Reviews

I completely sympathise with those who view this as totally over-hyped as I've experienced first hand the effect it has on some rather deranged fans in the form of two former friends of mine who spent about a month speaking entirely in sentences with either the meaning 'I love Vince' or 'Xanthe looks like Naboo'. This by now has become a very old joke. I do look like Naboo, I've never once argued this point but do people really need to remind me every couple of days? As a result I've held a grudge for a long time without ever actually watching the series and giving it a fair chance, then about a month ago I finally got fed up of not really knowing what people were comparing me too (much like when people called me 'the girl from the ring') and watched all three series over a couple of days. I'm so glad I did because the feeling of loathing turning to love is so warm and lovely. Almost as warm and lovely as the show itself.

I can't really tell you what its about or why you should watch it because it can't really be explained. But I promise you it's one of the least cynical and good natured and funny besides programmes i have ever come across. Each episode it an experience you want to live out over and over again.

I hate the term 'random' applied to anything other than computer programmes which are designed to make genuinely random decisions so i totally reject the idea that anything about this show is random because it isn't, it's not weirdness for the sake of weirdness either, it has it's own beautiful logic if your prepared to go looking for it. It doesn't mind whether you like it or not either.

I think each individual gets something different out of it when they watch it so even reviewing it seems a little pointless. You're going to have to decide for yourself on this one, because the words of any one person don't really do it justice.

What i got out of it was a kind of inner peace not least of all because now when someone shouts 'Naboo' at me I can say 'I'm going to have to turn my back on you'.

There are really two types of films, films that are real and films that are films. There are some fantasy films that blend great acting with subtle effects with the result that they are spellbinding and they are real, Interview with the Vampire, Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish are these sorts of films. There are other films which blend big names with special effects made only to 'wow' the audience and these are just films, i promise they will not be remembered. Inkheart is definitely this sort of film.

Inkheart was made because it was guaranteed to make Hollywood money. It played a successful genre quite typically and to it's own downfall. Overall it lacked grace, structure and subtlety. Why was this? Many reasons.

To begin with the story was always going to be a difficult one because it was so complicated. The whole thing relied mainly on the belief that certain people known as silvertougues can simply read things straight out of a book. This concept was put to it's audience in the first few minutes and before anyone could ask for an explanation of just how that worked and how it was decided what was read out of the book and what was read in it whisked you off to the next bit.

Mainly the plot revolved around the idea of the central character 'Mo' searching the world for a copy of 'Inkheart' a book he had accidentally read his wife into. There's a sentence that lacks explanation, for during the film many times Mo reads from the book as does his daughter Meggie who turns out to have inherited his gift and nothing is taken into the book.

Because of this weak but complicated starting point the film calls for talent and dramatic special effects to distract the audience from the enormous gaps in the plot.

Major characters are portrayed by a variety of accomplished actors including Jim Broadbent, Paul Bettany and Andy Serkis who as always deliver a performance to the best of there ability and which do fortunately breath life into there otherwise weak and confusing and in unnecessarily complicated characters.

However in the central role we have Brendan Fraser a man who never fails to irritate me from the moment he appears on screen. Some people may call his performances hypnotic but if that is the case it is only because he has no control of his eye-brows. Watch them seriously, perhaps one of the reasons i can't focus on the plot is because i'm to busy watching them bounce up and down his face all the way through the film.

And then there is it's other asset the special effect which whilst indeed stunning blatantly mark it out as 'a film'. Effects that from the moment they first appear on the screen cry out 'hey look at our great visual effects!' When it comes to visual and special effects i always say the biggest compliment a film can get is when nobody notices them. Take my favourite film 'Interview with the Vampire' which whilst it uses exceedingly complex and state of the art (or it was at the time the film was made) effects they are so wonderfully subtly done nobody noticed them and they won no awards, i did not notice them until i atched the directors commentary. No such luck with Inkheart.

