Reviews

"The Transporter" is a 2002 action film starring Jason Statham as Frank Martin, a professional driver with a very strict set of rules...that get broken almost a third into the movie. So much for efficiency, but that's the point. To throw a strict character into dangerous territory is nothing new for Hollywood, and with a film such as this,you'd hope it would be at the very least, decent. And surprisingly, it is.

I'm not going to lie, I enjoyed this film when it first came out, and even more so today because of the monotonous sequels that follow a similar formula, and never take risks with the character.

The plot involves Frank doing a transporting job for a criminal, and just when the mission seems like a success, suspicions begin to unravel and Frank is thrown into a firefight with the criminal in question, while attempting to protect a woman he was never meant to see due to his strict rules.

The film follows a simple execution with enough turns to keep you entertained, but only to a certain degree. The fight scenes are slick, as are the driving scenes. The only kind of scene it's missing is a good old shootout, as we learn quickly that Frank fights mainly with his fists, which is fine, but it doesn't leave a lot of imagination to the viewer for what would happen next.

The acting is sub-par. I like to consider Jason Statham a good actor when he wants to be, and he's good in this movie, but every one else seems to follow a generic formula, and it just falls short.

I give the Transporter a 6/10 because even though it may be hooky in some parts, the action is good and it serves nicely as a movie to watch when feeling like nothing more than an action flick. It's a popcorn flick with little to no intellect, but sometimes you don't need it, and this film luckily doesn't.

When I was a kid, horror movies scared the living crap out of me. It didn't matter what the subject matter was, or what kind of horror drove the film. If it was scary, I wasn't watching it. But then I came across "The Evil Dead". A film that's not only scary, but fun as well.

I can't say within any degree of accuracy what possessed me (No pun intended) to watch this film, but I'm glad I did. The plot centres on a group of friends who visit an old abandoned cabin together. Upon getting there, they unintentionally awaken an evil entity that (surprise, surprise) possesses them, one by one, until the hero of the film, Ash (Bruce Campbell's trademark role) is left alone to survive. The film is not only original in terms of cinematography, but it's gory, too! If you have a sense of wits about you, and you enjoy horror movies like me, then check this film out!

A long time ago, or at least what seems like a long time ago, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" hit theatres in 1984. For a lot of movie-goers who were into the slasher genre which was at its hype at the time, this film followed the formula but with an added twist: A killer who only kills in people's dreams. This opened up a lot of possibilities as to how Fred "Freddy" Kreuger would tear apart his victims. The film had it's perks, and due primarily to the fact that this film took on an original idea (which is ironic because they did it to cash in on the slasher genre), the film was a success. The movie spawned 6 more sequels and a spin-off, pitting Freddy against "Friday the 13th" villain, Jason Voorhees. With the exception of the second film in the franchise, all the sequels were actually half-descent. Freddy became a pop-culture icon, and the Freddy Kreuger name was now known across the world. Robert Englund played Freddy to a tee. He was so lovable, and so devilishly evil that to hear he wasn't going to play Freddy anymore (He has played him since the first film all the way to Vs. Jason), it was like a slap to the face with the trademark glove...without the followed "Cool! I got hit with the glove!" In 2010, a remake of the original film was released, and needless to say, we weren't stoked in the least bit. Fans all over were sceptical by the idea of both a remake, and a recasting for Freddy. Gone was Englund, and in the red and green striped shirt was Jackie Earle Haley. An interesting choice. My mind gave him the green light when I heard that Robert Englund himself gave him his blessing, and passed down the torch. And so, I waited until it came out on DVD, and gave it a watch.

The idea of re-creating the atmosphere of the original alone made me worry-some. Freddy's voice was not the same at all. I'm all for updating the image a bit, but Freddy looked like a fish. A horribly burnt, scarred fish. The cast weren't as appealing as the original, and for me, that made me want to see them die a lot faster, but Freddy's glove wouldn't be enough. The acting was bland, the character development was weak, and the humour was gone. I don't mean to kick a dead horse, but this film sucked the big one. I wasn't going to be easily mesmerized by the flashy kills, and supposedly "hot" girls. The storyline is a bit different from the original, or at least plot elements are. Some pivotal scenes are missing, and it just raises too many questions. The micro-sleep thing was actually a good idea. Yeah! Something good came of this film, but it wasn't conveyed very effectively, and instead just made the film feel like it was being dragged on. For a franchise that has received so much love, you'd think that a remake would be unnecessary. But not to Hollywood, I guess. And so, another pointless, stupid remake goes down the drain, and my patience goes as well.

1/10. Very, poor choice. Only to cash in one the "Nightmare" franchise. Dear Hollywood: Have you no shame?

As a kid, I wasn't really into superheroes, but Batman always stuck out like a sore thumb when I would ask myself which superhero is best. The thing about Batman is that he doesn't have any superpowers, yet he is still referred to as a superhero! This always made me question what quality must a hero have to make him or her super? As of today, I still don't have a clue, but Batman remains my favourite. He's dark, he's depressing, but he also kicks a lot of super villain butt! Now, onto the film that made him popular again.

