Best movies based on novel/book

I never finished reading the book, but that there was some differences between certain parts of the book to movie. From what I have heard the ending is different between the two. I have also heard that the ending is better in movie. I had seen this movie a million times before today, but just now bought it on DVD. The theatrical trailer 1 is very good and doesn't even show that much of the movie. My favourite parts of this movie was mainly the ending sequences which I won't go into because you need to see them for yourself. I loved right at the beginning where Tom Cruise's (Mitch McDeere's) wife gets home and as she's opening the door, the door flings open and Mitch grabs her and they go straight for the couch kissing. Then after a few seconds she says "Okay. Okay. You're going to have to leave now. I'm expecting my husband." "The hell with him" he says and shuts the door and takes her into the kitchen.

The movie is very good, amusing, and I do agree with it being a little farfetched but all a movie is supposed to be is amusing because it is all fantasy. Even stories based on true events are fantasies because they may not show exactly how certain things took place and that it is a byist story. It only shows how one person viewed something.

In any case, this movie deserves an 8 or nine out of ten.

Based on John Grisham's best-selling novel.

Darby Shaw (Julia Roberts) is a law student at Tulane who writes her own theory about who arranged for the assassination of two Supreme Court justices and why. The unfortunate thing is, her theory is right on the money, and once it starts circulating it results in a number of deaths. Investigative reporter Gray Grantham (Denzel Washington) turns out to be the one person she can trust and rely on.

"The Pelican Brief" is a solid and entertaining (if lengthy) political / newspaper / legal thriller from the director of "All The President's Men". It keeps its grip thanks to genuinely good film-making and an excellent cast. The climax is reasonably suspenseful.

To screenwriter / director Alan J. Pakula's credit, the villain of the movie - a stereotypically greedy and maniacal tycoon - is deliberately made mysterious and gets no actual screen time - except for an appearance in a key photograph.

I've seen a couple of the big-screen Grisham adaptations, and they have all been pretty good. His novels do make for good movie material. I can't decide which one is the best, though...that's kind of tough. Hmmm I tooke ?A time to kill? and ?The Pelican brief?

"The Client" is an enjoyable and well executed thriller overall. While the directing, script and overall product are far from amazing and sometimes quite bland, the Oscar level performances compensate for the easily over-seeable flaws.

Perhaps the child of the title, Brad Renfro, can be annoying in parts he gives a decent enough performance nonetheless. Too bad about the drinks and drugs problem he has today. Susan Sarandon gives another terrific performance, this time as an alcoholic lawyer. Tommy Lee Jones' character doesn't have much to do with the plot but he's a welcome addition to the film, even though.

While it is easy to find fault with the film it's easier to just sit back and enjoy it. I chose the latter so I thought it was a good, if not spectacular movie overall

This movie dealt with such a deplorable subject.. such a sickening act, without so much as one single gratuitously violent scene in the whole perfectly realised masterpiece.

It's a chilling, thought-provoking, hard-hitting piece that's taut, absorbing, and impeccably well-paced.

There are jaw-dropping performances by numerous top-flight actors here, not a one letting the ball drop even once! Not one actor's time or talents were wasted in this extremely well thought-out project.. not one actor wasted our money we paid to see it.

Matthew McConaughey's "Jake Brigance" was an incredibly lucky first shot of an acting debut that he took and ran with like the wind, turning in an amazing, heart-stopping, truly star-making performance, which may prove to be the crowning achievement of his entire career when all is said and done.. It will be a treacherous climb to try and top it, certainly.

Class act Donald Sutherland is superbly cast in a quiet, and profound role, as "Jake"'s, {now no longer practicing}, professor, a perfect fit, this role, for a man of such rare eloquence~ There is a sizzling sub-story going on between "Jake", a devoted family man, and Sandra Bullock's character that could not have been tighter, steamier, nor more well written and played out.

I recommend this movie to anyone who believes in justice, who has a child, or only knows a child.

You want cheap, tawdry, sleazy, violent 'entertainment'? There's not one thing here for you~

Killing cannot be considered "right" by any means; but sometimes it's just not as simple as "THOU SHALT NOT KILL".

So many of us say, "I would kill for my children, {or other loved one's}!".. but would we? ..Would we be in the "right"?

Nothing annoys me more than sitting through a film I consider to be very good, or perhaps even excellent, and then reading reviews about it afterwards that are wholly negative and often very untrue in their descriptions. "The Chamber," released in 1996, and based on John Grisham's novel from two years earlier, is one such movie. Having read both the book and having seen the film, I draw two conclusions. The first is that I believe the movie to be as good (Perhaps even better) than Grisham's novel. The second is that the movie is a great piece of film-making; one of the most mature, thoughtful and intelligent to have come out of Hollywood in the past few years, especially when one takes into account that it's dealing with some very complex themes and issues. Gene Hackman plays Sam Cayhall, the racist bigot from America's ole' South, whose been on death row for several decades, following his involvement in the unintentional murder of a Jewish family. Cayhall has a month to live, and, just as even he has given up on any hope of a successful appeal, the old man gets a visit from his grandson lawyer, Adam Hall (Competently played by Chris O'Donnell). Adam is determined to get his grandfather off the row (Much to Sam's annoyance), and sets about digging up his family's past in the hope of discovering the truth surrounding the crime that Sam committed. The truly great thing about "The Chamber" (And perhaps something which John Grisham, its author, deserves the credit for) is that right from the opening scenes, we are never unsure about Sam's guilt. He's as guilty as sin. This is unlike Tim Robbin's "Dead Man Walking," (A film which many critics claim is superior and are forever comparing "The Chamber" to), where the audience is almost wrongfully 'Conned' into believing its protagonist's innocence, presumably in the hope of us sympthasing with him all the more. But, with "The Chamber," although Sam Cayhall is a spiteful, hateful and guilty sinner, we sympathise with him because we sympathise with O'Donnells all-too-true belief that he still doesn't deserve to die. After all, how can someone whose been brought up and raised in such a dreadfully racist and hateful environment turn out to be any better than Sam? The film is an important character study, as much as what it is a study of such afore-mentioned important themes(s). It never shies away from dealing with issues such as racism, making the 'Showdown' scene towards the end between Cayhall and one of his sickening 'Admirers' to be all the more brilliant. The film has faults, sure. For instance, Faye Dunaway as Adam's alcoholic Aunt struggles manically, and gives a much too dramatic and theatrical performance for this film. Gene Hackman also has some trouble in a very difficult role, although he's much more effective in the later scenes, where he begins to realise his mistakes. Perhaps the film's biggest mistake is in its failure to develop a proper character out of 'Rollie Wedge' (Robert Prosky), the man who may or may not have been involved in the terrible murder that Sam is now on death row for. I rarely cry in movie, but I cry every time I watch "The Chamber;" not just during the suitably hard-to-watch and claustrophobic closing scenes, but also during the final sequences between Sam and his grandaughter. It's a truly touching piece of film-making, and a very thought provoking and intelligent one. If only a better director had been at the helm, and the odd performance had been touched up a bit, this picture would have been an instant classic.

I have hardly ever seen a movie that is as good as the novel it is based upon, so I wasn't expecting this movie to be better than the novel. The story isn't as interesting in this movie, but the cast is great, the entertainment value is excellent, and veteran Director Francis Ford Coppola is behind the camera here. Coppola has directed movies like the epic mob masterpiece The Godfather and plenty of other great movies.

This was released a couple of weeks before Matt Damon's huge hit Good Will Hunting, so this is one of his first big roles in a movie. Danny De Vito does a great job in adding plenty of humor to the movie, and Jon Voight adds a lot of dramatic effect to his character.

The story follows a young lawyer who is representing the family of a boy with leukemia who could have had proper treatment, but couldn't because of a seedy insurance company. The movie pretty much follows the book, but the problem is that the book had a few great sub plots that seem absent from the movie, and one scene that happens in the middle of the movie happens in the end of the book. The scene is very intense, but it seems more like it belonged at the end of the movie, rather than the middle.

This is worth watching, it is one of the best Grisham films, and there are plenty of great qualities in it.

Perhaps sometimes, we forget, with our plush life and current definition of "poverty", what things were like for rural "working poor" even as recently as the 50's. Survival, even for a man who owned the land, took a different strength of character. Is it good, or is it regretful those times have passed? More money yes, but were better times up North in the auto plants? I suppose, but this is nostalgia, and not bad either.

It was a good family movie, narrated like the Waltons, I kept waiting for "goodnight Luke-boy". Yah, Little House on the Prairie too, a bit more reality, but did other commenters really expect this to be as complete as the book, any book? Personally, I'm tired of hearing book-readers whine about "what they left out". Don't watch movies if you read the book.

This is certainly wandering reminiscences, but that's another type of literature too, isn't it? Why does every story have to be going somewhere special? To me it's a pretty good coming of age movie and worth the hour and a half at least, and always a pleasure watching Scott Glenn, when he gets good parts.

This was a film that wasn't over-hyped, filled with talented actors and kept you watching all the way through. My rating is maybe a little generous but at the time just after watching it was one of most enjoyable movies I have watched for a long time, and I watch a lot (perhaps too much ;) Hackman was flawless as usual as an actor and once again maintained his great screen presence. Hoffman really portrayed the idealistic lawyer character well. Weisz played the female lead with the right mix of the strong and vulnerable. And Cusack, well I consider him an intelligent actor. He looked once again intelligent, thoughtful in his acting. The plot twists were not overdone but did offer some slight surprises which were hinted at along the way if you payed attention. Overall I'd recommend this movie to anyone, especially those who take their movies seriously.

I saw the film Christmas with the Kranks for the first time in theatres. I now own it. I really liked it, Based on John Grisham´s "Skipping Christmas", I´d prefer the book but the movie it´s great too, It was a light, funny, laid back movie. I don't know why so many people disliked it. I think that you have to have a certain sense of humour to think it was funny. I thought the plot was very entertaining and yes heartwarming. What's wrong with a heartwarming film about spreading Christmas joy. Why is it so unrealistic? Is it really impossible anymore for people to be nice to one another? To be thoughtful. I think this film portrays the values of enjoying the little things and simple things in life and perhaps this is why people automatically think this movie is clumsy because they don't enjoy and embrace the little things and therefore they are quick to say these certain situations are unrealistic. All films are a little unrealistic. So what. Like ?Lord of the Rings? is realistic? come on folks. lighten up.

Frank Miller, the comic book legend behind Sin City, brings his noir sensibility (and the CG-filmmaking methods used to adapt Sin) to Will Eisner?s beloved action strips. With Gabriel Macht as the resurrected copper and Samuel L Jackson as his oddball nemesis The Octopus, this is having to battle some serious dodgy buzz as it tries to convince us Miller is more than a one-note filmmaker.

Movies based on comic book characters have invaded theaters like a fleet of ships nowadays. The main protagonists of the four-color opuses either have super powers and/or cool gadgets. The title hero of the quirky, over-the-top but romantic "The Spirit", has none, but that's doesn't make him uninteresting, especially in the surprisingly competent, script/directorial hands of Frank Miller, the Sam Peckinpah of the comic book industry.

Based on the 1940s comic strip created by the late Will Eisner, the master of sequential illustration and an influence/friend of Mr. Miller's, Central City cop Denny Colt (adept, GQ model-like Gabriel Macht) is killed in action. He doesn't stay dead for long when he leaves his grave and offers his death-cheating advantage, by being a "super cop", to top magistrate Dolan ("The Wonder Years" alum Dan Lauria). The reason of this resurrection isn't so good; Colt's the guinea pig of egomaniacal mobster The Octopus (Oscar nominee Samuel L. Jackson, who's a ball of fun here), who's also immortal, but wants bona fide, magical immortality by getting a vase containing the blood of demi-god Hercules. A screw up occurs, involving international jewel thief/black widow assassin Sand Saref (sexy Eva Mendes of "Training Day"), an old childhood girlfriend of Colt's. Guns are drawn; knives are thrown and sexual pheromones creep in the cold air of the metropolis.