That said there is a silver lining. The film is watchable if you try not to focus on the plot and to see Andy Serkis in another one of his wonderfully wicked and vaguely amusing roles makes the film worth seeing once, as long as you are not the one paying for it. And the children took it well enough.

In fact the main thing that marked it out as 'just a film' for me was actually the usual irrelevant pop song playing over the credits.

I realise there are many who say that 'The Black Cauldron' is by far Disney's worst cartoon. I disagree.

Although i have nothing per say against light princess stories or the animal fun Disney usually goes in for: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Fox and the Hound, The Jungle Book, Cinderella... etc. I say it's always nice to have a change, something for the less stereo typical, darker children to enjoy.

I didn't know i was one of these children until i saw 'The black cauldron'. which quickly became my favourite Disney film.

I'm sure I am not the only one who has watched many Disney films and not been fully satisfied, ending it and thinking 'yes but that wouldn't really happen would it' thought maybe it's a bit to happy. Thought that maybe we need a better villain.

The first time i saw 'The Jungle Book' i was fine with Shear Carn but Ca the snake terrified me. You're never afraid of the people you're supposed to be afraid of in these films.

In Lady and the Tramp you're supposed to be scared of the Rat and creatures like that but i was too busy being completely freaked by the cats. In Beauty and the Beast it wasn't Gaston i was afraid of or the beast but that machine her father had. In The Little Mermaid it wasn't Ursula but those 'unfortunate soul' things. In Snow White it wasn't the witch it was the trees. The same applied for all of these Disney films except the Black Cauldron.

The villain is what makes this film. From the moment the film opens you see this terrifying black pot with this deep dark voice over which is then contrasted with the introduction of Taren, the central character and his pig, Hen.

It turns out the horned king is searching for the black cauldron which will give him the power to raise an army from the dead and to find the black cauldron the king will come looking for Hen, a pig with strange divining powers so Taren (who dreams of adventure and the like) must take Hen to the cottage on the other side of the wood and keep her hidden there.

On the way however Hen is stolen by some terrifying flying dragon monster things and Taren had to follow them to the horned kings castle and get hen back.

The Horned King is as frightening as for once he should be and voiced by the immensely talented John Hurt. He is the most affective animated villain ever on screen and i say that with confidence. However to lighten the mood a little he is accompanied by a delightful but much abused little green goblin who is great fun as well as sweet and quite charming even if he is a little mischievous.

Also along the way Taren comes across a sweet but strong minded princess, a highly dishonest but charming bard and the most irritating character ever put on screen. I can't remember his name but it's irritating. He is the one thing i am afraid the brings down the entire film in Disney's lame attempt to introduce comedy into the mix.

The film closes with a dramatic and thrilling climax and does not disappoint. It was a welcome relief and change from every other Disney movie and a great success as far as i'm concerned. you might not like it but i always will.

the Animation is poor and so is the script but the story and the characters shine though and will remain one of my favourite cartoons of all time whatever anyone else says about it.

There were good and bad things about this film.

Good things: Props, costumes and in particular sets were generally excellent the mise en scene was altogether perfect.

The story was generally quite good, the script wasn't late and some of the dialogue was... well... just naff and stupid but the plot expertly worked into all Anne Rices novels shone through.

It had vampires in it and i do love vampires.

Bad things: The acting was poor, the main actor playing Lestat (is it Stuart Townsend?) seemed to think he was playing a cross between a Gothic American school boy and a classic Dracula but Lestat isn't either. The performance lacked the sense of unique angry insanity brought to it by Tom Cruise in Neil Jordan's 'Interview with the Vampire' now ordinarily i wouldn't dream of saying such a thing about Tom Cruise but we all have to make exceptions and he played Lestat to perfection.

The ending was Hollywood not Anne Rice, it all seemed it end rather suddenly in a dark Indiana Jones sort of way. In a dramatic final scene with serious over-kill as far as visual effects are concerned Lestat saves the day.

