conscious of it but never distracted by it, apart from the flying arrows and such near the end. It reminded me of the intuitive, naturalistic 3-D in Miss Sadie Thompson, which was strong without being ostentatious. The layering of dripping water in Alice's room when the rainstorm hits is one of my favourite effects: it's gritty and dream-like at the same time, and absolutely puts you inside the room with her. The sheeting rain outside is also great, as is the smoke in the saloon. There are several instances of characters jumping into the frame from negative space-remember Igor in House of Wax-and they work every time.

The film fulfils its 3-D action-adventure potential and then some as it reaches the finale, first with the rope bridge sequence and then, one of my favourites of any Golden Age 3-D blu-ray, the Valley of the Winds sequence. It's so exotic and striking and dangerous-looking, it kicks the film up several gears. Combined with the sound effects and some clever stereo touches-raging water, a swaying corpse, the positioning of the actors-it's transportive in all the ways I want a movie adventure to be.

To my mind this is the most "Hollywood" of all the Golden Age 3-D titles I've seen so far. I mean that as a compliment, of course. It's sumptuous, vibrant, lusty, melodramatic, romantic, and it has exactly the characters (and actors playing them) you'd want in period genre fare like this: the macho matinee hero, the strong-willed heroine who starts out antagonistic but eventually comes to see things the hero's way, the hissable villains, the wildcard interlopers you're never too sure about.

At least two plot twists blind-sided me, which is always good. The script is sharp enough and the material sturdy enough to keep me invested through repeat screenings. It's a polished, colourful production that's typical of the kind of literary costume romp the Hollywood studio system used to deliver on a good day. I enjoyed every minute of it.

Fernando Lamas is so perfectly cast it's almost untrue. His speech at the court hearing more than convinced me of Carlos's intelligence and his moral compass. There's also a Flynn-like ironic touch to his bravado; he knows exactly what the material is and how this well-educated-yet-two-fisted character should be played.

Arlene Dahl is at her best when she's at her feistiest. She really lights up whenever a scene gets dramatic and tempers flare, though to be honest she's very good throughout. Like Rhonda Fleming and Eleanor Parker, those other underrated redheads, she's a far more accomplished actress than her cover girl looks might suggest.

Patricia Medina is one of the most gorgeous women I've ever seen. I think her character is the hardest to swallow, but she acquits herself admirably. This is a very competent cast indeed.

Numerous 3-D shots in Sangaree are strikingly composed. Two in the tobacco warehouse, umpteen at the ball, at least one in the courtroom, several crowd scenes indoors and outdoors, some views over the water: it's a varied and highly effective use of what was at the time a fledgling form of visual storytelling. Much has been made of the innovative early uses of sound, of colour, of the widescreen format, and the films that first managed to incorporate them seamlessly into the filmgoing experience. I'd place several 3-D shots from Sangaree alongside any moments from those in terms of seamlessness, artistry, and the sheer magic of experiencing a fresh dimension of cinema. Critics maintain that a 3-D film should be able to stand on its own without the extra dimension. Well, this one does, thank you very much, but it's so much more when viewed the way the filmmakers intended. All films should be afforded that right.

This exceeded my expectations, but only in 3D. It's phenomenal in that format. I defy anyone to watch the flat version and the stereoscopic version and not be a 3D convert afterwards. It's just pure magic. Almost every shot is either striking or has something interesting going on, dimensionally. A top-notch effort by the original filmmakers and, of course, the restoration team, without whose wizardly work we'd never have had this 3D treat.

I like the film itself for what it is--a breezy, slightly dopey sailing adventure with a hint of romance and a fun little treasure hunt thrown in. Joanne Dru is better than this film, Mark Stevens is perfect for it (and seems to be having a blast), while Asher Dann and Robert Strauss are just, well, there. I think the script squanders its chances of creating some real tension later on, which undermines what Dru is trying her best to wring out of the thin plot. Both the love triangle and the dark character twists are shrugged off. But there's a lot to enjoy here: the underwater scenes, the flamenco dance, the Mediterranean scenery, some fun banter, the boat itself in 3D, and the lovely Miss Dru. I've watched the movie three times already and I've liked it more each time, which bodes well for its longevity.

A rousing men-on-a-mission action-adventure with an angry political message, this covers the same ground as Rambo 2 and is almost as entertaining. The great Gene Hackman plays Colonel Rhodes, a father haunted by his son's disappearance behind enemy lines during the Vietnam War. For years he tries, and fails, to convince the US government to help him find Frank. In a last-ditch attempt, he recruits several of Frank's comrades-in-arms, who each, in his own way, has unfinished business with the war, to join him on a daring rescue mission.