If you find this film a Batman rip-off, you're so laughable to feel that way ( Eisner went to Dewitt Clinton High School, Bronx, NY with Batman framer Bob Kane) and if you think Mr. Miller should stick to comic books, you're certifiable (He could balance both film and comic books, if need be).

After co-directing the cine-translation of own crime saga, "Sin City" with Robert Rodriguez (the Spy Kids and El Mariachi sagas; "Planet Terror") and producing the adaptation of his take of the Thermopylae battle, "300" by Zack Snyder ("Watchmen"), Miller proves to be up to the task of helming a film featuring a mentor's signature character, whose own obscurity is enough to reason why Mr. Miller handled the film. I ask hard-core fanboys who demean Miller's treatment: who else could have direct it? Spielberg? Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? The Tooth Fairy? Martians? Sure, there's the over-the top moments where Jackson's dressed as a samurai and a Nazi, and when Jackson clobbers Macht with a toilet (!), but if you've read Miller's work, you know what to expect: darkness mixed with madcap humor. If you don't, this is a fantasy world. Accept it or don't.

Miller uses what he's learned from Rodriquez here and uses it well. The mix-match of cornball movie dialogue (Miller's a film noir fan, as long as a lover of the Warner Bros's animated Looney Tunes shorts), vintage fashion and modern technology playfully echoes "Batman: The Aninated Series", and the use of digital background and minimal sets gives the film an avant-garde, stage play atmosphere.

Game are the actors. A second fiddle in films like "Behind Enemy Lines" and "Because I Said So", Mr. Macht resurrects the late Cary Grant and Chris Reeve (the latter watched the former in "Bringing Up Baby" in order to play Clark Kent in the "Superman" films, and Mr. Eisner used the former as a model to create his hero) with his valiant yet skirt-chasing persona while Jackson, a Miller fan, redeems his absence from "Sin City" by matching dire villainy with Macht's classic heroism.

Like Denny, it's hard to choose a favorite among the ladies: vixen Saref (Ms. Mendes should play assassin Mariah, if "Sin City: Hell and Back" is cine-adapted); the Octopus's brainy, sexy gun moll Silken Floss (Woody Allen stable actress Scarlett Johansson); Dolan's daughter/Florence Nightingale doc Ellen (Sarah Paulson of "Studio 60" and "The Notorious Bettie Page"), chipper rookie cop Morgenstern (Stana Katic of the crime drama TV series "Castle"); dancing torturer Plaster of Paris (Paz Vega of "Spanglish") or death goddess Lorelei ("City" alum Jamie King). It's a harem, people!

Mr. Lauria's bulldog, Ernest Borgnine-like demeanor is tough, familiar and likable while Louis Lombardi ("24") is a hoot as multiple "Smiley Goon" clones the Octopus mass produces. They probably share borderline Down's Syndrome, along with looks.

Mr. Miller makes a cameo as a cop who gets decapitated, his fourth "cine-death". First blown up in a drug lab in "Robocop 2" (which Miller co-penned and later demeaned), then cerebrally knifed by Bullseye in the film version of "Daredevil" (which he reinvigorated), next shot by Marv in "City" and now this?I should say, "Oh my God! They killed Frank Miller! You bastards!" Look out for comic book historical references.

What's also interesting is the exclusion of the Spirit's sidekick, young cabbie Ebony White. According to Miller, he didn't want to put a child in an adult world. I figured he didn't know how to modernize a racially stereotypical character, which Mr. Eisner later apologized for creating, and that's probably for the best.

In a recent Q and A, Miller joked if Eisner, who died in 2005, knew he was the Spirit's custodian, he would have beaten him up. If I were Eisner, I'd give Miller a big hug for making a shamelessly fun film, better than the cheesy "Sheena", based on another character co- created by him (with Jerry Iger). Eisner was wise to not have his name attached to it, but if he were alive, he wouldn't mind being name-attached to "The Spirit". It's in reliable hands.

Look out for: Macht and Jackson?s smackdown toilet fight.

i think that this film is brilliant.there are many reasons why but these are some of them 1)the good acting by Tom and Tyler 2) brilliant machine gun scene that was a piece of brilliance 3) i thought that the ending was a good twist because i never expected that at the end all credit to Sam Mendes.as well as a these 3 points the film form of the film is good as well. i am a film student at college and we studied this film in great detail and it was one of the best films i have seen in many years. i'd just like to say a big thank you to all of the people involved in making this film. lastly i would like to say the best scene in the film is the machine gun scene where John Rooney gets kill it is just pure brilliance in shooting the scene in silence until John Rooney says " i'm glad it's you" it is a lot better like that i think because the viewer creates there own sound and that sound is totally different for every viewer just brilliant.

I would say that the movie is really a gem of an art piece. The use of excellent imagery coupled with pretty out-of-the-place background score tells us about the uniqueness of this movie. Stanley Kubrick has really applied a lot of thought into this.

The director wants the audience to feel something as bad not because he is showing it as bad but because it really is bad. The background music accompanying the ultra violent scenes is comical, and not dramatic or anything else that is commonly associated with such scenes. This gives the viewer an opportunity to feel the bitterness not because the music hints so but because he himself feels so. Viewer's emotions should arise irrespective of what the director is trying to show, and this is one of the greatest successes of the movie.

Another glorifying feature is the central idea of the movie. If a human is striped of the choice to choose from good and evil, he no longer remains a human, he becomes a clockwork. When Alex is brain-washed and "programmed" to choose only good, he wasn't accepted by the society and this shows the irony in the objectives of the British Government. The word Orange from the title presumably comes from the word "Ourange" that loosely means man. And hence the title is so appropriate to the movie.

The artificiality in dialogues and sets give the movie a unique feature and enhance the grip on it. This also means that the viewer has to get more involved. This is definitely one of the best technically shot movies, another masterpiece of Kubrick like the Space Oddessey.

For the uninitiated, set in near future Britain, the movie shows Malcom MacDowell as the head of a group of youngsters involved in sexual violence. Turn of the events leave the protagonist in the hands of the police. Worried by the growing number of prisoners the British Government devises a method of "programming" them so that they always choose the good. Alex is chosen as one of those on which the new system is to be tested. The rest unfolds as a saga of the very human characteristic.

Lastly, I would like to say that you may be compelled to leave the movie in between, but if you are watching it for art and cinematic experience, I recommend you to sit through.

This movie is based around the life of a classics professor (Coleman), who is currently living in a small New England town. He has harboured a dark secret for 50 years which slowly starts coming out and causes his life to unravel painfully. When he loses his job after being wrongfully charged of racism, his wife dies leaving this man who is near retirement, with nothing. He embarks on an affair with a young cleaning lady from the college which quickly turns into a relationship as they reveal intimate secrets to each other and finally find the release and trust they've each been searching for. I quite enjoyed this movie ? there was some excellent acting from some top actors, and the sense of intrigue and suspense was maintained throughout. The characters were well-written and the complexities which lingered within their personalities original yet believable. There were moments where I held my breath waiting for the tension to subside and others where I found myself wishing that everything could work out nicely for the people in this story, and remove the arguments and misunderstandings which threatened to ruin what good things they had. It is a truly great movie which can inspire this level of emotion in its audience. The main downside was the fact that it did not seem to flow very well between flashback sequences and the present. Of course I could clearly make out which scenes were of a younger Coleman and memories of the past, however at times failed to recognise their significance at that particular point. It may have been a better idea to insert several shorter flashback clips instead of the lengthy scenes used so that the connection with the present was not lost. There were also sections where the story lagged slightly and I questioned the need for these scenes. In some parts the use of visual without dialogue was extremely effective, but in other parts I felt that the scenes existed solely for the sake of art. In particular, scenes such as the lingering shot of Coleman cradling his wife as she died, froze time and really made me feel the incredible and very sudden loss he suffered. But in comparison, a sequence where the professor's young lady is dancing erotically for him seemed clumsily done as I felt it existed purely for the sake of displaying a sex scene. It did not have the effect of deepening our understanding of the emotions the two main characters felt, which I think it should have done. I was amazed at the end when the terrible secret was revealed through the investigations of a writer who the professor had befriended. To me it would seem wrong to live such a deception your entire life but the movie helped me to understand the character's motives and how he felt that he had no other choice. I was left feeling saddened that someone would have to deny their heritage to such an extent in order to achieve their goals. While it takes a bit of patience to get through the movie (which could have been 20mins shorter), I would highly recommend this movie to anyone. With any luck the more people who watch this movie, the more open-minded society will become and hopefully this type of prejudice will disappear.

I'm not in the least surprised that other reviewers either love this or hate it to bits - I also bet that it's the younger users to whom the nature of the visual narrative of the film - the way it's all told to us, the viewer - may seem a bit dated. And to a point, they're right - "Angel Heart" is totally an eighties film, a film of the decade in which the movie world was discovering a new visual language in video and playfully indulged in experimenting with its new toy. It was literally speaking to a generation straight out of MTV classrooms and workshops and is in that sense very similar to stuff like "Betty Blue". And true enough, there is a lot to remark on what can today be seen as a slightly poseur-ish "one too many revolving fans, angularly lit staircases and heartbeat sounds in the soundtrack" kind of thing. However, "Angel Heart" does carry a tremendous amount of energy thanks to its imagery, which will stick to the viewer's mind in exactly the same way a sweaty shirt sticks to the body in sticky weather. Besides, the impeccably drawn cast led by Rourke does a truly remarkable job - that's beyond question - the sets are great, production design and cinematography are very evocative, the soundtrack is memorable and the story is one of the crucial ones. I personally love it.

Give it a go by all means.

I saw Twilight last night at an early showing and really had no idea what to expect. I am a fan of the books but I am also aware of their teeny-bopper appeal. I am not so in love with the series that I was going to be angry when the movie strayed from the books, but I found no REAL errors. The one thing that bothered me was that Edward wore a t-shirt to school and was sitting right in the window on a BRIGHT overcast day. This would never happen. Also, Edward's car is a Volvo hatchback... which it shouldn't be. Another thing that seemed odd to me was that Bella has no real reaction to Edward being a vampire.

Anyways... I felt that Catherine Hardwicke added a certain humor to the film- the audience laughed out loud very often. I was pleasantly surprised with Kristen Stewart- I was expecting to be completely disappointed by her portrayal of Bella. I felt that all of the Cullens were cast very well. I especially enjoyed Robert Pattinson (of course) and Esme. I also felt the cinematography captured the beauty of the Pacific Northwest very well (it is where I grew up and live currently).

The one complaint I have about the film is that Edward and Bella seem to RUSH into a relationship. There is no build up to it. I felt that if a person had not read the books they would not understand how all of the sudden these two young people are so completely in love. The beginning of the movie also seems pretty choppy but it's nothing too serious. I also found myself laughing out loud when Jacob explains the legend to Bella and the movie cuts back to the members of the tribe confronting the Cullens in the forest decades earlier. It was hilarious and I'm sure it wasn't meant to be.

I particularly enjoyed the baseball scene as well as the scene in which Edward sneaks into Bella's room(!). The thing about the movie that bothered me the most was the soundtrack. The lullaby was nothing special (they really had an opportunity to make the song beautiful) and the emo/indie music all throughout the movie made everything seem TOO serious at certain points and NOT serious enough at others. The music (for me at least) distracted me instead of enhanced the experience.