I swear Lestat has had a personality change! In 'Interview-' he was so... flawed with no care for human life and yet here he practically becomes Louis and it doesn't suit him.

That character: Jesse, she annoyed me and i don't know why she just did.

Overall: It's worth watching but nothing about it exceeds Interview with the Vampire so don't expect anything nearly as good.

The mise-en-scene was a bit dodgy, going from great to disappointing, the music was the usual 80s irritating nonsense, the costumes were just about satisfactory and the acting was average but my god that film was funny! I'm afraid for all those faults it's still a fairly average film and i can't really give it more than a 6 but i still love it! Black comedy at it's best! 'Isn't it bad luck for the guest to see the food before the meal?' why do i find that so funny? It's one of those jokes that really REALLY shouldn't be but i was rolling around on the carpet in fits of laughter just the same.

'I wish grandpa would stop giving me these stupid thing!' I could barely hear him say the line but there i was again on the carpet doubling the laughter when i saw the little boy open a cupboard and reveal an enormous pile of stuffed animals! And the ending, oh the ending was the best of all, i won't spoil it for you, please just watch it! If you watch it with an open mind and allow for the crude jokes i think you're going to enjoy it! I have to go and watch that again!

I've read quite a few negative reviews but i think some of the people who have read the book need to realise this was a children's film that would no doubt have to be simplified and draw people in from the start. It hasn't had an easy launch either because it's been competing with High School Musical 3, when i went to see it the cinema was empty apart from me because everyone else had gone to see a certain other film.

It wasn't great and i am certain that if i had read the book i would have hated it because the characters were not brilliantly written and it was a messy mix of excellent fantasy sci-fi with the appropriate special effects and corny American generic children's movie. But it was good fun.

The girl in it displayed a superb acting performance the general set and costumes and well mise-en-scene in general was excellent and well worth watching just for that.

It was good to watch in the cinema and throughly enjoyable if a bit predictable. As i say, generally i liked it.

The title made me sound sad, now i'm going to make myself sound sadder still. I saw my first episode of screenwipe halfway through series 4. I had just finished watching QI on BBC4, i was going to turn it off when Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe started and i couldn't move I just sat and watched it through to the end completely captivated my only movement being when i laughed- most of the time then. After that i have watched it religiously and i suggest everyone else does the same.

When series five came out last week i didn't even want to miss the advert break that came before it. My debating club finished at ten and i ran home to be back in time to watch it at the proper time. The next day i tuned into i-player and watched it again, i watched it another 4 times before the next episode came out yesterday.

If a program can be so good as to captivate me like that and turn me into some mad obsessive it surely has to be worth a try. Watch it! I don't think i need to say anymore.

How come all the films in those top 100 TV countdowns are all old with the exception of maybe 'Star Wars', 'The Matrix' and if your lucky 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. Because all a film has to do to be a classic is be old. If anyone degrades it they can just be accused of not understanding or truly appreciating Black and White cinema. I say logically, the top 100 films out to be the 100 most recent films since naturally humans progress as does technology and we learn from our mistakes and do a little better each time. Now obviously that's not the case because modern films include things made for a specific audience eg. making a film for a stereo typical teenage boy you call it 'Road Wars' and it's not necessarily a good film. However I do think a lot of modern films are better than older films and this should be appreciated.

Similarly, anything Hitchcock is clearly a masterpiece just because he made a few excellent films like 'Psycho' which really was excellent. However 'Rear Window' is over rated and it's the only way of saying it.

Do you think if that film was made today instead of decades ago it would be half so critically acclaimed? It's purely average. It's not a bad plot but it's not a great one either, the script is average, the actors are average and the directing and editing is average too.

It's pretty dull too. It builds up to be mildly interesting, an average kind of film but the ending is awful. It goes on for ages and then he ending comes. Now I was expecting something spectacular since the back of the case described it as 'one of the most memorable endings of all time' and what a disappointment! Throguhout the film it is slow paced and packed with pointless dialog and then it ends in seconds, the credits role and you wonder what happened. If you blinked, too bad, you missed it.

