Best sequels ever

This movie put director Robert Rodriguez "on the map." He followed up with two sequels: "Desperado" and "Once Upon A Time In Mexico." Not surprising, the best of the three was this low-budget opening film. As Rodriguez had more and more money to spend on the sequels, the stories got more and more carried away with too many explosions and special-effects, losing the charm of this first effort.

Unlike the sequels, this Mexican-made, so it is in Spanish with English subtitles. Don't let that scare you away. There isn't a great deal of dialog so keeping up with the subtitles is very easy.

The movie has very interesting camera closeups and angles as Rodriquez showed he was going to be a stylish director. The story is simple but effective, suspenseful and even with some humor. Unnlike his subsequent films in this trilogy, the action is not overdone here.

The length is also is a plus. At 80 minutes you can be thoroughly entertained in less than an hour-and-a half. The only disappointment to me was the print quality on th DVD, but I got an early edition. There might be better editions out since. It's not fuzzy but it's not sharp, either.

Anyway: highly recommend for actions/crime buffs who like style in their photography, or saw the sequels and would like to know the history of this particular "Mariachi."

There are so many adjectives one could use describing this film, I wouldn't know where to begin to start. I'll just try to limit them to a few. The headline here states one of them. Others could be "ludicrous," "fun," "amusing," "stupid," etc. You get the idea.

Robert Rodriguez took the profits from his first film, "El Mariachi," and continued on with the story now with more funds, so he made it glossier, more explosive, added some name actors and, of course, way overdid it, making it almost a cartoon it is so outrageous. He continued this with the third film, "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" which is even more of the same.

If something worked subtly the first time, filmmakers think that to improve on it is by bombarding the audience with it the next time. They don't know when enough is enough and, boy, does that apply to Rodriguez. He does keep you entertained, though, once you check your brains at the door and begin watching the show. However, all this excess makes it lose any credibility "El Mariachi" might have built up with the first show in this trilogy.

Whether the movie is really dumb or its just tongue-in-cheek humor by Rodriguez, it has super-style and fun to watch. Talk about stylish! No wonder Quentin Tarantino and he are good friends and the latter has a guest appearance in the film. They both love having fun with the cameras.

The first eight minutes let you know what you are in for: outrageousness. It's an 8-minute scene at a bar involving a story told by Steve Buscemi. It's one of the highlights of the movie.

Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek are the "good guys" but they aren't exactly Billy Graham and Mother Teresa. If they are the good guys, you can imagine how evil the "bad guys" are? Speaking of them, two of the toughest- looking hombres in the business are chief among the villains: Joaquim de Almeida and Danny Trejo.

Some of the action scenes are so outrageous you laugh out loud. My favourite was a guy shooting rockets out of his guitar case! As that tells you, it's just a wild ride: 103 minutes of south-of-the-border Rodriguez-Tarantino lunacy and despite what may sound like a bunch of insults, I always have fun watching this movie.

A follow up to the Desperado film was not something I was expecting.So it came as a shock to see this third instalment in the El Mariachi series being made.But a pleasant surprise it is.It is high on sweltering Mexican style,with impressive camera style and angles.There is a complex and engaging story to follow,complimented by some riveting action scenes and classy dialogue.On the performances front,Antonio Banderas continues to personify Mariachi,with Salma Hayek well cast as his love interest and good support from Johnny Depp,Mickey Rourke and William Dafoe,not to mention the bodacious Eva Mendes.A wholly worthwhile venture

Well, here we are, the last (or first) offering in the Ginger Snaps saga. A well made tale of the macabre that certainly doesn't skip on gore or blood. Two sisters Ginger & Bridgette Fitzgerald are wondering lost in the wild lands of Canada (they were supposed to be with their parents but they drowned in an accident or something), when they stumble upon a small Indian camp that has been wiped out by werewolves. After some cryptic advice from an old Indian woman (who gives them both distinctive necklaces' with birds skulls on them). The girls end up with an Indian Hunter who takes them to yonder fort and things get going.

Characters include the overly-done Religious Priest, the overly-done Macho Soldier, the overly-kindly Commanding Officer etc. Into the midst of those characters are the sisters trying to survive in a place where danger lurks at every turn (from inside and out).

