Reviews

So if I've got this straight, we're after Jack Sparrow's compass so that it can lead us to Davy Jones' chest and/or key to said chest, so we can negotiate with Davy Jones and/or kill him but only after Jack Sparrow supplies one of the 9 pieces of 8 in order to hold a council which will determine whether to free Calypso, but only after electing a Pirate King or Queen which requires a deal which may or may not be a double-cross with the head of the East India Company and/or Sao Feng and/or Davy Jones.

Please bear in mind that, to avoid spoilers, there is actually more to it than that.

There are probably two good, fun 90 minute films in the two PotC sequels. Sadly, the writers decide to swamp the film with such an excess of pointless plot meandering that the two films come in at about five hours instead. Seriously. Every time you think we are getting somewhere, some idiot chimes in with "But FIRST we have to go to the place to get the thing..." Incidentally, feel free to wander in and out while all the above is going on, they explain it in great detail so you'll easily keep up.

Keira & Orlando are a lot more annoying in the sequels grumpily storming about like someone has stolen their milk & cookies. Fortunately we still have Johnny Depp, charming and funny as ever and also another actor who I cannot mention due to spoilers, and the two of them just about make the films watchable.

I really wanted to like these films, but we need the Kevin Smith edit, I think.

This is a big, shiny, silly, camp summer blockbuster and I suspect most of the bad reviews are purely because it dares to make fun of itself in a way that Mission: Impossible, Die Hard, X-Men and all those dude- dominated action movies don't.

But really, I have to worry about all those people who hated this on seeing it. Did they not see the first movie? Or perhaps they thought the original TV show was a cerebral example of 1970's TV programming.

The fact is if you liked the 2000 movie, with all the silly in-jokes, cultural references, campy soundtrack and frankly ridiculous stunts then you'll enjoy this one just as much. Maybe more because it also has Demi Moore looking amazing and a Jaclyn Smith cameo.

I've seen the criticism of this season, and I understand it. The lack of logic, the pointlessness of killing off characters who then just pop back to life, and the fact it's not scary. Not scary at all.

That said, I've loved it and am distraught that this week sees the final episode air. It's been truly a joy watching Lange, Bassett and Bates firing off zingers at each other. And then there's Francis Conroy and her theremin. She probably had more fun this season than in the previous two combined - certainly she got all the best lines.

What does it have in common with "Murder House" & "Asylum"? A playfully chaotic story, characters who go from evil to sympathetic and back again in an eye blink, and all the surreal illogic of a fever dream. What's different? This time it's funnier and friendlier, with more than a nod to the soapy fun of "Valley of the Dolls" or "Dynasty" in its heyday. Don't get me wrong, there is horror - blood, gore, torture and mutilation - but that takes second place to the glamorous women, the hilarious dialogue and the rich New Orleans atmosphere.

I've seen some well-meaning but probably misguided attempts to deconstruct the show's take on feminism and civil rights. Go for it if you want, but probably the strongest feminist statement the show makes is in giving such great parts to so many terrific actresses, squeezing out the dudes. Even Danny Huston and Evan Peters are only peripheral to the action.

It may not have been as scary as season 1 or as out and out nuts as season 2, but this was campy, bitchy fun from start to end and I can't wait to see what season 4 brings. Let's hope that new additions Kathy Bates, Angela Bassett & Gabourey Sidibe are all coming back to hang out with Jessica Lange, Sarah Paulson and Lily Rabe again - but maybe that's too much to hope for.

In the meantime I know I'll never listen to Stevie Nicks in the same way ever again. Thanks, Ryan and Brad!

I had to write, there are so many terrible reviews of this film - but most seem to be written by Marvel fans devoted to the character "The Mandarin".

If you know who this character is going in, you may well be disappointed. I didn't. So I wasn't.

Instead, what I got what a film that sees Tony Stark laid low and spending most of the film out of his iron suit and trying to rebuild from a tool shed with the help of a young boy. It's Tony Stark's "Rocky 3" if you like and for that reason, I enjoyed it.

There are some plot holes but they are relatively minor ones. They could easily have been explained by a couple of clunky lines of exposition which the screenwriters wisely decided not to bother with - you can fill in the blanks yourself if you like. I think the real reason for the virulent backlash to this film are the fact that it doesn't fit with the characters as previously defined in the comics.

But if you don't give a hoot about "canon" and "mythos" and the "Marvel Universe" and all that, then you'll be fine.

Look, it wasn't bad. I enjoyed the first 10 minutes immensely. But hmmmm the plot. Conspiracy theorists may love it. Me, I just wondered why it was necessary to construct such a complex way to kill someone. I hope you appreciate I'm trying really hard not to be Spoiler McSpoilerson here. But honestly. If you've captured a whole bunch of people and you want them dead, there have to be easier, less-prone-to- being-noticed-and-foiled ways.