What follows is a by-the-numbers but stirring action film, with an extremely likeable cast including Fred Ward, Tim Thomerson, and a young Patrick Swayze. James Horner provides another of his brilliant 80's action scores, by turns haunting and pulse-quickening. The set-up and training sequences are rock solid and fun, and the final rescue mission is downright exciting. I liked it better than The Dirty Dozen, which had way too much comedy for me to take it seriously. Uncommon Valor strikes a much better balance between popcorn heroics and its more sobering themes, both human and political. It's an underrated film, one I never tire of watching.

Old-fashioned in the best sense, this mountaineering adventure boasts a stellar cast--Glenn Ford, Alida Valli, Cedric Hardwicke, Claude Rains, Lloyd Bridges, and Oskar Homolka--and a simple premise: a young woman (Valli) returns to the Swiss Alps to conquer the eponymous mountain that claimed her father's life years before. But she has to persuade several other climbers to brave the perilous ascent with her. Each has his own reason for accepting, while the lone American member (Ford), at first tagging along just to spend time with the beautiful Valli, gradually finds a deeper reason of his own.

The recent Second World War looms large over the story. Indeed, the White Tower itself is a clear metaphor for it: the three main characters all have something left to prove, and the higher they climb, the more the reveal about themselves, the more fractured the team becomes. It's not as psychologically complex as it sounds, though. You can easily work out who's who and how the relationships are going to develop as the story unfolds.

The joys here are the cast, the scenery, several gripping climbing sequences, and a lush score that evokes that aching sense of something lost that's also somehow within reach again...if only love can prevail.

Corny, maybe, but if you like old Hollywood and adventure films, this one will work like a charm.

One of the all-time great British comedy-dramas as far as I'm concerned. It has spiky, earthy humour, a strong political message, and a huge heart. Pete Postlethwaite is fabulous as the band's enthusiastic conductor, Ewan McGregor and Tara Fitzgerald play it just right as old flames trying awkwardly to pick up where they left off, but it's TV star Stephen Tompkinson (Ballykissangel, Wild at Heart) who delivers the performance of his life here, as a struggling trombonist almost beaten by life's misfortunes--I say almost, because when you see his face full of teary defiance during his band's heartfelt rendition of Londonderry Aire, realising what it means to him, you'll feel everything this superb film wants you to about the plight of working class men and women (in this case coal miners) given the shaft by Margaret Thatcher's government. Unmissable.

Captures some truly magical moments from the pages of Burroughs' stories. Apart from a few issues I have with the main villain, I love everything about this movie. It's a delightfully old-fashioned pulp adventure rooted in a rich mythology. Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins were perfectly cast after all, while the green Tharks, and especially Carter's beloved watchdog Woola, make fascinating and endearing alien creatures. Michael Giacchino's music soars, but is also enchanting in its tender, quieter moments. Director Andrew Stanton will probably never get the recognition he deserves; this was a tricky movie to pull off, and I for one think he did Burroughs proud.

One of the year's best movies.

What begins as a fun, nimble little mystery in the first act soon kicks into comedy-action-adventure high gear when junior reporter Tintin, with his brave dog Snowy, stumbles upon boozy Captain Haddock (an excellent Andy Serkis), whose family legacy may prove pivotal in a race to uncover the secret of the Unicorn.

From that point on, it's more or less non-stop comedy—some fizzles, most of it works—with gags ranging from jaw-dropping blockbuster chase antics to throwaway background humour. Captain Haddock works brilliantly for the most part: he's unpredictable, endearing, and colourful in all the ways Tintin himself isn't. While the youngster is well played by Jamie Bell, he's mostly just there to work out the clues for the audience. Tintin and Haddock make for a good double-act, though: brains and brawn, cunning and in-over-his-head rashness; together they'd make a good Indiana Jones.

The plot is a by the numbers mystery/adventure/treasure hunt, complete with bumbling detectives (so-so comic support from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost), exciting sea plane action and hidden clues, but it's brought to life in gorgeous visual style. While the script only comes alive in fits and starts, the whole film is bursting with rich detail, and is given added depth by a good, solid use of 3D. The virtual camera-work throughout is stupendous.

One extended chase sequence through the flooding streets of a North African city is so dazzling and dizzying it reminded me why no other filmmaker can match Spielberg when he lets his imagination out for a spin. Another action scene, told in flashback, depicts a breathless pirate showdown in a storm, and features some of the most playful transitions I've seen since Ang Lee's Hulk. There's a pretty good villain, too, played by a wily Daniel Craig.

Snowy, while definitely smarter than your average cute canine, is also given to chasing cats, digging up fossilised bones from the desert, and gobbling sandwiches at decidedly inopportune moments. In other words, he's an instant audience favourite.

All in all, it's a rollicking good adventure, one of Spielberg's most fun movies in a long time, and I'll be buying it on Blu-ray next year.