It's really nothing special.

It has to be said, it's pretty hard to make a great film in this genre but this is the best one I've seen so far.

Now, when I see one of those happy American high school films being sold for 20p in a charity shop I always just buy them. When you've had bad day and you need to cheer yourself up with a nice predictable plot line and a cast of 2 dimensional characters your not going to watch a film like Pulp Fiction are you? That's why you buy films like 'Election'.

But this took me severely by surprise. Because the plot wasn't predictable and the characters weren't 2 dimensional, this was a genuinely good film.

It draws you in from the start with the introduction of the central characters; Tracy Flick and Mr. McAllister (or at least I think that's what his name was) Tracy is certainly intriguing as a completely obsessive workaholic and quite detestable in every way. Mr. McAllister is a lot easier to relate to, he's a normal person with normal faults and normal vices and you can't help but feel sorry for him stuck in the same building with Tracy and soon to be struck in one to one council meetings with her once she is elected as school president or some other odd title that slips my mind. You can see why then that he goes about persuading a far more popular sporty boy who has recently broken his leg to stand as an opposing candidate.

You think you have them all sorted in your mind as the typical stereo-types but they aren't for example the opposing boy really is genuinely very nice and thoughtful if not very bright.

Incredibly well directed and edited making good use of voice-overs freeze frames and the like it is in fact a surprisingly good film also filled with delightful surprises in both the characters and the over-all plot.

Definitely worth watching.

I am taking into account that this was made in a time when cameras stayed still but they still and the ability to do a bit of good casting.

First off, piece of advice, if your camera blurs in poor light, don't have candle-lit scenes.

Secondly, considering how much of the speech in the book is utterly pointless you don't need to stick with it word for word. You can cut out a lot of the instances in which Mr. Rochester repeats Jane for a start.

Thridly, If your going to cast a tall actor for Rochestor don't cast a short one for Jane. It doesn't work. All the shots had to be wider than necessary to fit them both in and the actors must have got neck-ache surely.

And finally, when it comes to casting someone for the part of Jane Eyre their ability to act is more important than the way they look. I couldn't care less about that Jane Eyre, she was utterly pathetic, completely unlikeable and impossible to sympathise with.

Watch the 2006 version instead.

Having read the book (on recommendation of my grandmother) I was sceptical over whether to even bother watching the BBC series of it. Whilst Jane Eyre is an excellent story with excellent characters far better than the remarkably dull 'Pride and Prejedice' but it could have easily been shortened in length since a great deal of it is pointless speech mostly said by Mr. Rochester which can usually be summed up in one word 'Jane' In stead he repeats that name about 50 times and adds in a couple of other words just to give it a bit of relevance and keep the story moving... for pages and pages and pages.

Thankfully this was vastly cut down in the BBC adaption to the extent that i had to give it a ten since i spent the entire time watching it, actually interested in what was happening, the exact opposite of when i read the book.

The acting performances were excellent. Whilst both their chosen Jane and Mr. Rochester delivered their lines to perfection their appearance was also highly appropriate, for once.

Not only this but the cinematography was breathtaking. Each shot was practically a work of art and included new far more effective visuals than were communicated in the book. The saturation and composition was excellent.

I had to give it ten out of ten because i can't think of anyway to criticise it.

As much as I fell in love with this 'mini TV series' after the first few minutes, and as much as I love writing reviews on here I was determined I wouldn't write anything until I'd seen all of it, I was right to do so.

I admit, I haven't read the book, I probably will now though, so maybe it isn't fair for me to say ti's a good adaption, maybe the book is better I honestly don't know but it feels like it's been well adapted.