Also, I missed the familial characterisation, the fondness between Kirk, Spock, Bones et al that distinguished "old" Trek. And I think Abrams successfully recreated it in Star Trek 2009 - but somehow doesn't manage it here. Oh sure, the film starts with us being told that Kirk and Spock are best mates and this is repeated (often). But I didn't believe it. How & when did THAT happen? And there's just not that same gently- ribbing humour between the two.

Finally. Simon Pegg. Ruined Mission Impossible for me and is coming close to ruining Star Trek too. I realise a lot of people love him, but I'm getting tired of his groovy nerd thing. Spaced was on TV over 10 years ago and he's still doing the same bit. Plus, I live in Scotland and can tell you that his accent sucks.

So Star Trek Reboot 2. I sort of enjoyed it for the big dumb blockbuster it was, but it was a big dumb blockbuster and nothing more, which is a pity as it was all cued up to be so much more.

Is it THAT scary? Well uh, no.

Is it scary? Well actually, yes.

The Conjuring is what it claims to be. A fun ghost-ride. It ticks all the haunted-house horror-show stories with a brief nod at exorcism films.

Good acting, exceptional horror direction and a real attempt to connect the audience to the characters (good script and decent actors for a change) make this well above the norm for the horror genre.

So is it anything groundbreaking? Definitely not. Is it a fun night out that delivers actual scares? Oh my yes. Probably the scariest part is the prologue about Annabel but that's OK. The film still managed to sustain an atmosphere of unease throughout and I was quite happy. Plus, a scary prologue goes a LONG way in a horror movie, as anyone who saw the original "Halloween" where the first 5 minutes are by far the scariest can tell you.

I think the word I am looking for here is "competent" but that's not often a given in the horror world.

p.s. As for the "based on a true story" stuff. Uh-huh. Sure. Whatever you say.

I shouldn't really review this, having found Tron '82 boring beyond belief with risible dialogue and an incoherent plot. So if you liked that movie, ignore my opinion.

If you felt the same way then let me warn you that 28 years worth of progress seems to have passed these writers by. The dialogue is as hackneyed as ever and the plot makes even less sense.

The 3D is very pretty at times, but that's a thin excuse for this movie. Plus it features what has to be the most cringe-worthy and embarrassing performance of 2010 when Michael Sheen starts capering about like an effete cheerleader giving gay stereotype lessons.

This is the sort of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name. It makes Avatar seem deep and meaningful, so I suggest you watch that again instead.

REC is not a film that attempts depth. Thank goodness. It's a straightforward, good old fashioned scary ride.

While zombie movies are nothing new and Blair Witch rip-offs are ten a penny, REC compensates by being the only enclosed space zombie movie I've seen. A small group of people are trapped in an old apartment block with two zombies roaming around somewhere on the upper floors.

Not so bad. But as the survivors are infected, two becomes three... three becomes four... You get the idea.

REC is an adrenalin rush of a film. It's not the sort of disturbing horror movie to give you nightmares, but by god you'll need a stiff drink afterward. And preferably during.

In my teens I read the novella on which this film is based. It was a miserable experience which only young-reader-stamina got me through. It featured many familiar King motifs, but unlike his better novels proceeded to whomp the reader over the head with them for a good 200-300 pages.

The Mist the movie does exactly the same. A very VERY simple idea of a supermarket under siege by something unspeakable is dragged out over two interminable hours. Unpleasant characters squabble and bicker, no black humour is present and while there are undoubtedly parallels in modern America (the sheer glee with which your religious right hopes for apocalypse) the point is made and made and re-made to the point of redundancy.

To make matters worse, none of this is in the remotest frightening. There is no sense of dread in the mist, no suspense and quite honestly no point.

Add to this an unnecessarily grim ending, and you've got two unpleasant hours of your life passed. Yawn.

While stunning to look at, and a technical marvel, 300 is a hateful film that leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Like other Hollywood attempts to romanticise history, the film makes no attempt at all to understand the Persians - or even to give them any credit for humanity or culture. No, we take the tired old Euro-centric route that the Greeks invented civilisation, while baby-eating barbarians hammered at the gate.

Worse, the Persians here aren't just barbarians - they are actual, no I'm-not-kidding MONSTERS. Ugly, disfigured creatures with sharp teeth, multiple piercings - oh, and they are sexually androgynous and sadistic too. Though that may be more to satiate our "civilised" boy audience.

Art? Culture? No, the Persians were obviously too busy murdering each other in nasty ways, or having kinky sex for that.

Balance? Pah. This comic-book history robs the Greeks of their true victory, and provides fuel for small minded haters of cultures other than our own.

Frank Miller is a genius? Maybe as an artist. Personally I found his message in this film puerile and simple-minded.

