Reviews

This film has, in my opinion, been unfairly criticised.

Let's get a few things straight. It's a spoof. The humour is meant to be puerile, adolescent and cheap.

The laughs come thick and fast. Okay so it has some cheap shots but what spoof doesn't? If you're looking for an intelligent comedy then put this one back and look elsewhere. What you get is a send-up of some of the best (and worst) Hollywood movies and some great toilet humour (in at least one case literally!).

It's not Shakespeare. It's not as funny as Airplane! or Top Secret but it's still well worth a watch.

The 1990's saw a whole string of low-budget, straight-to-video comedies that slipped by unnoticed among the blockbusters that drew the crowds. Sadly "HOUSEGUEST" seems to have slipped by with them.

Expertly cast, warmly scripted and hilariously acted it sees Sinbad star as Kevin Franklin, a loser who owes money to the mob. Fleeing town he gets mistaken at the airport for Gary Young's long-lost friend. A man without options, Kevin goes along with it all and soon finds himself pretending to be a dentist, a wine connoisseur and an expert golfer. Meanwhile, he wins the hearts of Gary's young family (also expertly cast and very believable) and soon, when the family know the truth, they're rallying around helping Kevin to leave his sordid, dangerous past behind.

Full of laughs, HOUSEGUEST is one to watch. Don't let this one slip!

When I first saw this movie back in 1995 it was the first time I'd ever seen Adam Sandler. I'd seen Brendan Fraser before in CALIFORNIA MAN and Steve Buscemi was of course already established. It was the night before a big job interview and this movie made me forget all my worries.

The cast gels from the very start. Brendan Fraser and Adam Sandler are particularly believable as greasy, heavy metal layabouts who want to make it to the big time. Also making near cameo appearances are the late Chris Farley as an overweight probationary cop, the excellent Michael McKean as the geeky, back-stabbing radio station boss and Joe Mantegna as the sympathetic but easily infuriated DJ.

Don't let the title and the nature of this movie put you off. It's exceptionally well scripted and acted with the kind of attention-to-detail only usually seen in bigger-budget movies. Sure the cliches are all there and some of the movie is predictable but there's more than enough original, cutting-edge comedy to satisfy the most discerning comedy fan.

Hire it, borrow it, buy it but whatever you do, SEE IT. You'd be an Airhead not to!

I personally found this film unwatchable for one simple reason. "Wilson" is played by Terence Stamp, an actor of undeniable brilliance, but who is totally incapable of doing a Cockney accent. The story-line, action and dialogue were fine (from what I saw) but I switched off very quickly because I couldn't take Stamp's performance at all seriously. Not since Dick Van Dyke's questionable accent in "Mawy Poppins" (and no, that's not a typo!) have I heard anything so ridiculous. Being that England is multi-cultural surely Stamp should have been allowed to play the role with an accent he could actually do well?! Re-dub the movie and I'll buy it!!

I never expect much from movies made by Hollywood about events in the UK but with this title I was pleasantly surprised. Johnny Depp's "Mockney" accent leaves a lot to be desired but his acting, as usual, is flawless. Based largely on fact this film makes interesting viewing, particularly as a somewhat new and untested "theory" as to the identity of the Ripper was chosen. The portrayal of Fred Abberline as a drug addict is somewhat unusual and frankly somewhat ridiculous but it lends a certain atmosphere to the proceedings, giving the whole movie that "nightmare" feel. If you can stomach some incredibly accurate, anatomically correct "gore" then you're in for a treat.

Not since the days of Fawlty Towers have we (the UK) had more reason to be proud of our contribution to television comedy.

The League of Gentlemen (LOG for short) gained notoriety several weeks before its first screening. I sat down to watch the first episode back in 1999 and half an hour later my sides still hurt.

Not only are the characters believable (er, actually with the possible exception of Papa Lazarou) but the attention to detail is breathtaking. For weeks after the first episode was screened I heard echoes of the catchphrases wherever I went. Sure the humour wears off slightly after the umpteenth viewing but then who can honestly say Fawlty Towers is still as funny as when you first saw it? What gives the LOG lastability is that every time you watch it you notice things you didn't see before.

The truth is, we all live in Royston Vasey (which in case you didn't know is the real name of UK comic Roy "Chubby" Brown). Next time you go shopping, gaze through the window of your local charity shop. You see those two old ladies' with a fixation on carrier bags? Don't they ring any bells? Next time you go to the pub, isn't there a little man with a permed hair cut cracking awful jokes? Probably. Most of the characters are based on people the writers encountered at some time. That's what makes the comedy so refreshing. We can all relate to the LOG.

Harvey Denton with his penchant for toads and neatness, the Denton twins who bear a striking resemblance to the Grady girls in The Shining, Pauline who is as strange a re-start officer as any you'll find at your local job centre and Doctor Chinnery, the local vet who is, well, crap. They're all in there.

I've spoken to people from the USA who love the show. There are parts they don't understand but that's because LOG is a very English comedy. If you've never seen it, get yourself down to Blockbuster and hire it. If you have breath in your body I promise you won't be disappointed. Open your mind, sit back and relax. If you thought YOUR town was strange, wait until you've seen Royston Vasey. You'll never leave!

I watched The Others last night having heard rave reviews. I must say that I wasn't disappointed.

The film is extremely atmospheric, the children's medical aversion to light conveniently making it very dark and very spooky. Don't expect to be scared out of your wits. With the exception of a couple of moments, this film doesn't make you jump out of your seat. It does however make you feel very uneasy and there are moments of suspense where you want to look away from the screen.

The Others proves that you don't need to spend millions on CGI or Special Effects to make a good film. The extraordinary twist in the tale is hinted at quite often but I didn't guess it before it was revealed. The characters are padded, believable and likeable.

Now that I know the story twist it will be hard to enjoy the movie a second time but it's well, well, worth seeing if like me you've managed to avoid somebody spoiling the surprise.

How many times have we heard "The film isn't as good as the book"? Let's face it. What film IS?! Red Dragon was a masterpiece and so is Manhunter.

To appreciate that there are two issues. Firstly, the film was created in 1986. It's stylised and looks slightly dated. The soundtrack is excellent but again very 1980's. Secondly, Red Dragon was not an easy book to write a screenplay for. There is way too much information that made the book so enthralling to squeeze in to 2 hours.

The cinematography, in particular the clever use of light and colours, is breathtaking. The choice of locations was also very deliberate. The scene where Will is running out of the building after speaking to Hannibal Lecter. They chose a building with a long spiral ramp down. The ramp is white, clinical. Running down the ramp is like those dreams where the bad man is chasing you and you can't get away. Will runs his heart out but doesn't get very far.

I agree that Cox plays a different Lecter but then the book wasn't about Lecter. There was some mention made but Lecter in this film is very much a Cameo appearance. The way in which Will goes about catching the killer is every bit as clever as Starling's methods, if not more so. In addition, we are treated to the thoughts, the inner monologue, the frustration and triumph of a hunter.

Make no mistake, if you expect an up-to-date movie as good in every respect as the book, you'll be disappointed. If you're sensible and expect nothing more than 2 hours quality entertainment you'll enjoy this one.