Certainly in terms of acting performances, editing, mise-en-scene and the like it's excellent. I was completely taken with the look of it the moment the opening credits started, maybe it's just because I love period films and series' in general but there was something about the look of it that was just pleasing to the eye. The costumes arn't particularly realistic, in one scene Tess wears an in-probably rich shade of red but i don't care, it's all artistic license as far as I'm concerned. And lets face it, the BBC don't exactly have a reputation for realism what with the cast of Robin Hood all looking like they'd all previously been part of a boy-band, but this was better.

Going back to acting performance's I say perfectly honestly they are some of the finest I've ever seen. Say what you like but i think the girl who plays Tess is excellent, maybe the accent is a little exaggerated but her conveyal of the emotions makes the character compelling and it can't be an easy part to play. Both Angel (I hate his name too) and Alec are excellently portrayed as well, particularly Angel in the last few scenes (you almost like him, despite how annoyingly nice he is) but also the supporting characters Rettie is moving in her patheticness and their Groby is too creepy for words, he literally sends a shiver down your spine.

As for conveying the story, I don't see how it could have been done better. I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone but I will say, have a box of tissues next to you, it was sadder than Steven Speilbergs 'A.I.: Atificial Intelligence' it was like the second act of Les Miserables, the same amount of tears (and thats a lot, an hour and a half of tears streaming down your face) compacted into two minutes. The stupidest thing was I watched it on BBC i-player so it ended with a message popping up saying 'I hope you enjoyed this programme' well not enjoyed as such, but I'm glad i watched it.

It'd going on my Christmas wish list right now.

This is supposed to be a teen musical comedy romance right? well the teen romance maybe but i don't see much comedy and it doesn't compare particularly well with any musicals I've seen.

Where to start? The story perhaps which was so predictable and unimaginative the you'd think the writer would barely be able to get a job on a breakfast cereal commercial but a big budget movie? Not only is it one of the most obvious plots i've ever witnessed but it seemed remarkably similar to a much less popular film made a few years previously 'Get over it' which also featured an unlikely couple who both receive major roles in the school musical and find themselves drawn together by the music. The only difference was the songs were better and it was actually funny, oh that and it had some decent actors in it like Kirsten Dunst.

To be fair I have to admit the mise en scene was rather good, the sets and costumes made an amazing use of colour and the choreography and camera angles were amazing. That scene in the cafeteria was amazing, hence the reason i gave it 4/10 instead of say... 1/10 which is probably what the story and characters deserve.

Speaking of characters what of them? Well there probably the most fake polished but whining people your ever likely to come across. Everyone was ridiculously attractive and ridiculously 2D, they had one characteristic which they overacted all they could. Now usually I approve of melodrama as a technique in film but this was just ridiculous. The two central characters were so perfect it made them completely unrelateable and therefore completely detestable, they were certainly nothing like anyone you'd find in a real high school, they wouldn't last five minutes.

Probably the funniest moment in the whole film is when Chad compares Troy to Michael Crawford. Him? Crawford? you wish! You see unlike Bolton, Crawford could actually sing and act at the same time without turning to this whining kind of song you here so often on the radio. Drivel shovelled out by boy bands in which they walk down Allys in slow motion with their shirts flapping open whilst they moan about their difficulties with getting up in the morning. Unlike the Phantom of the Opera Troy Bolton doesn't actually have much to complain about.

I never really expected to enjoy being more of a Tim Burton and Quentin Tarrentino fan but since it was a musical i thought i'd give it a chance. I love musicals and not just Sweeney Todd either but Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserables, Evita and Cats but this didn't have good songs, a story or any motive, I know it's just supposed to be a bit of fun but it was the people on the screen who were having fun making my life look dull and pathetic and in short making me feel a bit more miserable, I should have watched a Tarrentino instead, that always makes me feel happy watching people get slaughtered, makes my life look a whole lot better.

In short, watching High School Musical is just watching a string of whining music videos with a bit of dialogue in between.