Overall, however, I really enjoyed and loved the movie. I liked that there were parts you could laugh at. Edward and Bella also had excellent chemistry and Robert Pattinson did an amazing job of giving Edward that "outsider" quality. I think the movie was very entertaining and also set up very well for New Moon.

Year of the Dragon is something of a little known masterpiece. It is well written by Oliver Stone, and directed by Cimino at a turning point in his career. The centre piece, however, is Rourkes performance, which was caught while he most likely was at the peak of his acting ability's. You will be totally blown away by the realism of his acting, and it's even more noteworthy that the film was made while Rourke was youthful while making this and was made to look more senior (that grey hair is dye). A heartfelt performance from an actor playing a cop with "scar tissue on his soul", will never be forgotten once seen. While the main character is far from perfect, it is just that which makes him believable as well. Stanley White is on a crusade and would die for his principles, which effects all those involved with him. It is a complex film, often talky, which is punctuated throughout with explosive violence, well shot with use of excellent set pieces. Bloody in places and above all gritty and realistic, in parts it is even beautiful. The film works on many levels from it's slow burn beginnings with emphasis on conspiracy to the final pay off on the dock yards. Well drawn characters are everywhere in this film, and it never losses its hard edge. Rourke has seen a much needed and deserved return in recent years. He may have lost his handsome good looks due to boxing and due to too many face lifts, but the guy will never lose his acting ability. We, the true fans, never gave up on this chance. And now he's finally gaining popularity with a new generation, who need to see and experience The Year Of The Dragon, To believe the hype. Also check out his other classics Angel Heart and Barfly.

L.A. Confidential is the most classy, intriguing, thought provoking and sexiest detective movie ever to be made in the history of detective films.

When you look back at it and see that Russell Crowe, Kevin Spacey and Guy Pearce actually appeared in the same film back in 97 then you wouldn't have believed it since they have all gone on to better things but before that we had L.A. Confidential which was Crowe's and Pearce's ticket into Hollywood. Spacey had already made it with his Best Supporting Actor nod for The Usual Suspects but what puzzles me is how everybody apart from Kim Basinger didn't get any acting nominations at the Oscars. James Cromwell is the most chilled out villain you'll ever going to see in a film like this and has been criminally ignored by the Academy. Curtis Hanson was also someone who had made some good films but no masterpieces till this came along.

They all must have sold their souls to make this because when you get big cast get together to make a Hollywood film then you become a bit intrigued by it because if the cast is big then is the story any good? In L.A. Confidential's case it had both and a lot more to say the least.

I still think that this is Spacey's, Crowe's and Pearce's best film of there career. Russell Crowe as tough guy but sentimental towards women Bud White is flawless and is quite like the real Russell Crowe which is scary. Guy Pearce as the quick witted but dumb looking Ed Exley is someone one you either love or you hate as the annoying rookie. Kevin Spacey is just as cool as anything that Bogart and Mitchium could have pulled off as Jack Vincennes and there is the movie along with a great script by Brian Heagland of Mystic River fame and Curtis Hanson himself who put together a great script from James Ellroy's novel.

Kim Basinger is as sexy as she is going to get and her acting is very good and well deserving of her Oscar if the boys were robbed. I liked how we had three different stories and one case that all had something to do with another but were all separate anyway till the end. It was like watching a movie with three stories based on a trio of detectives. L.A. Confidential was a treat as far as storytelling goes because it enthrals you into the film straight away as well as it being more exciting than a night out in Vegas.

We don't see Detective films like this so we should be grateful that this came along when it did.

John Shaft is a private detective in Harlem. He is hired by pimp and drug dealer Bumpy Jonas to find Bumpy's daughter who has been kidnapped by an unknown party. Shaft investigates the local Panther organisation but ultimately finds that an Italian mob is trying to move in on Bumpy's territory. With all parties at conflict Shaft must keep his cool to get the girl back.

Ay the start of a decade filled with cheap movies aimed at getting the black audience a product aimed at them in particular. Many of these were poor but Shaft stood out because it could have been a film in it's own right. The story is a normal detective movie with a black twist and that helps ? because it's not forced at all. The story is gritty and tough as befits the setting and the hero.

Shaft is tough but hadn't yet turned into 007 (as he did in Shaft's Big Score), this makes him tough but also keeps him down to earth. Roundtree handles himself sexily and looks great ? the film very much revolves around his performance and he holds the attention easily.

The film eventually gets into gun fights and an exciting conclusion but really this is all about mood and funk. And it delivers both.

In my review a year ago of "Catch That Kid", I referred to Kristen Stewart as a young Portman/Knightley. Most people thought I was going a bit overboard but with her performance in "Speak" I feel even more confident of my assessment. Although "Speak" was shot within a few months of "Catch That Kid" Stewart looks considerably older, with the Portman/Knightley connection even more obvious. Her understated performance as Melinda Sordino is absolutely riveting. Stewart's performance is critical to this film because she is not just the central character but also the narrator, the entire story is told from her point of view.

Cinematographer Andrij Parekh gets maximum effect from the camera as the film is filled with tight shots of Stewart's face and eyes. Director Jessica Sharzer gets an incredible non-verbal performance from Stewart which is nicely offset by the voice-over narration. Like the narration in "The Opposite of Sex" and "Girl" this helps relieve the intensity and introduces some wry humor into the story. I particularly liked Stewart's offhand voice-over on her way to the principal's office: "I forgot that the suffragettes were hauled off to jail, duh".

Melinda's flat and distanced narration is often contradicted by the crushing emotional trauma she is experiencing on the screen, this dichotomy is a very effective way to illustrate her inner strength and multi-dimensionality.

Parekh complements his close work with interesting short focal transitions and some good exterior shots. One especially nice one is when Stewart is walking in the distance and the focus slowly changes to highlight a bee and a flower in the foreground.

Like "Welcome to the Dollhouse", the adult roles are a bit extreme but the student roles are very convincing.

Interestingly, the climatic scene actually occurs about 15 minutes before the ending. Melinda's rejuvenation happens during her impromptu hospital visit, her voice-over reflects this change: "It happened. There's no avoiding it. No forgetting." Strong again she dumps Heather, plays a killer set of tennis, and bicycles to the scene of last summer's party where she confronts what happened to her and decides to tell Rachel. The tree that inspired her painting helps tie everything together.

Virtually everyone should find this film engrossing, but it will especially appeal to those who like to see their heroines get stronger as a story progresses.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

NOTES ON THE ADAPTATION: A personal visualization process occurs when reading a book that often makes its movie adaptation less powerful and less enjoyable. But it also affords the opportunity to focus on understanding why the screenwriter, director, and editor choose to use, alter, or omit each element in the book. Adaptations are all about economy and efficiency as they try to tell the same essential story visually and often symbolically.

In the case of "Speak", I think the movie is more powerful than the book as you feel Melinda's trauma more, even if you don't understand it as precisely. The visuals of Melinda's emotional battles are more powerful than any narrative; as are the visuals of her drawings and of the process of her growing stronger as the story progresses.

The adaptation shows Melinda's parents more positively but still portrays them as disinterested. The key scene is Christmas morning. Watch how after receiving the art supplies Melinda is pleasantly stunned that her parents were actually aware that she was drawing, then quickly disappointed when they disconnect and start their own conversation about the stereo system, which brings on the flashback of them not being there when she returned home from the party.

They wonderfully condense the process of Mr. Freeman connecting with Melinda, the key scene is when he and Ivy are discussing her art project with the turkey bones and the palm tree. Melinda is seated as they come into the frame from both sides. The camera is static as they discuss the project until just before Mr. Freeman says the word "pain". At that point they cut to a tight reaction shot of Melinda's face as the word registers and her eyes look up at him in surprise. With that short sequence they manage to communicate about 50 pages of narrative and to say all that is needed about the special relationship that Melinda and Mr. Freeman will develop. The viewer is shown not just that he is picking up her pain from the symbolism in her art work, but more importantly that she now realizes there is someone who is tuned in and interested in her welfare. This little sequence is truly inspired and a great illustration of the visual power of film.

Pier Paolo Pasolini, as is well known, was murdered not long after he finished work on this, his most audacious and confrontational film, yet even the most casual viewing of SALO begs the question - had he not been murdered, would he have taken his own life anyway? Every sequence, every shot and practically every moment of this film is so burdened with despair, barely concealed rage and a towering disgust with the human race, one gets the impression that Pasolini was barely hanging onto life - and any attendant shreds of hope - by his fingernails. Although ostensibly an adaptation of one of DeSade's most depraved works channeled through the horrifying excesses of the Second World War with the Fascist ruling classes as its (authentically vile) villains, SALO also contains a lot of contemporary criticism - Pasolini hated the modern world, and explained the stomach-churning 'banquet of s**t' as a none-too-subtle attack on the encroaching global domination of the fast food chains. (The scenes of sexual excess can similarly be read as a despairing attack on the permissive society - those who come to SALO expecting titillation or B-movie sleaze will be sorely disappointed.) Beyond the nihilistic content, which has been well documented elsewhere, the film has an overall mood that seems to have been engineered to make the viewer thoroughly depressed. Shot on washed-out, faded film stock using primarily static cameras, long shots, choppy editing and very few cutaways, SALO has a visual style reminiscent of cinema-verite documentary. Add to this the unnerving use of big band music, piano dirges and the (intentionally?) scrappy post-dubbed dialogue, and the distancing effect on the viewer is complete. SALO comes across as one long primal scream of rage, designed to shake the viewer out of his complacency, and in this respect, the film succeeds unequivocally. Whether or not you would care to watch this more than once, or indeed for 'entertainment', is another matter, but SALO is an important film that demands a careful viewing ONLY by those prepared for it.

I can not say that A Walk to Remember was a movie that I went out of my way to see, or even that I recall it being aired in any UK cinema. I happened to watch it on TV one Sunday morning expecting something somewhat usual and predictable.

I must admit I was more than pleasantly surprised, enough so to actually watch it more than once, and consequently feel compelled to write these comments. I find myself struggling not to watch it whenever I see it listed, such a charming movie is this! The plot seems to be initially a rather predictable foray into the traditional territory of bad boy meets good, but sadly plain girl. At some point in the movie, girl momentarily transforms from ugly duckling into swan. At this point I found myself feeling that comfort that we all feel in the knowledge that we know exactly what is going to happen in a movie. I was entirely convinced that the entire culmination of the thing is for girl to gain some peer group acceptance. The presence of a seemingly overly protective father hints at overtones that he may be some kind of parental tyrant figure from whom she may require some sort of heroic liberation.

However as Jaime reveals her secret then all becomes apparent, and a far more absorbing plot unfolds than is initially to be expected.

Performances are competent and heartfelt, Shane West gives an admirable portrayal of an angry young man on a path of reformation. Mandy Moore is strong and almost graceful in her role as Jaime and enhances the charm of this romantic interlude with several pretty vocal solos.

Daryl Hannah and Peter Coyote both fine actors add a lovely depth to the general proceedings and are certainly worth a mention for their respective roles as concerned parents.

It is impossible for me not to like this little film, because I am an insufferably romantic female and A walk to Remember has romance in a monumental dosage. There is little or no sexual content, rather emphasis is put upon the more admirable and sincere aspects of courtship little seen in the average teen movie.

Without going into territory that could be classed as spoiling, it is worth mentioning that some people may place A Walk to Remember into the tear- jerker category, and consign it to a dark dusty corner of their DVD collection which is only delved into in the most girly of moments.

For some, several scenes may be a little too saccharine- but if you don't like romance then this picture probably isn't for you anyway.