Unfortunately Ginger is bitten by something not quite human and the race is on to brake a spell that'll save Ginger - as compared to dooming her to a furry existence.

The acting honors yet again go to Ms. Isabelle and Ms. Perkins who effortlessly play off each other with a touching and believable chemistry that makes the film(s) work so well. Some of the other actors are also very good (I can't remember their names, sorry!). The FX are fantastic as well, with a slew of lycanthrope nightmares wondering around and snacking off unlucky individuals.

Yes, it does have aspects of Night of the Living Dead, Dog Soldiers and Ravenous, but it's all fun in the end and with this film you might just howl at the end!

Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning: 4/5

The last camera shot in the film is stunning!

This is the only sequel I have seen that could be considered an improvement on its original.

I'm a great Fan of Ginger Snaps and was really excited about this film when i first heard about it, unfortunately when it arrived at the cinema I was to young to see it. I'm sure its always a gamble for people and film fans alike to buy movies on Tapoe/DVD with out viewing them first and for me this was a first. It was well worth the risk of my cash as I loved the film, the casting was especially good this time around ( the DVD showing the auditions in all their glory ) As far as the films go Emily Perkins takes her original part and runs with it, totally convincing the audience that she is trying to break away from her sister and the ghosts of the past.

The special effects and make up are of course grander this time around which enhances the horror side of things, but I my self view this more as a Drama that a Horror film. The suspense is really edgy and makes you want to fast forward to the next scene to see what happens next. As well as the stand allow story of Briditte's new company 'Ghost' making you want more as the plot continues. Even as a sequel this is a hard one to beat. I whole heartedly will you to see it, even if you have not yet view the first one.

I enjoyed this tremendously. It was one of the first zombie films I saw, and first of the Return series. A mix of horror and comedy can so easily be done wrong so this time out, Director Weiderhorn decided to go all out on pure entertainment-almost a light-hearted comedy on the undead. Some jokes fall flat (severed hand giving the finger, probably lifted from Evil Dead 2) but the fun of the film will draw most in and bring back nostalgic memories of the 1980s. The opening credits have recieved a lot of crap as they don't set up the plot the same way the first Return's did. But I like the song (Julian Cope's Spacehopper) and it really caught my attention and got me in a silly mood. The song is probably this film's equivilant of the first's PartyTime sequence.

Some might call it lame, but they're just being too cynical. This is a good sequel in most respects and a lot of fun to watch. Like the first, it's dated in many respects but it's still a load of fun.

TRANSPORTER 2 isn't going to win any awards for its story (whatever happened to Luc Besson anyway?), but for a fun action movie it's about as good as 2005 offered. Jason Statham reprises the role of Frank Martin, a driver with impressive skills in or out of his car. The 2nd film is at least as silly as the first, and not quite as corny in the script, making it a very entertaining way to pass 80 minutes.

Obviously the aim of the film is to capture some of the style of "Golden Era" Hong Kong action films, and Jason Statham does a great job with the help of Cory Yuen's choreography, which is very imaginative and clever (though he reuses a few ideas, e.g. the hosepipe from KISS OF THE DRAGON). Unfortunately the film is blighted by "Hollywood-Style" camera work and editing, which detracts from the choreography... westerners still haven't learnt how to shoot a fight scene as well as a Hong Kong crew (despite having 10x the budget available to do it)... too many closeups, shaky camera that goes against the movement of the action and editing which obscures rather than emphasises what's going on. I'd love to see the action scenes re-edited by one of HK's premier action film editors.

Still, small quibbles really since Hong Kong has pretty much stopped making action films this fun anyway, and TRANSPORTER 2 is still plentifully entertaining as it is :)

# 40 Transporter 3
More fast and furious action from Jason Statham, directed in this outing by Olivier Megaton (is that name for real?)

The "Transporter" series is the bargain bin version of the James Bond films, but I enjoyed this film way more than the latest Bond, "Quantum of Solace." This installment exists as nothing more than a Jason Statham fetish movie. We see him kicking ass shirtless while the female in peril this time around ogles him. She later makes him perform a striptease much to her delight and -- let's be honest -- the audience's. And Statham is so hot drool

Best bit: Frank´s car chases

I saw this a couple hours ago in Apollo Theater. I was a reader of the comic, and am a fan of what we've seen from Marvel lately. This movie is just what I wanted, and what I expected.