'The Odyssey' is quite likely the worst film you will ever come across. In which case why give it two stars, why not one? Well The truth is its so bad I actually enjoy watching it. It's hilariously bad. The first time i saw it i laughed from start to finish, the second time i watched it i somehow laughed even more.

It is a blend of disappointing animation and atrocious music. If you paused the tape you would see three images at once. The script is terrible, the jokes arn't funny and yet i just can't stop laughing. The voice acting is wooden to say the least. Annoying wailing chords overlay pictures of sheep. You have to ask yourself how it could be that at no point the proudction team thought to step up and say that maybe it might be a good idea just to cancel the whole thing.

Watch it and enjoy its atrociousness for yourself is all i can say. There's just to much wrong with it, it would take me years to point out everything.

Usually I hate Tom Cruise films but I have so far come across two exceptions, 'Interview with the Vampire' and 'Rain Man'.

It was just... brilliant. It had my full attention throughout. Usually i'm quite a daydreamer but I just couldn't daydream through this, not even a bit.

It entertained you for the duration of the film and put across a message and you ended up liking all of the characters even the main ones and even though Charlie has an American accent. Hoffman's performance was also perfection. I have an autistic cousin so I know that the role was played very accurately.

I didn't expect to enjoy but i did (don't you just love it when that happens). I don't have the words to describe it in a way that would do it justice, sorry.

Just watch it.

I generally only review really good films or really bad films, this was a really good film and i defy anyone to say otherwise.

If you don't like watching subtitled films make this an exception because it really is a film everyone should watch. I can't imagine a person watching this and not smiling.

It's a couple of hours of pure positivity just short of a hug from your granddad or an early morning children's programme. And yet at the same time there are some points at which you nearly find your self crying, is it possible for a plot to be that good, it is now.

Take the central character, Amelie (hence the title) a character it is impossible not to like and yet you feel a constant frustration that whilst she is able to fix the life of so many others she is completely unable to fix her own when she is clearly the most deserving of all of them.

That said, you find yourself in some ways warming to every character who makes an appearance from Amelie's seemingly emotionless father to the odd neighbour with the tragic past from downstairs. Every time a ray of sunshine is brought into one of these peoples lives another ray is brought into yours as you somehow experience their joy.

Plot aside, the directorial techniques alone make the film a must-see. Completely original editing and style of acting make the film quite unique. It's so different and brilliant I'm actually finding it fairly impossible to describe or even begin to describe. in-fact the best i can hope for is just to tell you to watch the film and see for yourself.

You won't regret it, you physically can't.

It shouldn't have been a Tim Burton film.

When i wathced this film i went from disgusted- to confused- to bored. Then I found out who it was directed by and went to shocked. How? Why? I love Tim Burton films, how could this one be so bad.

It's not misunderstood. I could try watching it again but i can't bring myself to do it. I'd dread it. I love Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Beetlejuice, Sweeny Todd, Big Fish, Corpse Bride, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Nightmare before Christmas and i quite like Batman too. I would love to say I love all Tim Burton films but now i can't.

No, i hated this one. It was pure disappointment. It was trying to be a spoof of a science fiction B movie but all that came of it was it became a science fiction B movie. I've never been a fan of science fiction really but i'm happy to make exceptions but i couldn't.

I was just left asking why? How? It shouldn't happen to a Burton film.

I remember watching this when i was about 7 and really enjoying it. Acttually it became one of those many films that i remember and no-one else does. When i saw it in a charity shop i bought it.

However once you've passed the age of about ten this film doesn't seem so much fun anymore. Watching it a second time i was pretty bored throughout and kept hoping it would end soon.

It was definitely a bit to dragged out. The story was pretty good and the dragon was fairly convincing but the mise en scene wasn't anything special and the script was quite poor.

I would recommend that no-one over the age of ten watch this, it just becomes tedious.

Only Buron could achieve tasteful gore. A sophisticated musical horror. It has a completely unique feel to it that's almost impossible to describe. It's like an improved, refined Sleepy Hollow, but a musical.