In my opinion, this category is a little too narrow to slide A Walk to Remember into. The true themes of this lovely story are in reality- faith, and redemption, which are universal aspects of humanity with which we can all identify in various amount.

The end result for me was that I felt uplifted at the end. Like eating a tub of ice cream or having a nice bubbly bath this is a movie to put on when you feel low or have had a bad day and it's sure to make you feel much better. You will fall in love for the first time all over again for a couple of hours.

You may well sit down to watch with preconceptions about what you are going to see. You men may sit down and watch it solely to win a few merit points from your girlfriend so she'll let you watch the football in peace later. As my title says though, this may be the one romantic movie you will hate yourself for loving.

You don't even have to admit to anybody that you watched it and liked it, but I encourage you to watch it all the same without prejudice.

A little charmer- comforting and sweet- sets out to do something very simple, and delivers well.

Wolverine Origins is one badass comic book movie. It's been a long time since I've seen a comic book movie that was all about action and wasn't about caped-crusader morals or sophisticated plots. If you're going to see this, don't expect a Watchmen or Dark Knight, or even an X-Men. Expect a non-stop-explosion-fest of a movie. And what's really amazing about this movie is that it's fast paced - when it finished I was surprised at how fast it went by.

The only negatives about the movie was the acting, (especially by Lynn Collins. She's a bloody robot in this movie and the lines sound so forced.) and the camera angles- most of the shots were too close up and we rarely got shots that were wide - some scenes felt too compressed.

Other than that, I was really satisfied with this movie. It's a good movie to nullify the stresses you accumulate from work and doesn't make you have to think hard like Watchmen.

After killing her husband Helene Delambre recounts the story of why she done it. Her husband was a scientist who was deeply into his work and through those long days and weeks he makes a big breakthrough in science by inventing a teleportation machine that can transmit matter from one spot to another. After some glitches he fine tunes the device and decides to test it by using himself as a guinea pig. While, in the process of this test, a housefly gets caught inside with him and when he emerges from the other capsule he shares its genetic structure and physical attributes.

"The Fly" is classic Sci-Fi / horror from the 50s and what a nice surprise this was! Unlike many of its kind in the 50s, this one didn't have a childish feel. The context may seem silly here, but its executed with enough skill and handled in a relax manner by director Kurt Neumann to set above the rest. Just don't be expecting a monster on the rampage tale. This one veers more towards a much more broaden and imaginative story with a certain eeriness contained in its psychological material rather than visuals. Even though it doesn't scare you witless, it still does provide a couple of memorable and ingenious shocks that are hard to put out of your mind. The film opens with the horrific outcome of Helene's husband Andre and then it goes into flashback mode where we learn the fate of Dr. Andre Delambre. What does make it surprisingly good is that we're treated with such passionately vivid characters and a interesting set-up that pulls you in by taking a more serious approach with a dabble of irony along the way. The talkative first hour slowly builds up to its taut last half-an-hour, where we get a smart and venomously bleak climax. Although, it could have done without that preachy conclusion. The rational script by James Clavell works by being incredibly dense with it thriving on some quick wit and sincerity. The story is more about a woman trying to save the man she loves as he slowly fights the genetic effects of the fly's DNA. He may seem hideous on the outside, but inside he is still more so human and he's trying his best to keep control of his dieing humanity. This is proved by how much he cares for his family's safety when he's willingly to take his own life for the best of everyone. It's practical story telling at its best.

The look of the film is top shape with it being shot in vibrant Technicolor and the key is that the deformity is kept hidden, but when it's revealed it actually stands up rather well. It's ugly, that's for sure, but still it looks rather competent. They're also an inventive touch when we see the creature for the first time with multiple frames being used to represent the reflection from human fly's eyes. In Cronenberg's version we see the grotesque transformation, but because of the times and effects we don't see it here, but more so the aftermath of the mishap. All of the devices and gadgets in Andre's lab are well presented and the mounted score adds in a forceful touch with nice crisp sound effects. The performances are more than great by the likes of Al Edison, Patricia Owens, and Herbert Marshall and even though Vincent Price had a supporting role, you'll be in awe of his effortlessly suave performance.

An excellent classic of its field that's more concern about telling a moving and fascinating story than just giving us pointless action and cheap thrills to spice up proceedings. The more you stick it out, the more compelling it does become.

Angels & Demons
Expected: 15 May
A prequel to The Da Vinci Code finds Tom Hanks? Professor Robert Langdon working to solve another conspiracy. There?s yet more murder to be uncovered and this time he has to stop a terrorist act threatening the Vatican. Despite the seemingly church-friendly angle, religious types mostly refused to co-operate again despite the presence of ultra-friendly director Ron Howard, Ewan McGregor and charisma-filled star Hanks.

After the ridiculous amount of hype that surrounded the release of The Da Vinci Code it was only a matter of time before Dan Browns "other" Robert Langdon novel got the big screen treatment with Ron Howard returning as director and Tom Hanks (sans mullet) playing the said Robert Langdon.

This time Robert Langdon finds himself embroiled in another church cover up when the Illuminati rise from the underground and attempt to destroy the Catholic church and the only man capable in the entire world, of stopping this event, is of course Robert Langdon.

Tom Hanks is fine as Robert Langdon and kudos for him for being brave enough to wear Speedos in todays critical era and to say some of his lines in such a straight and serious manner without sniggering. The rest of the cast were fine, although Ewan McGregors Irish accent faltered on many occasions.

The plot, like the novel, has enough twists and turns to keep the audience engrossed and some of the set pieces, especially the "fire" scene are very unsettling to watch. There was a good mix of suspense and action to break up all the talking and trips to the Vatican Archives (which was not anything like I pictured them to be when I read the book!)

The sets were gorgeous to look at - replica or not the locations were impressive.

No matter how intelligent this movie, or indeed any of Dan Browns novels claim to be, what they essentially boil down to is a grown up treasure hunt, with an intelligent man, sprouting exposition which, when read appears incredulous, but when spoken on the big screen, is at times down right laughable, in the chase to find this particular movies "holy grail".

It is a very entertaining movie granted, but the entire success of Robert Langdons mission depended solely on the fact that in 400 years not one of the cleaning ladies in Vatican City moved any of the conveniently placed statues which so helpfully (literally) pointed out the way in every church - either that or the Illuminati where in charge of the cleaning.

Dan Brown is given a lot of criticism for his writing. He is not going to be remembered amongst the great modern writers, but what he good at is tapping into all the clichés and tricks used to keep the reader hooked, with constant cliff-hangers and interesting snippets of fiction portrayed as fact and like him or loath him - it works.

Angels and Demons is a very watchable movie and the fact that these types of movies are still very profitable is probably a conspiracy Da Vinci would be proud of . I can`t wait to see Robert Langdon`s next adventure "Lost symbol" in 2012 and read the book in September of this year.
Look out for: Hanks? hair- it?s a lot more normal this time around.

I like this film a lot, but of course it suffers - as all sequels do - by comparison to its predecessor, in this case 'Silence of the Lambs' The main reason for having a sequel at all was to showcase again the character of Hannibal Lecter, a monstrous creation everyone wanted to see more of after the first film. It could have bombed badly therefore if writer and actor had let us down by failing to catch the magic again. It was after all a decade after the original was made. But they don't, and Anthony Hopkins turns in another delicious performance as the man with the evil intent cloaked in inestimable, menacing charm.

Julianne Moore drew the short straw in having to re-create the Clarice Starling role that had been so memorably played by another actress. She does well in my opinion, but inevitably we keep thinking 'where is Jodie Foster?', and this lends her portrayal a lack of credibility which is entirely unfair. Gary Oldman's Mason Verger is suitably loathsome and manages to make Lecter seem almost like the hero in their battle of wits. If there is a weak link, Ray Liotta's Krendler seems a bit misplaced.

The direction deserves special mention. The lush, beautiful settings are mocked by the horror of what is happening in them and the perfectly-selected atmospheric music stayed in my mind long after the film had ended.

Once again, the film lacks realism, but as with the original, it doesn't matter. Of course things like this don't really happen - but so what? It's a film. Get over it! I was prompted after seeing it to read the books, and the right decision was made in changing the ending of this story from that written by Thomas Harris.

We were subsequently treated to another look at Lecter in a decent prequel movie, 'Red Dragon,' but I will not be alone in hoping that some day we will see yet more of him in a further instalment. Unlikely I suspect - but not impossible.

I´m giving a serious though in to eating your wife.

Ta-ta

The Silence of the Lambs runs two hours.Anthony Hopkins appears for little more than sixteen minutes, yet during those minutes he hasn't bored you for a second, not even after the tenth or eleventh viewing. Such is the power of his performance, it's absolutely impossible to forget him.His character, Dr.Hannibal"The Cannibal" Lecter, is a brutal killer with revolting methods and habits, but he's also very intelligent, charismatic and with good taste(you can interpret that as you like).A clichè by now, but who cares? He still is one of the key elements in this wonderful thriller, which sees Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling asking for Lecter's help to catch another killer.The result is a dangerous yet fascinating relationship between the young, unexperienced FBI-agent and the convicted,but basically omnipotent, psychiatrist.He's a step ahead of everyone all the time, and makes sure everyone notices, with his witty, unforgettable one-liners.If there had to be only one reason to worship this movie, then it would have to be the chemistry between the two leading actors.Never before has a non-sexual man/woman connection been more thrilling.Never before has a film's ending been more unsettling and brilliant and left us asking for more.

Best watched with a nice Chianti...

P.S. dear film-buffs, have the lambs stopped screaming?

After the return of the infamous Hannibal Lecter to our screens in 2001 with Ridley Scott's film version of the best novel in Thomas Harris's Lecter trilogy, it's not surprising that a new version of the first novel in the series got an update a year later considering that it's previous screen version, Michael Mann's Manhunter, doesn't fit in with the other two films in the series. I do have to say that this version is both more true to Harris' novel and an overall better film than Manhunter; though it does have numerous shortfalls and has nothing on the masterpiece 'Silence of the Lambs'. The plot is quite similar to the one in Silence of the Lambs, and features a cop on the hunt of a serial killer and receiving help from the incarcerated Hannibal Lecter. FBI Agent Will Graham, the captor of Hannibal Lecter, is called out of retirement to help catch a serial killer dubbed "The Tooth Fairy" by the media. The killer has already slaughtered two families and the FBI believes that another one is soon to join them; meaning that Will Graham has no choice but to ask Hannibal Lecter for help with the case.

The casting is one of the things that many critics pick up on, and that's not surprising. Anthony Hopkins effortlessly slips back into the role that he will always be associated with; although he's far more comical here than in previous Lecter films. As anyone who has read the book will tell you, Edward Norton is completely wrong for the role of Will Graham as the role needed a grittier actor. Harvey Keitel is a great actor, but Scott Glenn from Silence of the Lambs fit the role of Jack Crawford much better. There's nothing wrong with the rest of the supporting cast, however, with Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman all fit into their respective roles well. There's not a great deal wrong with the plot pacing, although the film is a little slow at times and the book is much more exciting on the whole. Certain parts of the plot could have been cut out to streamline the film for the screen, although Ted Tally's screenplay is good in that it does encompass most of the important parts of the book. Obviously this film is always going to come under criticism for not being as great as Silence of the Lambs and it does have nothing on the book, but overall Red Dragon is a decent enough thriller in it's own right and I cant say I dislike it.

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.

It's time to learn what led Hannibal Lecter, once a gifted, bright young man, to a life of horrendous crime.

Fans of the book series will already be familiar with the story of Hannibal's younger sister, Mischa (and her eventual fate at the hands of Nazi soldiers), from Thomas Harris's 1999 novel "Hannibal".