Vikings versus an alien monster.

Still reading? Good for you, because you're in for a genre treat with Outlander, an action-horror that knows exactly what it wants to be and makes no apologies. James Caviezel plays Kainen, an alien warrior whose spaceship crashes in Iron Age Norway. Captured by a Viking tribe, he quickly realises that the atrocities visited upon local villages are the work of a Moorwen, a deadly creature from his home world. The monster stowed away on his ship and is now wreaking havoc, unopposed. It's up to Kainen to help these poorly equipped people hunt and kill a far superior foe. The Viking King (played by the always brilliant John Hurt) and his sword-wielding daughter (lovely Sophia Myles) recognise the outlander's worth, while other members of the tribe would rather blame him for the bloodshed. An uneasy alliance begins.

It's an old, old formula but the sci-fi bent gives this hero tale (Beowulf from outer space) plenty of juice. Caviezel plays it deadly serious, and the story's much stronger for it. Kainen and the Moorwen share a bitter history; this isn't a straightforward hero versus monster scenario. Apart from the well-done action scenes and special effects, Outlander has a solid script, a strong visual look (misty forests, caves, waterfalls etc) and four or five good actors. Add to this a fascinating creature and you have one of the better 'B' movies of recent years. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

This is a terrific little time travel movie called Time After Time, in which H.G. Wells must pursue Jack the Ripper from 1893 to 1979 to stop the madman's killing spree. It's chock full of lovely creative flourishes, such as the Ripper actually being one of the distinguished dinner guests invited to Wells' unveiling of his new creation, the time machine. In 1979, the Ripper (played by Brit veteran David Warner) fits in far more easily than poor H.G., whose misplaced theses on a future utopia come crashing down about him. But love, he decides, is the perennial constant that makes the decadence bearable; and in this case, his romance with sweet Amy (Mary Steenburgen) forces him to address his pacifist theories--if he wants to save her life.

Scripted and directed by Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek: Wrath of Khan), it's a witty, inventive and rather elegant film. The Ripper is never a one-dimensional villain--indeed, he's very much the intellectual counterpart of Wells--but Warner knows how to play nasty when required. Malcolm McDowall's performance as Wells is a delight. He's naive and bumbling, yet also resourceful and tries, whenever possible, to underplay what could have easily been a cartoon character. Mary Steenburgen plays a younger, ditsier, more neurotic version of her Clara Clayton character in Back to the Future Part III. She's great as always.

I recommend Time After Time without hesitation. It's one of the better time travel movies I've seen.

*A review of the IMAX 3D version Say what you will about the "soulless" brand of movie mayhem served up by the likes of Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer and Roland Emmerich; roll your eyes at the crassness of it all; but have no doubt: audiences love this stuff. They're not being hoodwinked or manipulated into seeing anything they don't want to see. They, we, I know exactly what I'm paying my tenner for.

On the way out of a screening of Emmerich's 2012, someone described the experience as "like an apocalyptic roller-coaster." And that's a pretty fair summary, if you ask me. These are sensorial thrill-rides, state-of-the-art theme park attractions as much as they are movies. Audiences want to be blown out of their seats by the audiovisual experience. As long as the plot is coherent, the characters are likable enough for us to care whether they survive or not, there's an occasional laugh throw in to preserve that roller-coaster giddiness, well, there's your formula for this sort of thing. I can imagine select 3D scenes from this third Transformers film playing to sell-out crowds in any Universal Studios or techno theme park.

Dark of the Moon has stupendous scenes of destruction, perhaps even surpassing the aforementioned 2012. Director Bay's robot battles are epic. The hour-long showdown in a battered Chicago is worth the admission price alone. Vehicular carnage, military firepower, transformer face-offs galore--this sequence has it all, including skyscrapers being crushed and toppled by giant robot snakes. The 3D, too, is stunning, with a daredevil freefall by Josh Duhamel and his special ops rangers into a maelstrom of robo-carnage being the standout. It's eye-popping stuff, and just when you think Bay has peaked, he ups the ante tenfold until your brain can barely process what he and his filmmaking wizards have wrought with their limitless FX budget.

The series' throwaway humour is as hit-and-miss as ever, with John Turturro's oddball Agent Simmons and his even weirder German sidekick (Alan Tudyk) generating the most laughs. Ken Jeong is atrocious in his brief (but not brief enough) role as a paranoid office worker--probably the most grating comedy performance since Chris Tucker's screechy turn in The Fifth Element. Other series newcomers include John Malkovich and Frances McDormand; the former is given nothing to do, while the latter is good fun in her role as the brassy National Security Chief.