I love musicals and I love Tim Burton films so this was perfect for me. The music was amazing, i have the CD and i can never stop listening to it. All the performances were incredible despite the fact none of them really came from trained singers which meant you got a great acting performance.

My grandmother can shudder all she likes and use that awful phrase 'it's not my cup of tea' but that just makes it all the better because her cup of tea is always romantic comedies starring Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant (they might be good at smiling but you can hardly call them versatile) and none of them can really be half as captivating as a Tim Burton Musical.

I loved it.

IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE FILM BUT YOU HAVE SEEN IT, READ THIS IT APPLIES TO YOU:

Since writing the first half i have read a few reviews from people who hated it and god it made me angry! Can't people cope with a bit of surrealism these days. I thought the whole point of films is they aren't real. Who wants to watch real life? It's boring!

the blood does look fake, no-one could bleed like that but that's whats so great about it! The rest of the film had to look desaturated in order to make the blood stand out. It's not just horror it's verging on art!

What happened to allowing for artistic license? Really people, i'm ashamed of you.

In real life people don't randomly burst out into song! I thought the whole point of films and books is it's fiction! And it's fun to pretend!

It's not just a gore-fest, it's sophisticated gore, if there is such a thing.

It was brilliant. I am a huge Tim Burton fan, I love just about every film he's ever made with the exception of 'Mars Attacks' but this was of extra high standard.

It tells the story of a man called Edward Bloom except at the same time it doesn't. The story revolves around the idea that Edward likes to make up stories to make his life more interesting. No-one seems to mind, his stories have a certain charm to them, no-one except his son that is who goes to visit him on his deathbed in the hope that he might learn something true about his father. Besides the human relationships side of the story is a charming fantasy side including giants, Siamese twins and a poet turned criminal.

It has to appeal to everyone surely? It looks amazing, the story is brilliant, its highly imaginative, features fine performances from all the actors and simultaneously brings a smile to your face and a tear to your eye.

It is without a doubt in my top ten favourite films and that means quite a lot coming from me, I have seen a lot of films a lot of which I like.

Everyone should own this. It was so good I didn't want to watch it the next day. Does anyone know what i mean by that? I want to ration it somehow. I'm like that with Tarrentino films, you want to let the first one sink in properly before you move onto the next one.

It was brilliant. Don't even rent it buy it and watch it and enjoy it. Oh and at the bits that might seem a little confusing just go with it.

I had always wanted to watch this film, vaguely aware ti was supposed to Be good and i was curious however i made the terrible mistake of watching Howl's Moving Castle first as an established Diana Wynne Jones fan.

I only really started showing any interest in Miyazaki when it was announced he was going to be making a film of my favourite book of all time 'Howl's Moving Castle' I was vastly disappointed. That's an under statement, i spent months complaining about taking the perfect plot and putting it through a mangle.

None-the-less i felt I ought to give Spirted Away a chance. I watches it and i have to admit I thou rally enjoyed it. I thought it was a hundred million billion times better than HMC (film of course not the book, nothing can be better than that book) the plot and characters were much stronger and it was extremely imaginative. It was brilliant.

Ten out of ten.

Having studied 'The Tempest' at school anyone who knows me knows of my remarkably low opinion of Shakespeare. I think he's utterly over rated and his plots are weak and making up words his nothing to be proud of. Yes he was talented but is it strictly nessesary to dedicate a SATS paper to him? I don't think so.

Yes I hate Shakespeare and I'm not embarrassed in the least to say that i don't understand a word of his plays. However I enjoyed this film. Which coming from me means a lot. The cinematography was good enough to make up for the language and the acting was good enough that i actually understood what was happening. The moment the film finished i had to rewind it and watch it again.