Now it is time to learn the full story of Lecters troubled childhood, a result of growing up through the horrors World War 2.

I, for one loved Hannibal Rising, so much so that I returned to cinemas to watch the film for a second time merely a week after my first viewing. The film has also re-kindled my interest in Thomas Harris's wonderful series.

Stunning cinematography, emotional performances beautiful direction and all together great story telling help to make this film one of the best I have seen in a long time.

Gaspard Ulliel makes cannibalism hot and does a fantastic job at portraying a young Lecter. He is perfectly charming and polite on the outside, whilst on the inside his sadistic and vengeful nature continues to grow. Ulliel is highly engaging and convincing in his performance, doing the famous character justice.

Gong Li must also be mentioned at this point for her performance as the graceful Lady Murasaki who acts as both mentor and love interest for the young Hannibal. Li and Ulliel have a good chemistry throughout most of the film and both actors appear to have a great understanding of their characters.

I would highly recommend this movie to fans of the book series, however fans of the movie series might be disappointed if they are expecting to see another Silence of the Lambs or Red Dragon.

Perhaps one of the only genuinely good Stephen King adaptations, ?Carrie' follows the tragic tale of Carrie White (Sissy Spacek), a young girl who is continually made to suffer at the hands of her bullying classmates and not helped by her overbearing, religious mother Margaret (Piper Laurie). Carrie, however, is not like regular teenagers as she has been blessed(?) with telekinetic powers and as the inner rage grows within Carrie so, it seems, do these potentially lethal abilities.

Brian De Palma directed this amazingly stylish adaptation of Stephen King's first novel which is arguably the best Stephen King adaptation ever to be made. Sissy Spacek's performance is one of the greatest to ever grace a horror film. Somehow managing to perfectly embody the typical school life of the usual high school outcasts, Spacek was able to bring to everyone the appalling life that so many teenagers are forced to tolerate. From the opening scenes where Carrie is utterly humiliated at the hands of her classmates after Carrie's hysterical reaction to her first menstruation, to the painfully wretched ending it becomes nigh on impossible not to sympathise with Spacek's character. Spacek was quite rightly Oscar-nominated for this performance. Spacek's performance was enhanced by fellow Oscar-nominee Piper Laurie in the role of the religious-nut Margaret White. In some ways the naivety shown towards Carrie and what is happening to her is amusing but at the same time it is terrifying to think that any mother could allow her daughter to go though such a generally horrendous life. Piper Laurie was able to make this all too abhorrent character her own with a thoroughly convincing and unsettling performance.

De Palma cleverly directs this movie. Instead of immediately introducing us to Carrie's powers he focuses on the torment (and the tormentors) of Carrie first. This allows the viewer to feel for Carrie and will her towards revenge while ensuring that she is not made into a one-dimensional killer. The movie is very well paced and is presented in a brutally clear fashion. De Palma refrains from using any visual effects with the exception of the infamous `Prom Night' scene which was incredibly well crafted and immersed the viewer in this horrifying display of rage. The final twenty minutes of Carrie are some of the most intense and gripping moments to have been portrayed in horror cinema. These scenes without a doubt helped to build one of the most artistic and and incredible climaxes in all of film.

?Carrie' is not for those who just want to see people sliced up or prefer fast-paced horror as it is presented as a heart-breaking drama with a horrifying twist. The magnificent cast (which features John Travolta in an early role) was also graced with fantastic performances from Betty Buckley as the kindly gym teacher and Nancy Allen as Chris, the deplorable ring leader of this atrocious bullying. In my opinion ?Carrie' is unquestionably worth a look for horror fans. 'Carrie' is very well directed, with a superb screenplay from Larry Cohen and featuring two of the greatest performances in horror.

This is by far the most accurate and striking adaptation of the J.M. Barrie favourite that has yet been made. Indeed it is difficult to see how it could have been better.

Whilst I'm writing here in praise of the film, I feel I must take issue with the comments of Mr John Ulmer who criticised the film for a number of reasons. I seek to defend the story of Peter Pan and in particular this version. Firstly, it was said that this version has sexual over/undertones.

Erm... well yes... any accurate portrayal of the story would have, as these subtleties are present en masse in the book, indeed more so in the book than in the film it could be argued. It is precisely this evident descent towards Wendy's loss of innocence that both disturbs and excites adult readers of the books and this is quite intentional. Children who are not of an age to appreciate this level are untouched by it but rather take delight in the glorious idea of never having to grow up but instead being allowed to play forever. Indeed the relationship between Pan and Hook is the struggle of youth to overcome the onset of age (singular human vanity and innocent childish rebellion combined). I do not believe that this film's handling of this aspect of the book was merely present in "sick adult humour", I believe that it was beautifully hinted at in a way which would stimulate adult appreciation and childish fascination in the character of Pan.

I should like to make mention of the parallel which Mr Ulmer draws between this version of Peter Pan and Jumanji (namely the use of the same actors to play the adversary and the father of the lead character) is not just a trick put in to hark back to that film. Indeed the tradition of the same actor playing the role of Mr Darling AND Hook dates back to the story's original appearance as a stage play at the turn of the century and has been carried on on most occasions since then, though I concede that the Disney version (a far less worthy and sterilised version) failed to keep this tradition up.

As for the point at which the two boys are hung upside down in their nightshirts, I thought it was funny, as did the rest of the audience in the theatre and we certainly weren't there with a red pen counting the number of bottom shots as Mr Ulmer appears to have done. This film is full of charming humour, adult overtones for the adults, childish fantasy and wonderment for those of the appropriate age. The acting is superb in all areas and I must make particular mention of both Ludivine Sagnier as a wickedly funny Tink and of course Rachel Hurd-Wood whose screen debut showed her as a previously undiscovered talent who will surely go far. All the others were excellent also.

All in all this film rekindled my love of the book which I have now re-read a number of times and makes up for all those years Pan has spent in the Disney wilderness.

Public Enemies
Expected: 3 July
In the action-thriller Public Enemies, filmmaker Michael Mann directs Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Academy Award® winner Marion Cotillard in the story of legendary Depression-era outlaw John Dillinger (Depp), the charismatic bank robber whose lightning raids made him a folk hero to much of the downtrodden public -- and the number one target of J. Edgar Hoover?s FBI and its top agent, Melvin Purvis (Bale). While his charm and audacity endeared Dillinger to the American public, the fledgling FBI decided to exploit their quest for the outlaw?s capture, branding him America's first "Public Enemy Number One," in order to elevate the FBI into a national police force.

I've always been a fan if the 1930's/ 1940's gangster films like: The Public Enemy, Scareface: Shame of the Nation, Bonnie and Clyde etc. This film was a brilliant look at the life of John Dillinger and except for the time line of deaths which were swapped around to keep in the film this was very, very accurate.

I did not enjoy the flat look of the film, but excellent angles and photography helped make up for it. The acting was good but Bale was the best actor of them, Johnny did a good job too. I enjoyed the action sequences but I was kinda annoyed by the constant emphasis on Billie and Johns relationship which I didn't find to be that entertaining. They needed more scenes of Bale tracking Dillinger and stuff. But I found the film ended too soon and even though it was long they could have easily have more, so I hope there is a Directors cut.

This film has easily made my top Gangster films list but not number one or two. The way I see it is there are Crime films and Sub-genres: Gangster, Hiest, Mystery, Detective, Hard Boiled, Pulp Fiction, prison film, hood film, legal/courtroom dramas, film noir, and just simple crime films. And this falls under: Gangster/ Hiest/ Crime.

This was an excellent Gangster film about John Dillinger but disappointingly could have been better. So keeping my fingers crossed for Inglourious Basterds.
.
Look out for: Billy Crudup as FBI boss J Edgar Hoover. Who, legend has it, liked to wear dresses.

When three mutilated bodies are found in Moscow's Gorky Park, Chief Militia Renko suspects KGB involvement and wants to drop the case. Encouraged to continue by his superior, his suspicions are eventually confirmed but he uncovers a larger plot involving the friend of one of the victims and an American furrier who trades in rare sable pelts.

This is my favourite Cold War thriller - despite the fact that it's got nothing to do with the Cold War - based on a great book by Martin Cruz Smith filled with action and intrigue and with a first-rate script by Dennis Potter, bursting with dramatic tension and character nuance. Its best feature is the marvellous casting by Mary Selway; Hurt is sensational as Renko, a brilliantly atypical hero, gaunt and pale-faced, dogged and relentless, drab but passionate, double-crossed and always on the receiving end of beatings, but indefatigable in his pursuit. He's supported by three great actors; the elfin, amazing-looking Pacula as the key witness Irina, the solid, ever-reliable Dennehy as a New York cop whose brother was one of the victims, and the iconic Marvin, in one of his last great roles, as the decadent furrier out to smash the Russian sable monopoly. The all-British supporting cast is equally full of great players, notably McDiarmid as a creepy professor and comedians Fulton and Sayle as a KGB Major and informant respectively. Made prior to the lifting of the ban on filming in Russia, the movie was shot in Helsinki, but Paul Sylbert's production design does a fantastic job of putting us in snowy Moscow, filled with food- lines, little Lada cars and Romanov architecture. Even better is James Horner's fabulous driving score, which ramps up the tension and batters the viewer into submission at all the key moments. Filled with quotable dialogue (when Renko borrows his lawyer friend's gun, the friend says, "It's a lawyer's special issue. It probably won't shoot straight."), great scenes, rich characters and mesmerising performances, this a superb thriller from the sporadically-brilliant Apted (check out his Continental Divide and Gorillas In The Mist as well) that is not to be missed.

#3: There Will be Blood

There Will Be Blood is adapted by Paul Thomas Anderson from the novel "Oil", written by Upton Sinclair. It charts the rise to power of Daniel Plainview, an oil prospector without one seemingly redemptive characteristic, this is a man who takes and uses an adoptive son purely as a front for luring sympathy from prospective sellers, the facade of a caring family man never more so ruthlessly exploited as it is by Plainview. Upon learning {at a price} that there is oil abundant land in California going cheap, Plainview and H.W. {his ahem, son}, set off there and begin manipulating the land owners to meet Plainview's means. But although the operation there is thriving, Plainview meets resistance per se, in the form of local preacher Eli Sunday, greed and religion appearing to define both mens destinies.

So many writings and analytical dissections have been formed about this mighty epic from 2007, and really it's not my want to even begin agreeing or disagreeing about the various translations of the piece. For what it's worth, i don't see anything more than a fable about isolation thru greed, and the blending of capitalism with religious fervour. What i do know is that watching There Will Be Blood feels like a reason to love cinema, regardless of Paul Thomas Anderson's motives that bubble beneath the surface, it's a film of extraordinary greatness. It's leading man, Daniel Day Lewis, turns in one of his customary brilliant performances, enticing audience confusion as to if Plainview is a genius or a sociopath bastard?, either way you call it, Day Lewis has given us one of the modern cinemas truest scary monsters. Paul Dano as Eli gives the film its other central performance, and in view of D D Lewis's barn storming performance, it's with much credit that Dano leaves an indelible mark come the final credits.

Tho nominated for eight academy awards, the only other win outside of Day Lewis's for best actor {really it was a given that he would win}, went to Robert Elswit for his stunning cinematography, sparse dusty lands are perfectly framed with truncation excellently arriving in the form of oil drills and fire laden towers. There Will Be Blood is a film that demands you return to it for further viewings, each subsequent visit bringing about a little more than a fabulous leading man performance. It's just like many prescription pain killers, if you give it time then it most definitely works, and to me as a lover of cinema, this picture is part of being the best medicine of recent times.

Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Expected: 17 July
Delayed from late 2008 to give Warners a better slate this summer, the Potter series reaches book six and gets even darker. War is breaking out between the magical forces of good and evil and, as usual, Harry and chums are in the middle of it all. Even Hogwarts isn?t safe. Plus, readers of the book will know big things happen here.

Only the most unyielding literalist Potter fans will not enjoy this film as it has it all: exquisite cinematography, a brilliant soundtrack, imaginative direction, and the best acting from both veterans and young guns we've seen so far in the series. All are put to brilliant use as Dumbledore and Harry conspire to discover Lord Voldermort's secrets whilst simultaneously straining every sinew to contain outbreaks of rampant hormones and potion-taking at Hogwarts.

Some of the sets are breathtaking, in particular Weasley Wizard Wheezes. The film is hilarious throughout, Rupert Grint excelling with superb support from Jessie Cave, Freddie Stroma (as Cormac McClaggen) and Evanna Lynch. Bonnie Wright and Tom Felton are allowed to step out of their two-dimensional characters, Wright delivering sensuousness and strength and Felton giving an outstanding all-round performance. Daniel Radcliffe continues to carry the weight of both the part and the franchise with effortless ease, and Emma Watson is once again a delight as the emotionally embattled focus of the superb trio who have now added a facility for comedy to their formidable acting skills.

The veterans pull out all the stops, Michael Gambon is exceptional, becoming a truly charismatic and compelling presence by the end of the film, and of course, perfectly pitched performances from the likes of Bonham Carter (terrifyingly seductive), Jim Broadbent (funny and pathos-filled), and Alan Rickman (unreadably malevolent). Despite being on the screen for what seemed an instant, both David Thewlis and Helen McCrory convey their respective characters' desperation and edginess.

The film never lags because when you are not being gripped by visceral Quidditch or battle scenes you are laughing your head off at the comedy which ranges from broad and physical to witty and acute.

The film is all the more satisfying because there is a very strong sense of place, and the characters are three-dimensional, and utterly recognisable. And the film is truly multi-dimensional: it's a romcom, detective story, teen adventure-rites of passage, magical, scary-horror, political, and, above all, about love. All Rowling's stories are multi-layered but this is the first film to really capture the complexity and fun of the series.

You cannot wish for more from a film than it both stays in the mind, and, the first urge you have is to want to see it all over again. Half Blood Prince delivers on both counts, and more.

Look out for: A big death.

Watching Lolita again recently I was struck by the way Kubrick and his cast flesh out the story without resorting to the 'show everything' approach taken in the '97 remake. Of course Doleres and Humbert are having a sexual relationship, but you get the sense she's done the same pattern before and certainly knows how to lead him on. Sue Lyon has Lolita's sly looks and mannerisms perfectly attuned to the sleazy confusion of the lodger who marries her overbearing mother just to stay close to the 'little girl' he first spotted in the garden ... I find Lolita the most disturbing character in the film for many reasons - she is directly responsible for the ultimate fates of her mother, Humbert and Quilty (although all contribute in some way to their own destruction). James Mason is great in a difficult role (I read somewhere this was at one point intended for Noel Coward, which would have been fascinating ... Peter Sellers put his mimicry talents to good use again as Quilty, but manages to invest this character with a true personality as well, you sense he is as much a victim as Humbert. The only false note is Shelley Winters, who is simply frightful with her cherry pie and her shrine to a 7 years dead husband. Lolita is a slow paced film with many layers and its circular structure where we see the 'ending' first and return to it at the end is an excellent trick.

A group of criminals highjack a subway train and demand $1 million from New York City. Transit cop, Lt. Garber tries to work the situation out, but it seems the gang have planned everything to the second and are running the show. Garber tries to get one step ahead of the gang.

Of course now everyone knows this film because of the supposed connection to Reservoir Dogs, in that the criminals are colour coded instead of names. However even without this cult reference this film deserves to be watched and enjoyed. The story exists on two levels. First we have the setup ? it also acknowledges that it is the usual disaster movie setup?.the majority of characters are listed in the credits as stereotypes instead of people (ie, `the pimp' `the junkie' etc). However this is not a weakness as the thriller story is solid enough to carry the film. It isn't all action but it's very tense and interesting. What really tops it off is the thick vein of humour that runs through it ? mostly coming from Matthau.

Matthau shows how wonderful he is and how he manages to do well in so many different film styles. His world-weary act is great and his Brooklyn accent is pushed to the fore. Roberts Shaw is also good, but has less of a character and is working hard to sound English. The cast is actually deep in faces ? we have an almost unrecognisable Elizondo, Woody Allen actor Tony Roberts, a fantastic Mayor from Wallace and Jerry Stiller (Ben's dad), who doesn't look much older today than he did then!

Overall this is very enjoyable, but it is made by Matthau. The thriller plot stands up well despite the lack of modern fireworks. A cult classic in the making.

I have watched many movies where they have had a sequel which left me disappointed and uneasy, but the sequel to the smash, Die Hard, Die Hard 2 (Die Harder) was what think a sequel should be - more of what made the first film so successful. So it?s all out war for unlucky Police Detective named McClane, in a heart-stopping, jet-propelled journey through excitement and terror.

On a snowy Christmas Eve in the nation's capital, a team of terrorist have seized a major international airport, and now holds thousands of holiday travellers hostage. The terrorists, a renegade band of crack military commandos led by murderous rogue officer, have come to rescue a drug lord from justice. They've prepared for every contingency, except one: John McClane, an off-duty cop seized by a feeling of deadly deja vu. The heroic cop not only has to battle terrorists, but also an incompetent airport police chief, the hard headed commander of the army's anti-terrorist squad and a deadly winter snowstorm. The runways are littered with death and destruction, and McClane is in a race against time. His wife is trapped on one of the planes circling somewhere overhead, desperately low on fuel!

Die Hard 2 makes Bruce Willis look better and better. The role of John McClane is one filled with the fight for right and to trying to stop the bad guys. Again a lot of the stunts would have been done by Willis considering the professionalism of the man. Running all over an airport in a fierce snowstorm, fighting scenes on the wing of a real 747 jet and trying to save lives he has no attachment to, L.A. cop John McClane puts his body on the line, so justice is served and so did the actor Bruce Willis in my view to bring a great action movie back for a second time. Willis is one of my favourite actors, but I have only started to watch his movies in about the last 2-3 years and what a mistake that has been.

This film has more freedom as it is held at an airport. McClane is like I have said all over the place. The freedom and space this story has makes this film much easier to watch. Another thing which is impressive about Die Hard 2 is the effort to put more thrills in the movie. The snow (which of course is man made) has a major role, so do all the planes making quite a crisis on their hands. Not only do they fight on the wing of a 747, but also fly a real helicopter on the wing of the plane also. The scene where McClane ejects himself from the exploding plane is another favourite scene of mine. Other parts of this movie which stunned me I wont tell you about as it will give too much away, but trust me they are exceptionally done.

Again the bad guys have a major role in this one. William Saddler is Colonial Stuart, a heartless leader, who only cares that a drug lord escapes and can get in on all the money making scheme. I loved his role in this. Another face that I remember in Die hard 2 who was a bad guy is Robert Patrick. I loved his role in Terminator 2. But the conflict between the good guys is extremely tense. Especially between McClane and Police Officer Lorenzo played by L.A law star Dennis Franz. It is hard to understand if this character is on the side for good or not.

Here comes another analogy on Die Hard 2, do you ever know who is on the side of good or bad? Well for at least three quarters of the film it is unsure. The storywriters need to be commended because the story left me intrigued and when you think you know what is about to happen, the circumstances change. Also having a different director, gave this sequel new prospective. Director Renny Harlin threw his hand into the ring. What a gamble? An unknown director, but to my surprise I say that it worked. His other films worth mentioning include A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and Cliffhanger.

So overall Die Hard 2 was extremely enjoyable sequel to watch. The story, the characters and the situation are all of a great tension, which I love in a movie. So one cop who is so vulnerable and emotional ends up being the one person who you would most like to have save your life. Like Willis said in an interview Die Hard 2 - Die Harder - it's bigger, badder and louder. I will leave you with one question, the first Die Hard had approximately 20 people die, can you count for me how many perish in this film? It is quite a turn around!

1988 and the undisputed number one action star was that Austrian body builder with the funny name with that monosylabic guy from ROCKY in second place . The thing I hated about Arnie and Sly is that their action movies were uninvolving with over blown battle scenes where the good guys never seemed to be in danger of dying . I was also going to bring the James Bond franchise into the conversation but the series became a parody when Bond stopped speaking with a Scottish accent sometime in the early 70s

DIE HARD is different to the other 80s action fests with John McLane being a fairly believable genre character . Okay he`s two dimensional but that`s got to be one dimension more than John Rambo who only exists to kill a lot of nasty commies so Americans can flock to the cinema . It`s also interesting to note that McLane`s wife is used in the plot which is slightly different from how most action films work out where the hero is normally single , but that`s probably because DIE HARD as more depth to it than many contemparies. Perhaps the biggest difference is that McClane is slightly flawed as we`re shown one scene where the hero gives the bad guys something they want , not something you`d see in a Arnie or Sly movie . I won`t mention the stunts or the tightly written set pieces or how compelling they are because everyone else has beat me to it , except to say that big explosions and gun fights often overwhelm an action movie (Bond movies are a good example ) but here they occur from the narrative instead of someone cramming them into the script in a vain attempt to thrill the audience .

Slugs, Muerte Viscosa is set in the small American town of Ashton where two lovers (Erik Swanson & Karen Landberg) are out in a boat on a river, after dangling his foot in the water the guy is pulled in & soon after the water turns blood red... That night Ron Bell (Stan Schwartz) the local drunk (every town has one) staggers home, once inside his pigsty of a house he is attacked & partially eaten by vicious slimy flesh eating Slugs. The following morning Mike Brady (Michael Garfield) the town's health inspector together with Sheriff Reese (John Battaglia) head for Ron's house to evict him, inside they discover his half eaten corpse & a load of slime across the floor. Meanwhile an elderly woman named Jean Morris (Lucia Prado) complains to her husband Harold (Juan Majan) that her plants are covered in Slug eggs, while Harold isn't looking a Slug crawls into his glove. Harold puts his glove back on (just the thought of this in reality really grosses me out) & feels intense pain which makes him thrash about & cause an accident that blows his greenhouse up. The mysterious deaths continue at an alarming rate, after examining the evidence Mike suspects that killer Slugs mutated by toxic waste may be responsible but has a hard time convincing anyone. Can Mike, sanitation inspector Don Palmer (Philip McHale) & scientist John Foley (Santiago Alvarez) find a way to stop the Slugs before they eat the entire town?

This Spanish American co-production was co-written, co-produced & directed by Juan Piquer Simon as is one of those so bad it's good goofy horror films that just entertains on a stupid moronic level, we have had killer Bee, Crocodile, Bear, Shark, Spider & Snake films so why not killer Slugs? First of all I must say that I have a real fear & dislike for Slugs, as in real life. I'm not sure why but I just find them disgusting, maybe it's the slime or how they look I don't know but some of the footage in Slugs really grossed me out, not the gore but just the Slugs themselves. The script by Simon, Jose Antonio Escriva & Ron Gantman is based on the novel 'Slugs' by Shaun Hutson & is really dumb, the best way I can describe it is imagine a slasher film like Friday the 13th (1980) with slugs instead of Jason as the film goes from one scene of someone being killed by Slugs before they disappear to another just as a film like Friday the 13th would go from one murder to another. Don't expect a eco-disaster film like The Swarm (1978) where the whole town is evacuated & the army move in. Some of the dialogue in Slugs, Muerte Viscosa is absolutely hilarious, from the grumpy Sheriff's wisecracks to the fact that the filmmakers thought we would all be so stupid as to not know what Slugs eat so they include a scene in which a health inspector ask's a scientist! It's almost as if they were making a comedy horror although I suspect that the very fact Slugs, Muerte Viscosa had a mainly Spanish crew would account for the awkward & silly dialogue. Also someone should tell the filmmakers that Slugs don't swim in water & in regard to any potential victims why couldn't they just walk, lets face it Slugs travel about 10 feet an hour, away? Oh, & how do Slugs drag a dead body along, pull someone under water or yank a bar out of someone's hand?