Good lord. With Francis Ford Coppola, Kenneth Branagh and Robert De Niro on board I think we could have expected better than this movie, seemingly stitched-together as badly as the monster himself from snippets from Mary Shelley's novel, snippets from the 30's movies and snippets from the Hallmark movie of the week.

Yes, the production values and the style is as hackneyed as anything you'd see on that channel between 1 and 4pm any weekday. The sets are as stagey as you'd expect from someone who's trodden the boards as often as KB, but what I didn't expect was the overwrought acting and frankly awful scripting from Frank Darabont (of Shawshank Redemption).

Take the creation scene - surely a set-piece of the movie and pivotal in that we should see Victor move from triumph at his successful experiment to horror in what he's created. It goes like this... Victor breaks open the creation chamber, frees the monster and the two of them spend a good minute slipping and falling over in amniotic goop like Stan and Ollie after a pie-fight. Then (somehow) the monster gets tangled up in the washing line (or something) and is hoist to the ceiling. It is at this point the Victor undergoes his conversion from uber-scientist to moralistic buffoon IN FIVE SECONDS FLAT. "What have I DONE?" he wails.

My reaction was this: What brought THAT on?? The monster doesn't kill anyone, he doesn't smash anything, he's no uglier than when Victor stitched him together - why does Frankenstein suddenly turn against his creation? The answer folks, is because the story calls for it and the screenwriter was too lazy to explain why. This is the sort of thing that leads me to reach for the fast forward button.

The story from then on is pretty predictable, apart from the plot elements that are too daft for words. The monster demands a mate, so Victor makes him one out of his own dead girlfriend, causing a rather obvious love triangle. Why? Because the story called for it and the screenwriter was... oh never mind, you get the idea.

I'm making it sound worse than it really is. It's not AWFUL. When the monster and Victor debate in an ice-chasm it reaches into the philosophical core of the book, which has never really been attempted before. However, it's too little, too late - by that time I was already bored. Better to go back to the book, or even better to James Whales' movies - what they lacked in faithfulness to the book they at least made up for with imagination - something sorely lacking here.

Sin City is incredible to look at. It's the boldest cinematic statement since early Coen Brothers. It's stark, compelling and the closest, most pure example of a graphic novel ever brought to life.

That considerable achievement aside, I hated it.

It's the story of a hard-as-nails hero, beaten and bloodied, who fights unspeakable evil in order to save the gorgeous girl, the flower growing in the gutter.

Then it's the same story. Over and over again, until I felt as relentlessly battered by the film as poor old Marv.

Yes, it's a little repetitive. Four stories are told - the story of tough cop Hartigan (Willis) bookends the stories of Marv (Mickey Rourke) and Dwight (Clive Owen). But essentially it's the same tale of twisted murderers, heroes who can take 20 bullets and still live and the most glamorous hookers you will ever see.

I have to give the film credit for staying true to the source material, unfortunately that material is moronically juvenile as this, with laugh-out-loud risible dialogue, and lots of adolescent-friendly scenes of girls with guns.

I just wish the same artistic vision could have been applied to a genuine noir classic novel. Sin City has all the cool of James M. Cain, but none of the soul. It's empty, it's shallow and a huge waste of talent.

There's no need for detail on this one... I'm sure other reviewers will provide that. Suffice to say, if you liked the original trilogy but thought Episodes 1 and 2 were self-important and awful, you're not alone. I swore I'd never see another Star Wars film after the truly abysmal Attack of the Clones. Then I got a free ticket for Episode 3.

Episode 3 still suffers from wooden acting, a pompous script and a plot that doesn't always make sense, but it does have the good sense to focus on spectacular set-piece battles and jaw-dropping special effects. There's a lot less talk and a lot more action this time around.

So finally a film that stands up to the original trilogy. Revenge of the Sith is without doubt the most action-packed film of the six and the best since The Empire Strikes Back, if only for the astounding light-sabre battle between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader at the climax of the picture.

It's not quite Return of the King, but it's not far off.

I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure "The Incredible Melting Man" would be a lot of fun.

It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.

Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:

"I'll find him with a geiger counter." "Is he radioactive?" "Just a little bit."

Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. "Oh god - it's his ear!" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up.

I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end.

As a lesson in graceful film-making, it's a must. As an effective horror movie, it's a disaster. Stanley Kubrick shows his technical flair with the newly available steady-cam, but you have to keep asking, "How is this making the film scary?" For a much better example of how to create suspense, see "Halloween" made with a fraction of the budget and ten times the imagination. John Carpenter's camera stalks the characters like an extra character in the film. Kubrick's camera floats. It's pretty. But it's not scary.

Jack Nicholson gives a bravura performance, unfortunately it belongs in a different film. He's supposed to be a man having a breakdown, but he looks deranged from frame 1. Perhaps he thought he was still in Cuckoo's Nest.

The film has moments of course, you'd expect nothing less from a director of this calibre, but they are few and far between in a ridiculously self-important and overlong film.