Ray Stevenson is perfect as Frank Castle, and everyone else is at least good enough for an action movie. Dominic West is over the top as Jigsaw - which is what Jigsaw should be! A horribly disfigured mob boss with a vendetta is not a subtle thing to begin with.

As for the "respectable" critics' complaints: 1. Violence: Of course it's violent! What part of the title "Punisher: War Zone" implies peaceful conflict resolution? He's not the "Admonisher". The gore and violence is not at the level of a "Saw" film, but it is high. It is rated "R" for a reason.

2. Dialogue: I think the critics have been spoiled by "Dark Knight" and "Iron Man". Those were comic-book movies with extraordinarily good dialogue. "Punisher: War Zone" is no worse than a "Predator" or "Rambo: First Blood". Not great, but not awful. This is not supposed to be "Hamlet".

3. Script: The story moves along well, and when there's a break in the action (which isn't very often), the film doesn't drag- it's always going somewhere. Not perfect, but good. Much better than the critics have made it out to be.

All in all, a good time, and one that I'll buy and re-watch as soon as it comes out on DVD.

What can someone write about a movie that has been so well discussed already during the past weeks?! Everything has been said in reviews and fan forums about the plot with Romeo & Juliet resemblances framed by the secret war between vampires and werewolves, about the cast and characters, about the movie's style & atmosphere, action, make-up and CGI effects, camera shots, violence, love scenes & nudity. Underworld Evolution's predecessor was above all underestimated in terms of what potential it had to build up a solid fan base in a genre that throughout movie history like no other has not only drawn people into the theatres but also to conventions, fan clubs, signings and other events. If we go back in time movies which threw together famous film monsters like in "House of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man", later in "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" or in our days "Freddie Vs. Jason", "Van Helsing" and "Aliens Vs Predator" were most likely designed to squeeze the purse of the audience (which in most cases without no doubt they successfully did) but never have withstood the moviegoer's expectations for a long time. "Underworld" (2003) on the other hand, a sleeper during it's theatrical release as treated with neglect promotion wise in many countries has to be admitted that it rightfully gained it's respect through mouth-to-mouth propaganda resulting in DVD sales which soon exceeded the box-office results. The movie built up a very solid fan base, people that keep talking about it even after three years ? creating an under-world (sorry for the pun, I just could not resist) like Star Trek, Star Wars and some other Sci-Fi movies and shows have done before. So it is very possible that for the first time in the horror genre "Underworld" and "Underworld Evolution" really work as 'monster mash' movies.

With only some video clips on his reference list it is obvious that "Underworld" was a child of heart of writer / director Len Wiseman (together with writers Danny McBride and Kevin Grevioux). Only someone very dedicated and so confident can get such a project of the ground without having directed a single feature length movie before - get it produced, assemble a professional cast. And it paid out - with an estimated budget of 22 mill. it achieved an accumulated worldwide gross of more than 90 mill. US dollars. Plus, it activated a great number of fans which were dying to see more. Because of these fans there is a sequel ? they made it possible by buying the DVDs, watching Underworld in the cinema and kept talking about it, discussing it from the beginning to the end, throwing up questions, inspiring new story lines, etc. When seeing "Underworld Evolution" I believe that Len Wiseman and Danny McBride accurately meet the expectations of their fans in a very respective way. They stand true to the original in style and action and by not getting too pathetic love story wise. The storyline is not dumb and does not just follow the vampires vs. werewolves plot which it could have done. Of course it has some flaws, but nothing which can be not excused. As there is no perfect crime there is also no perfect plot. All stories have flaws ? even the real ones. And if we look behind the almost endless tour-de-action: there is the beautiful Kate Beckinsale who was the lead action heroine in the first movie and now, without loosing any of her screen presence, she leaves enough space for Scott Speedman who now plays a much stronger and more self-confident Michael Corvin. Bill Nighy is always an extreme pleasure to watch and it is amazing how versatile this man is. And of course there is the great Sir Derek Jacobi playing his part so wonderfully understated, yet so present, that it will be a hard task not to bring his character back in a future entry. Conclusion: If you have seen the first "Underworld" movie and liked it, and if you are allowed to "pervasive strong violence and gore, some sexuality/nudity and language" you won't be disappointed. If you don't like horror movies at all ? this one is not likely to change your opinion. When you consider this and buy a ticket you will get an action packed horror movie which can be watched for more than one time for several reasons. But see for yourself