Director Simon doesn't do much to liven things up & the film hasn't got any sort of style to it. On a (very) positive note he doesn't mind splashing the blood & gore around, there are numerous gory half eaten bodies, someone cuts his own hand off with an axe, lots of blood spraying, horrible scenes of people covered in Slugs (quite literally possibly my worst nightmare) & a gross sequence where an unlucky man has lots of Slug parasites eat their way out of him with blood splattering results.

Technically Slugs, Muerte Viscosa isn't too bad with the gory special make-up effects being particularly impressive & the Slugs themselves look good as well, having said that I presume they used real Slugs so they would look good, wouldn't they? Shot partly in Spain the locations are OK, the photography is fine & as a whole it's fairly well made. However, the acting is pretty bad & most of it looks dubbed.

Deep down I know Slugs, Muerte Viscosa is a terrible film but there was something about it that just entertained me, maybe the gore, maybe the silliness of it all or maybe the fact that I have had a real psychological dislike & morbid fear of Slugs for as long as I can remember. I can't in good heart recommend it but on a personal level I liked it. They Ooze... They Slime... They Kill... Slugs!

Only eight years after "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Harrison Ford returned for a third and preferably final time as famous archaeologist and explorer Indiana Jones. With Sean Connery joining Ford as Indy's father Henry, this film would redeem the series after the awful "Temple of Doom".

Introduced to Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), rich benefactor to his university, Dr Jones will this time rescue his father as he travels around the globe on the hunt of the Holy Grail.

As people play roles more, it's obvious that they're going to get better at the performances. This is true more than ever with Ford's performance. Providing a fun, laid back performance, Ford's connection with Connery (who is only 12 years his senior) is a masterstroke.

It's not just these two however which are so superb. Denholm Elliot as Marcus Brody is always a laugh, as is John Rhys-Davies as Sallah. Both provide an extra joke element in this feel good story.

All in all, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" is your typical adventure film. Entertaining from beginning to end, it thrives on some stunning acting performances and a great script. If you want to watch a decent adventure film, ignore "Temple of Doom" and go straight for this.

Four teenagers celebrate their last days in a small fishing town and end up on a beach, drinking heavily. When driving back into town they hit a man crossing the road and decide to dump the body in the sea rather than risking their futures on a manslaughter charge. However when dumping the body the man turns out to be still alive. They drown him and vow never to speak of it again. However one year on someone is stalking the four and begins to take revenge for the previous summer's actions.

This was made once Scream made teen slasher movies cool again. However here there is none of the ironic humour or self-referencing that made Scream good. Rather this is a straight up horror thriller that lacks anything to make it special or standout from the rest. The plot revolves around a murdered fisherman, with several red-herrings thrown into the mix. The red-herrings don't really work and to be honest you pretty much don't care about the ins and outs of who's doing the killing. Really however the plot is a bit of a disappointment and it doesn't really involve you.

The biggest failing of the film is the performances. The murderer is not as effective as ones like Ghostface or Freddy - partly because he lacks screen presence but also because we all feel sorry for him - after all he's not crazy, he's only taking revenge. The teens in question make it worse - with the exception of Love Hewitt and maybe Prinze they are pretty unpleasant people - spoilt brats mainly. From the start onwards you want them to be killed - it makes it even harder to care about what's going on when you don't care if the characters live or die.

Overall this is a rather tame horror movie - low on bodycount and gore, only some action scenes are tense and exciting but most things you can see coming a mile away. The red-herrings are left unexplained at the end (why is Ray the only one not targeted?) and the end is both lazy and insulting - and of course leaves it open for a sequel. Great.

I've wanted to see this notorious shocker ever since I heard about the storm of controversy that blew up surrounding it from the rather excellent 1987 documentary Hollywood Uncensored starring Peter Fonda. The trailer alone made me think it would be worth checking out. Add to that the fact that it's never been properly released in Britain (the BBFC banned the sequel outright!) and you have a heady brew that can't fail to entice students of the forbidden and the sleazy. So hats off to Anchor Bay for a long overdue uncut release for this grimy little treasure.

In case you didn't know, this is the flick where a young lad sees his parents brutally murdered by a bellowing maniac in a Santee outfit on Christmas Eve, spends the rest of his life in an orphanage run by nuns who make the poor kid's life pretty miserable and winds up working in a toy shop. Then, when Christmas rolls around, the kid naturally has to dress up as Santa Claus to amuse the little tykes. Something snaps inside him and he goes on a blood-soaked killing spree, throttling people with fairy lights, beheading sledders with a big old axe, impaling women on deers' antlers (honestly!) and other fun stuff that's bound to put you off your figgy pudding. That pair of pompous buffoons Siskel and Ebert really went to town condemning this one, and when you consider that Ebert was one of the few (only?) mainstream critics to praise Wes Craven's Last House On the Left on its debut release, that's pretty shocking in itself. But then Krug and company didn't carry out their gruesome atrocities done up as jolly Saint Nick, did they? Within the first twenty-something minutes of Silent Night, Deadly Night I could see why this got all those PTA members and angry mothers baying for the producers' blood. Even to a jaded exploitation buff like me, the sight of a sick freak in a Santa suit shooting the young protagonist's father before stripping his mother (who looks like Emily Symons, incidentally) and slashing her throat is pretty strong stuff. Add to this the fact that the lad's infant brother screams and cries throughout this scene and you have a uniquely uncomfortable combination, designed to upset the family values brigade and censors alike. Bare breasts, check. Blood, check. Profanity, check. Horrible crimes witnessed by the innocent, check. Screaming baby, check. Jeez, it's like a seasonal take on Fight For Your Life! Then there's the stridently anti-religious subplot that runs through the film (the Mother Superior is a chilling screen villain who must be seen to be believed) and the large doses of mean-spirited to-hell-with-it-all cynicism (one of the suspects shot by the bonehead cops is a deaf priest who dresses up as Santa every year to bring cheer to the orphans, for Pete's sake!) to contend with. The film twangs just about every raw nerve you can think of. There's barely a likable character in sight - even the outwardly likable toy shop owner (who reminds me of Jim Nabors circa the Best Little Whorehouse In Texas) turns out to be an annoying drunk loudmouth - and how about that shiver-inducing moment where a sweet-faced tot confronts the Santa-suited murderer, believing him to be the genuine article, only for him to gift her a bloody Stanley knife! Had Ebeneezer Scrooge lived in the late 20th century, this flick would have had the grumpy old sinner squirming with delight.

Silent Night, Deadly Night came along pretty late in the day as far as the dwindling exploitation / grind-house genre was concerned. This kind of low-budget, independent, envelope-pushing shock fodder had a final blood-spurting burst of activity in the early 80s before video came along and ruined the fun forever, and for that reason alone, SNDN stands as a prime example of a dying breed, a mutant, screeching offspring sired by a rampaging but doomed beast on the brink of extinction. Not even upping the controversy as much as the makers of this undeniably effective and morbidly entertaining splatter flick could save the genre from sinking into the straight-to-video bargain bins, which is kind of a shame - when it comes to eighties chills and spills, I'd take SNDN over corporate-whoring populist schlock like that fraudulent camp-it-up poster-boy Freddie Krueger and his endless crummy sequels any old time.

Now bring us the figgy pudding. We won't go until we've got some.

Naughty

Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust goes wrong, and is demoted to vice,

The machine of the title refer's to the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder,

The motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief, The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an apartment used by the governor.

Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription painkiller's and angel Dust,

The action packed finale see's the remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva, which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid,

Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal, not a silly ass remake,

I knew this would be worth seeing after hearing that Kitamura was directing this movie. And my hopes were up because although I loved most Clive Barker stories I think the movies mostly were unsatisfying to say he least. I can't remember having seen a decent Clive Barker Movie since Hellraiser.... until Midnight Meat Train came along.

Actually I don't get why so many people put this movie down. The cinematography is awesome and the shots of the subway are as impressive and stylish as the city shots. Sure some of the CGI Gore FX looked a bit cheap and also the train FX were easy to spot... still this is a Horror movie and for that the Effects were far above average. I mean come on... the decapitation scene from point of view was a classic and the hammer bashings were raw. I usually hate CGI Blood but here the fountains were pretty impressive and except the real cheap scene where he sees his face in his own puddle of blood I liked it.

This movie is as well for gore maniacs as for fans of stylish imagery and he Clive Barker fans also won't be let down. I can't quite remember the story but I think they should have explained the whole background more in-depth because the end leaves many questions unanswered.

Perhaps they should not have spent so much time introducing the photographer, his work and his girlfriend although I think also this part of the movie was done with suspense. After all the movie is about a photographer taking shots of New York at night which draws him to the subway where he gets fascinated by a tall guy he thinks is a murderer. He follows him and tries to uncover where he works and goes at night just to be drawn in too deep in a story that involves trains, butchers and human cattle for evil overlords.

I think the typical cynicism of Clive Barker came across very well with the butcher dressing up for work, following his time schedule by the minute and pretty much just doing his job.

So even with the flaws of a script focusing too much on suspense and gore and forgetting to unfold the whole back story to the viewer I think this one is definitely watchable. So don't focus on some worn off one-liners and too tight budget in the FX. After all I think the decapitation scene is destined to be a classic and I haven't seen such a raw and gory, yet kind of funny scene since the opening of the by far inferior "Wrong turn 2". Well done Mr. Kitamura, thumbs down Lionsgate. People should throw tons of money at this guy to make more movies like this and Versus.

This movie is realistic, cruel, provocative and sexy but at the same time so very elegant and pure. Belen Fabra is a wonderful actress who is one hundred percent suitable for the role and she is the reason I liked this movie so much. She gives a magical sense to it. She makes you feel whatever she feels. The directing is unique and although the movie presents a lot of "raw material", for some reason,it is so delicate and sophisticated. It's not an other (soft) porn movie, it is a movie which conveys some of the greatest values in life and presents them in a way we have not been used to seeing. This is what makes it so special. I strongly recommend it to mature and open-minded audiences, with a hard stomach.

I went 2 see it on the 1st night it came out... i thought it was amazing and so did my 3 friends i went to see it with. I thought that the cast was amazing & they could not have chosen better ! Chris Massoglia was an amazing lead...i didn't like him at the begin with but as the movie went on i leaned to love him and i realized why he was chosen for the role as he was a really good Darren ! I haven't seen any films with John C. Reilly in before but i thought he was a very good choice for the part of Mr Crepsley. I imagined that he would be more serious but instead they went for the funny side of him and i thought it was a great choice ! I think that Jessica Carlson was very good as Rebecca the monkey girl(for the people who have read the book she's Debby.) and her and Chris had really good chemistry ! Salma Hayek was a very good choice for Truska the bearded lady ! Me and my friends immediately liked her...she was amazing. They couldn't have chosen any-one better ! Now...my favourite person in the whole film was Josh Hutcherson as Steve. I have been a massive fan of Josh's and i think this has been his best film yet ! He is very good a Steve ! He brings out the dark side of himself and it makes you believe that he is actually very evil !