1989's Tim Burton directed, "Batman" is the average tale of superhero vs super villain, and what better villain to have than the joker? Their confrontations, as well as Batman having to deal with the life of having two identities, is the basis for the plot. With each scene, the plot slowly unravels, and we don't feel as if the movie is in any way wasting our time with pointless scenes.

Michael Keaton plays the legendary caped crusader to a point where we can relate him and feel his pain when he loses. He, in my opinion, is the best Batman. That smile that he pulls in the final confrontation scene is nothing short of sheer brilliance, and is something that only Keaton can do.

Jack Nicholson IS the joker. He's played enough roles to know how a psychopath is supposed to act, and he does it with a slight sense of dementia and psychosis, which makes the Joker who he is. His jokes are hilarious, and his look is classic. I'm sorry to any Heath Ledger fans, but Jack steals the show in a way that Ledger never could. I'm probably going to get scolded for that, but it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

If you're going to watch a Batman film that succeeds in terms of darkness and a bit of dark comedy, then "Batman" is for you. I'll go as far to say it's the best; but don't take my word for it, watch it yourself and be prepared for a ride.

8 sets of chattering teeth out of 10.

First off, I grew up with Toy Story. Being born in 1990, I was quite young when I first saw "Toy Story" on VHS. At first, I was stunned. What an amazing movie it was! The voice acting was superb, the animation and comedy were the calling cards for such a wonderful start for the Disney/Pixar collaborations. Toy Story 2 was, at first, even better. But having watched the original, I can honestly say that nothing beats the first.

Finally, after years of rumours circulating around what the third entry would have, "Toy Story 3" is finally here! I did something I usually don't do, and bought into the hype. It paid off nicely, as I was overwhelmed with excitement and sadness that this would be the final chapter for our friends, Woody and Buzz. But none the less, it was a finely crafted masterpiece that will forever be a milestone in sequel history.

As I'm sure you're aware, Andy is now 18 years old in the film, and the toys are not being played with like they used to; and after a misunderstanding, the toys are sent to a daycare centre where things are not as they seem. Immediately, the toys are separated from Woody, and our story picks up. Without revealing anymore, I'll just say that from the first time we see our old friends, to the tear-jerking au revoir, "Toy Story 3" is again, a beautiful film that'll warm the hearts of children for years to come. And if you don't like seeing Andy as a teenager, then you can always whip out the old' VCR, and watch the original.

10/10!

In the early 1990's, Nintendo released Star Fox for the SNES. The game was brilliant with it's graphics and game play. Then, Star Fox 2 was announced. But the game was canceled and never saw the light of day. The long awaited game was canceled due to Star Fox 64 coming into the picture. Now I don't know the exact reasons why they canceled it, but it wasn't long after that this beautiful game, Stsr Fox 64 was released into the world.

Now this game wasn't your ordinary sequel. Nope, it was a REMAKE! That's right, a remake of the first one. Now why the hell would they do that? I know, a lot of my friends were disappointed that we didn't get the cool plot that was set for the second one. But the creators felt the urge to add a more in depth story and reason why Fox goes out and attacks Andross in the first place. And guess what? The game was a total success. The controls kicked butt, the voices were better, the plot was awesome, this game kicked ass for years. Not even "Adventures" was able to stand up to the great 64 game. I highly recommend this game to anyone who loves Star Fox, loves shooting things in space like a star wars game and all in all just collects games, because this game is a keeper.

Final Fantasy V is truly an amazing game, and I'll tell you why. Great characters, awesome game play, huge world to explore, neat powers and fights.

The plot of this game is very intriguing and it pulls you in, even at the beginning. Four crystals hold the dimension in which a creature named Ex-death resides. But when the crystals start to break, and the wind stops, four unlikely heroes go on a journey that'll take them across the planet, and more, to prevent Ex-death's revival.

Gameplay in this game is very different, but in a good way. The active time battle (ATB) adds a sense of realism, as bad guys can attack while you are making your decision on what to do next. So I would recommend learning how to do those moves fast, so you can have the last laugh.

Music in this game is really nice and at times, really cool! Boss battles have really radical music that makes it feel like you're in a movie. Different towns have different music to listen to as you buy your new equipment. Depending on how you're traveling, the music of the main world can change. In the first world, whenever you're walking, the same tune plays. However, when you're on a dragon, the tune is different. Same goes for flying ships and black chocobos. If you're in an area that you want to do some leveling up in, then you may want to put in a CD or listen to the radio, as the music can get annoying. But that doesn't happen for a while after being in the area.

The game is also very challenging. Whenever you think you're ready for the next boss, he could still beat you! so make sure you save beforehand and you'll make it through...eventually.

In the end, I think final fantasy V is a game that should be played at least once in your life. Even if you're not an RPG person, it's unique. And for that reason, I rate this game a 9 our of 10. Buy it today! You won't regret it!