Francis Coppola and Mario Puzo continue their epic saga into the lives of the infamous Corleone family, which is headed by Michael Corleone (Al Pacino). It is a film which does better than its predessor, "The Godfather". The film flip-flops graciously and beautifully between Michael's struggle over the family business and the life of young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro, in a brilliant, Oscar-winning performance) in his rise to power as well. Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Lee Strassberg, and John Cazale give excellent supporting performances. Carmine Coppola's and Nino Rota's score is a masterpiece of music. The movie is expertly filmed and the cinematography is superb.

Francis Ford Coppola really shook the movie world in 1990 when he chosen to direct a final part in the larger-than-life Corleone saga, 16 years after the legendary part II. It didn't receive any Oscars but to me this 13 year old masterpiece is already just as massive classic as the parts 1 and 2 that were released in the early 70's but the truth is that "The Godfather: Part III" still remains to be a disputed film no matter what. People still argue about it and its purpose.

I think this story was necessarily worth telling, timeless saga needed this final part, trilogy had to be concluded. Surprisingly I think part III is in many ways the best part of the whole damn trilogy. At least this was the one I enjoyed watching most, this was the most touching and stylish one of the three. I loved it because of the same reasons others think it's the worst of "The Godfather"-films: it's so melancholy, so utterly melodramatic and Michael Corleone's character has changed so much from what he used to be younger.

Oldish, virile and charismatic 50 year old Al Pacino makes his best performance in the role of Michael Corleone. Eli Wallach proofed that he hasn't lost his charm and talent at the age of 75. His splendid performance as Don Altobello is perhaps one of the most memorable roles of his career and the best ones right after the part of Tuco in Sergio Leone's "The good, the bad and the ugly". It also goes without saying Andy Garcia shines as Vincent Mancini - future Don Corleone. "The Godfather: Part III" is a beautiful and brilliant experience and a movie you can't watch too often

This sequel to "Escape From New York"isn't half bad.it doesn't have the gritty,unpolished look of the original,and it's not as edgy.however,i did find it more humorous,and it's more of an action adventure movie,than pure drama,unlike the the original.the movie had a lighter feel to it.i didn't find it had the same sense of loss and decay.i did find it entertaining,and fairly fast paced,though there were a few mildly ridiculous scenes that felt out of place.i also noticed(as anyone who watches it will)that the general plot line was almost a carbon copy of the original,with a few variations in detail.i still liked it,and thought it was as good as the original,though,like i said,if you're expecting a departure from the formula of the first,you won't find it

Underworld: The Rise of the Lycans
Expected: 23 January 2009
Hmmm, this movie is before Selene´s time.... I will see it even without Beckinsale on it, but Viktor (Bill Nighy) is on it, he rock too. Anyway, an origins story centered on the centuries-old feud between the the race of aristocratic vampires known as Death Dealers, and their onetime slaves, the Lycans, bloody hell, Selene is the best, pity that the prequel don´t include her, but it has Viktor on it and he rock too.

Went to the first showing of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans today hoping to be entertained like I was by the first Underworld movie. Rise of the Lycans is a prequel and explains more about the conflict between the vampires and lycans. In my opinion the movie was good but not great. The action and special effects were excellent in some parts yet over the top at times. (Some of the scenes where swords cut down lycans was laughable.) The tone of the movie was dark and dreary because the vampires are only out at night. The castle where the coven lives seemed ancient and run down. The first Underworld movie took place in recent times and felt more current. I missed Kate Beckinsale; she was one of the main reasons why I liked the first two movies. Bill Nighy is very good as Viktor. Michael Sheen reprises his role as Lucian and does a great job. The end of the movie had a nice twist that brought things full circle back to the original Underworld. I think I'll pop the first movie into the DVD player tonight...
Look out for: Rhona Mitra in leather suit, looks like Kate Beckinsale, hot