The only thing bad i have to say about the film is towards the end (don't read this bit if u don't want to know about it. and if u haven't read the books.) Me and my friends where saying that we thought that it was going to put all of the films together as Darren goes home and he finds the poster for the ciqure and there was a not saying "see you at the theatre." now this confused me because in the last book Darren and Steve have there final showdown in the theatre. Also it seemed as though they didn't know where to end it. It seemed like it was going to finish in one place than they go to somewhere else

Other than that it's a very good film...very good !

After watching this film, I was left with the impression that there were two competing interpretations of the script - and the director tried to film both. Interpretation one could be summed up as "horror/hostage/screams/blood" - Interpretation two: "psychodrama/disturbing/thought provoking."

There are some very terrifying moments in this film that can have you gripping the edge of your seat and holding your breath hoping that the worst ISN'T going to happen....and then suddenly you are in the middle of a quasi Greek Tragedy with the players making profound orations while the plot stands still. (Exactly what the poems of T.S. Eliot have to do with the plot is never made clear).

I found it a very interesting view with some very genuinely deep moments - but the ending was almost an anti-climax and the schizoid handling of the script did not help matters. It is worth at least a look but you probably won't come back for seconds.

The term 'classic' is often banded about with regard to films but I feel this one does warrant the term. A masterpiece of film-making by one of the best director's to take the chair. From the opening on the flat marshland framed by the hangman's gantry, this is wonderfully atmospheric storytelling of the highest quality which manages to capture the feel of the novel. The inspired touches with the cows muttering to Pip when he takes the stolen food to the convict and the howling wind over London as Pip's past is about to knock on his door, stay in the mind. This film is rich in character and detail. A sumptuous film that is a real treat. I can still, even today, taste the pork pie that Pip steals from the larder and feel his fear as Joe's wife goes to look for it and the sadness as the older Pip is embarrassed by Joe in his upmarket London surroundings and watches his old friend leave London from his living room window. An absolute masterpiece of cinema.

The opening five minutes of the film are a marvel. Almost completely devoid of dialogue the scenes portray visually more story than most modern thrillers can fit into two hours. This is about the best book-to-film conversion I've ever seen. The cuts, where they are made, are logical and some locations are combined. From Forsyth's first, and probably best book (written in less than 5 weeks) this film contains nothing that does not drive the story forward. The character of the Jackal is brilliantly finely drawn. He doesn't contain any of the cliches that you would expect to see in a film written in the last twenty years (he doesn't display mental instability, or have flashbacks to some event in his past). He never tries to justify his pernicious occupation to anyone yet, strangely, doesn't come across as an evil man. Simply as a professional doing his job. The French police inspector is wonderfully underplayed and is as far away from the he-breaks-the-rules-but-he-gets-the-job-done cliche as you can possibly imagine. He is first seen attending to his pigeons and upon being told he is being put on the case simply says "Oh God..."....

Zimmemann's direction is great and the scenes are beautifully photographed - particularly in Paris.

This is an all-time great film. Definitely in my top ten. I suppose I must put something in negative so it makes for a balanced review so errr.... I think the French minister is wearing a very bad wig. Beyond that -marvelous.

Roman Polanski's horror classic is literally pregnant with paranoia. Mia Farrow gets an iconic cropped 'do, John Cassavetes broods

Halfway through Polanski's classic psycho-horror, Rosemary (Farrow) decides to chop off her bob. Not since Delilah took to Samson's barnet has a haircut signalled such a decline.

It's at that moment that Rosemary's slump into madness begins. She's pregnant, she's in love with husband Cassavetes, and living in a beautiful new apartment. But a burning pain in her womb tells her something's not right. Why are her elderly neighbours so concerned? Why has hubby's career suddenly blossomed? Surely her memory of being raped by Satan was just a dream?

Ira Levin's story erodes Rosemary's sanity drip by drip. A pierced ear, a foul smelling charm, a chocolate mousse with a chalky flavour, these are the unlikely fertilisers of her paranoia. In Polanski's hands their significance remains chillingly ambiguous as he explores the natural alienation of pregnancy. Truly terrifying.

First rule - you have to have seen Nochnoi Dozor a.k.a Night Watch. Its well worth seeing Night Watch for a number of reasons, but understanding the second film in this trilogy is probably the best of them. It makes the whole first film worthwhile. While Nochnoi Dozor was very over the top and quite silly (but brilliant in its own way), Dnevnoi Dozor carries off its excesses off much more confidently and brings real meaning to the first film.

Second rule - you've really got to let yourself go of any preconceptions. This film is as mad as they come and completely unlikely, but wonderfully enjoyable in a very eccentric way. If you start comparing it to Hollywood equivalents you'll miss the point, and if you think you're going to see some "serious" Matrixesque fantasy, you'll be sorely disappointed. This film is pure myth, with the inexplicably unreal events and very much larger than life characterisations that any myth comes with.

The fact that it is a Russian myth and full of many Russian references is both frustrating and at the same time great for a Russian viewer like me. You know there are hidden depths that you'll never quite get, but its fascinating to watch. And these bits are fairly infrequent, so don't be put off by it. :-) Third rule - don't see it yet, because you'll really want to know what on earth (or maybe not) they are going to do in the third part!

After reading reviews about this movie I expected something a bit special and in some ways it is. But if this was a stand alone film I would have been less enthusiastic. It isn't of course, and the film has some great new film techniques that I've never seen before, a rocking soundtrack to go with the action scenes, and very different but excellent special effects. The intriguing concepts between good and evil is what the story touches on mostly, think vampires think sorcery think Russia. The film does leave you wanting more, and it definitely could shape up to be one hell of a trilogy.

So see this movie with faith that they are building this series with a huge finale in mind.

If you are left a little confused like I was, do not worry as the second film will reveal much more.

I'm sure my readers will appreciate that I rarely give a movie more than 3 stars, und this is only the 4th time in my blogging career that I have given 5 stars, so I'm sure that you will understand that this movie must be some great revolution in the history of movie making... in fact, I would venture to say it is very nearly the "perfect" movie...

It was with great anticipation that I went to view this movie, after reading that nearly every reputable movie magazine gave it a 5 star rating... I knew for certain that I was in for something amazing!

I had to travel a little way as my home cinema wasn't showing it, but it was well worth it, und I would recommend it to all of my readers, even if you aren't a fan of the Vampire genre!

***Synopsis***

Oskar, a bullied 12-year old, dreams of revenge. He falls in love with Eli, a peculiar girl. She can't stand the sun or food and to come into a room she needs to be invited. Eli gives Oskar the strength to hit back but when he realises that Eli needs to drink other people's blood to live he's faced with a choice. How much can love forgive? Låt den rätte komma in or Let The Right One In is a story both violent and highly romantic, set in the Stockholm suburb of Blackeberg in 1982.

Written by John Nordling, Producer

Starring: Kåre Hedebrant, and Lina Leandersson

Directed by: Tomas Alfredson

***Fantasy Take***

Excellent fantasy movie, yet not too weird as to alienate the average viewer...

***Storyline: 5 Stars***

Brilliant story, based in a perfect fairy-tale style, simple und easy to follow, yet leaving you as if you had had the most filling meal in your life!

***Graphics: 4 Stars***

Hey, it's not really that kind of movie, but for what it is, the graphics certainly do what's needed of them...

***Acting: 5 Stars***

Oh, just perfect actors! Especially the little girl (Eli), who was both sweet, but still quite freaky at times!

***Music: 4 Stars***

Excellent music, though I would have liked a catchy theme tune to hum on my way home...

***Emotions: 5 Stars***

Excellently emotional throughout, I was completely wrapped!

***Conclusion***

Well, in conclusion... It's basically perfect... need I say more?

Enjoy, nazdrovia

A Christmas Carol 3D
Expected: 13 November
Robert Zemeckis is back, pushing the boundaries of performance capture that he previously explored in Beowulf. He?s taking on Charles Dickens? classic with Jim Carrey playing Scrooge plus all three ghosts. And if that wasn?t enough, The Dark Knight?s Gary Oldman will play both Bob Cratchit, and his son, Tiny Tim. Yeah, now you?re intrigued.

Robert Zemeckis, the main pioneer of Motion capture films with films such as The Polar Express,Back To The Future and Beowulf attempts a new version of a story that has been many times before and needless to say it doesn't disappoint. Jim Carrey is a revelation as Scrooge and the three Ghosts but his performance is so good that each has its own personality, Bob Hoskins and Colin Firth are very good as Crachit and Fred. The 3D in the film is stunning and Zemeckis uses to a great degree but it's never a gimmick. It is a faithful adaptation of the story but it's not for young children and several scenes were quite dark and scary which actually added to the film and it's not as heartwarming as previous versions but the happy ending remains. If there is one or criticisms is that some scenes went on a bit too long and some characters were not as well animated and suffered from dead eye.

Overall, a great Christmas film and it does show the potential of motion capture and if they continue to improve it then it's going a great tool for filmmakers.
Look out for: Bob Hoskins bringing the fun as jolly employer Fezziwig

A trio of excellent performances adorn "Gods and Monsters", Bill Condon's film about the elderly James Whale, one-time Hollywood director. Reclusive, waspish and cantankerous, Whale is looked after by his maid Hanna, a deeply religious lady who despairs of his gay sexuality but dotes on him nevertheless. Into the mix comes a slightly dim-witted young gardener Clayton Boone who catches Whale's eye and agrees to sit for the old director while he sketches him. Boone, initially unaware of Whale's gayness and then repelled by it, eventually comes to respect and love the old man. They are like two lost souls, polar opposites who nevertheless connect and come to depend on each other, much in the manner of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster in the movie that made Whale's name.

Ian McKellen must have been the only choice to portray Whale, and he clearly relishes the opportunity. A biting wit masks his inner despair as he looks back on a life of childhood deprivation (much of it emotional), wartime loss, and fleeting happiness found in the gay subculture of Tinseltown. The accumulation of these experiences seems etched on McKellen's face so that there is not one moment when he is not inhabiting the role. Lynn Redgrave is simply wonderful in support as Hanna; her scenes with McKellen have a real fizz and convey a true sense of fondness between the two characters. Brendan Fraser, meanwhile, is very good as Boone. It may seem that playing nice but dim would come easily to Fraser, but there's a little more to him than that and he adeptly renders the subtle awakening in self-understanding triggered by Boone's contact with Whale.

A character-driven chamber piece, "Gods and Monsters" feels more like theatre than cinema, despite its Hollywood theme. Great acting alone can't quite carry it, however, and after a sparklingly witty opening the pacing drags somewhat. On a conveniently dark and stormy night, the film descends into melodrama for its final act. A pity, because there's so much to admire here. Just as in his recent film "Kinsey", Condon shows himself to be a highly literate and sensitive film-maker, and a great director of actors. He's certainly not afraid to tackle subject matter that may not sit too comfortably in the multiplexes of middle-America. Unlike Dr. Frankenstein, however, I'm not sure he's yet managed to animate one of his creations with the sort of kinetic charge that truly brings a movie to life.

I watched New Moon yesterday and overall I think it's pretty good. Some people are saying there wasn't enough action in it.. well people did you read the book? There wasn't much action in that either.

The movie followed the book fairly well I thought. In fact overall, I was pretty impressed with the movie. The wolves looked cool. I reckon the next movie will be great as it will have more action scenes in it with wolves fighting vampires and so forth.

The acting wasn't so great. The person who played Jacob did a pretty good job, the person who played Laurent did a fairly good job and the person who played Bella did better than last time and was pretty good in this movie. However, the person who played Alice wasn't very spectacular and I don't think they played her character well and as usual I think Robert Pattison can't act.

Other than that I loved the movie. If you can get past the dodgy acting it's good. If you liked the book of New Moon you should like the movie.