Duhamel and Tyrese are solid as ever in their stock gung-ho roles. Shia Laboeuf goes hysterical once too often but at least his character, Sam Witwicky, wants to join the action this time around. Brit model Rosie Huntington-Whitely is sweet as his new girlfriend, Carly, and makes a decent replacement for the Fox (whom I did miss, I have to say). In the transformers' cast, Leonard Nimoy makes a great voice contribution as the powerful and crucial Sentinel Prime.

I'm going to recommend Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3D to anyone who enjoyed the first movie, those who love action on a grand scale, or anyone who wants to see the potential of 3D technology. The SF prologue, including a nice alternate history reveal during the Apollo 11 EVA, showcases some breathtaking 3D framing and depth design. And the extended finale in Chicago is the must-see action event of the summer.

It's pretty much indefensible as anything but a thrill-ride, but I thoroughly enjoyed this one, as did the (astonishingly multi-cultural) audience at my IMAX 3D screening. It runs a bit long at two and a half hours, but once the Chicago sequence starts, you'll be gripped to the end.

This one's a LOT more ambitious than the first two. Three villains, a new girl, a walk on the dark side for our hero, not to mention massive action scenes: one thing's for sure, you get your money's worth.

OK, so Peter and Mary Jane's relationship is approaching Rhett Butler/Scarlett O'Hara levels in terms of will they, won't they, on/off fickleness. So there's enough characters here for five movies. And Aunt May's given little to do except spout wisdom. And the alien organism just "happens" to choose Peter Parker. Heck, these are nit-picks next to what Raimi and his team have delivered here.

It's a dark, muscular beast of a movie, and I loved it. My favourite parts were: The Sandman - brilliantly done, especially the magical rebirth sequence (Raimi and Church work wonders here).

Gwen Stacy - Howard looks stunning and can act. Oh, and are we really supposed to pity Peter for having to choose between her and...

Mary Jane Watson - excellent as always. Kirsten Dunst is a great beauty, but I also liked the identity crisis she goes through; it felt very real to me.

The action - jaw-dropping stuff. I thought the Doc Ock fights were terrific in Spidey 2, but these are bigger, longer and nastier. All of them are top notch.

I've heard gripes about the length, but I could happily watch these movies all day. Superheroes are really cooking at the moment, but Spider-man remains the best of the lot. Brilliant!

I think this will be remembered as Rodriguez's vanity project, a film so indulgent it makes a strong case for studio control. Its narrative is feeble, its caricatures squeezed into the plot, and even much of the action is repetitive. Rodriguez is an inventive filmmaker, but he's certainly no artist, as this, the third part of his personal Mariachi trilogy, proves.

Of the cast, Ruben Blades is good as an ex-FBI agent persuaded to avenge his partner, while Johnny Depp steals the film from just about everyone, including the director. The rest of this bloodbath is pretty much a bore. Banderas' character is reduced to an extremely silly comic book hero - more interested in his guitar than he is of avenging his woman (a redundant cameo from Salma Hayek).

Rodriguez intended this as his Leone trilogy, but as over the top as those Dollars films were, there was more gravitas in one frame than in the whole of this daft pastiche.

Overstuffed and very silly, this is a disappointing effort.

The comic book generation invades another film genre - this time, the historical epic. I had a fairly good time with '300'; I loved the super-charged fight scenes, enjoyed the painterly backdrops, and thought the royal couple (Butler and Headey) were superb. This could, and should, have been a classic.

The problem here is Frank Miller. Filmmakers seem to worship every pixel of his graphic novels, which is fine, but, translating those words and images to the big screen puts them under greater scrutiny. Do they pass muster? Yes and no. The visuals are punchy and dramatic; many scenes have jaw-dropping lighting and colour. The Spartans look great.

But this is as much a historical film as Lord of the Rings, the obvious inspiration for many of the freaks, monsters and downright fantastical elements on display here. Was the battle of Thermopylae not impressive enough without introducing fantasy? Of course it was. It was the greatest last stand in history. Those embellishments are silly, and rob the movie of any depth it might have had. Miller's freak show might have worked on the page, but I groaned every time a Persian "orc" warrior, a Quasimodo, or a nine foot tall god-king appeared on screen.

And Miller's dialogue is embarrassing. These are some of the corniest exchanges of the year. The mantra seems to be: if it works in a comic, it must work on screen. Compare this script to Braveheart's, Spartacus's or, better still, Zulu's (an infinitely better film about a last stand) and '300' is instantly juvenile.

Whatever Snyder would have you believe, '300' is a movie directed by a comic book, filtered through a video game. If it weren't for Butler and Headey, this would be an utterly lifeless experience. Come on, filmmakers, if you have to film a comic, adapt it, give it some depth. Don't just let an artist's imagination run rampant.

Overall verdict: fun but daft.