--before i say anything let me just say ordinarily i am quite a fan of Miyazaki, i have seen Spirited Away and enjoyed it imensly and now own, however all directors make mistakes (Tim Burton directed 'Mars Attacks' remember) and playing with the plot of Diana Wynne Jone's best book is definitely a mistake--

I have to admit, picking holes in things is like a hobby to me but in the case of 'Howl's Moving Castle' I know i am quite right to do so. I can't even give this film a 2 for it's pretty pictures, i hate it too much!

Why do this to that story!? Considering the standard of Diana Wynne Jones' book it is hard to see how this film could have such a weak plot. I can't understand why Miyazaki would take such a wonderful story and put it through a mangle.

When i first heard there was going to be a film made of my favourite book of all time I failed to see how this could go wrong, when I saw what the castle was going to look like i was even more optimistic the style of animation seemed to suit the book rather well, i am now forced to eat my words.

None of the character's look quite right, Howl looks like an inflatable chair on stilts, Sophie just looks plain pathetic and Calcifer looks as if he's just come off the British Gas advert. Calcifer should be genuinely frightening, not comical.

The film had a promising start, Sophie's lines were remarkably corny and she herself was so nice and quiet she became detestable, she showed no character whatsoever and she didn't talk to hats but apart from that the castle looked promising and Market Chipping wasn't too bad either if you ignored the ridiculous aeroplanes and tanks. Then Howl appeared and it all went downhill from there.

Howl is welsh. One of the reasons I like the book so much is it is one of the only books that uses a Welsh hero, when i read it I also give him a welsh accent in my mind. It surely wouldn't be too much to ask to get Christian Bale, who I found out after watching it is in fact welsh, to put on a welsh accent at all? In stead he puts on this dull deep droning voice which I find both dull and creepy simultaneously.

The story is terrible, nothing is explained. Whilst in the book an explanation is provided for why the witch curses Sophie, why the scarecrow roams the hills and why Calcifer asks Sophie in particular to break his contract with Howl no such explanation is provided here.

Before I forget to mention it i must also tell you that I find the characters tedious and dull. Each one being far to perfect. The Sophie of the book is presumptuous, intruding, outspoken and nosey and Howl clearly recognises this and finds her irritating and tiresome. Howl is vain, cowardly, selfish and careless all of which Sophie takes note of and finds him frustrating and despicable, on several occasions she attempts to leave the castle having no patience left. Neither of them are perfect and neither of them so much as pretend to like each other.

As for the love element, it barely emerges until the last few pages. Sophie goes through most of the book without even realising she's fallen in love with Howl, certainly neither of them would confess to anyone but each other in the final few pages and even then it extends merely to Howl saying 'I think we ought to live happily ever after, don't you?' in a welsh accent of course. In the film it's obvious and it makes me cringe. Sophie is too nice.

I won't go too far into the other plot differences although their are plenty but major things this film misses is the intriguing dog-man, the seven-league boots, the chilling English teacher Miss Angorian, and the individual love stories between Sophie's sister Lettie and Percival, and Sophie's half-sister Martha and Michael (the equivalent of the film's Markle but about sixteen instead of six). And not to mention Sophie and Michael's short but amusing adventure into Howl's own world and his native country modern-day Wales.

The plot of the film is clearly weak and far to simplified. Instead of wathcing the tedious and predictable plot of the film unfold why not enjoy the surprising if slightly more complex but far more amusing and likable plot of the book instead? People who read the book love it, in fact the majority of people who have read DWJ's 'Howl's Moving Castle' would tell you it's better than Harry Potter, read the amazon reviews if you don't believe me, they say it all.

Ooo! Now I'm angry! I just read a review on here blaming the book. the Book!!! It makes me angry since this person clearly hasn't read the book they just assume that of so perfect Miyazaki couldn't have made a mistake so blame the book!!! The idea of it!!! I sgree the plot and characters in the film are awful but don't blame the book!!! Read the book, Howl's a coward in the book and he's a lot more likable that way, and he gets drunk at one point read it!