After the strange events of the first movie,Kirsty is sent to a Institution for the Mentally Sick, commanded by the mysterious Dr. Channard,a crazed psychologist who is willing to open the doors of hell by manipulating the Puzzle Box.In doing so,Channard brings Kirsty's perverse stepmother Julia back to life,and consequently he provokes the rage of the dreadful cenobites,the cruel and evil creatures that give pleasure and pain in the same measure.Hellbound Hellraiser 2 is an extremely well-done film,thanks to the generous budget given to newcomer filmmaker Tony Randel and a first-rate production.The special effects are simply terrific (specially considering the time in which the movie was done,1988) and they create a bombastic,scary visual.I never saw a movie with such an incredible scenery and imagery,except maybe for Dark City.Clive Barker's vision of hell is brought to life with mastery through the work of Randel and Director of Photography Robin Vidgeon. The plot sustains the tension and keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish,though the first half hour of Hellbound: Hellraiser II is a little bit slow and descriptive (but never boring); a great portion of the action and the terror is concentrated in the last minutes. The last thirty ones are a realistic and gutsy "tour de force" through fear,violence and suffering.This is definitively a masterpiece, but not for the squeamish.Hellbound: Hellraiser II is rated R for extreme violence and sex scenes,it runs 99 minutes(uncut version released by Anchor Bay).It stars Clare Higgins as Julia, Ashley Laurence as Kirsty, Imogen Boorman as Tiffany,William Hope as Kyle McRae and Kenneth Cranham as Dr. Channard.If you like this movie, you might also enjoy Phenomena and Suspiria.

This movie is not for the faint of heart.

If you've watched the first Crank and enjoyed it, you will absolutely love this one. It pushes the boundaries the first one set to the absolute maximum. There are no lines this film does not cross, from outrageous public sex scenes to gore that almost rivals the Saw franchise. It will keep your heart pounding for the entire film's duration. It's one of the most hilarious, stylish and down-right insane films I have ever watched.

If you haven't watched the first Crank, I recommend watching it before you even think of watching this film. It'll give you some good background story and also prepare you for what you are about to see.

If you saw the first Crank and didn't like it... do not watch this movie. Multiply Crank by 1000 volts and you get this incredible sequel.

The Crank franchise is an acquired taste, and this stretches it even for fans.

An enjoyable but nevertheless quite silly and average remake of the classic television show has the new John Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) beating up a white racist (Christian Bale) and getting booted off of the police force. Everyone in this film is a racist - primarily the whites - and this whole idea is way too forced. The language and violence is rough, yet the film itself is quite goofy, with not many good scenes and only a few mediocre action sequences. The moral is somewhat depressing: if someone wrongs you, or someone of your race, then beat them up and kill them once they reappear. Richard Roundtree's cameo helps a bit, but regardless, this SHAFT is still only "good" at best.

The ever-cool Richard Roundtree, who along with the equally awesome John Saxon has played more cops than any other actor alive, makes his third appearance as John Shaft, the super-tough, super-smooth, oh-so-hot black private dick who's a sex machine to all the chicks and a most gnarly guy who's always getting into loads of trouble. This time our main man Shaft -- the ultimate bad-a** soul brother from the Big Apple hood -- goes to the motherland (that's Africa, homeys) so he can get the goods on an evil black slavery ring that's run by -- natch -- an odious bunch of wicked white b**tards, with the Major Nasty Man himself being suavely slimy French dirt-bag Frank Finley. Like, can you dig this funky s**t, baby? Well, frankly I totally dug this simply fantastic and wonderfully outrageous globe-trotting action/adventure treat.

John Guillerman's briskly efficient direction keeps the rousing zesty momentum humming along throughout, the action scenes are suitably rough, strenuous, exciting and dynamically staged (the stick fights in particular are the genuine happening article), there's a welcome sense of wryly self-deprecating humor (a male assassin in drag tries to plug Shaft in an airport bathroom!), the dialogue sporadically offers a few profanity-laced slangy zingers ("Baby this may blow your mind, but I don't want to [*very naughty word deleted*] you?") and the snappy pace never lets up for a minute, thereby ensuring that "Shaft in Africa" races towards a thrilling conclusion with terrifically steady and unwavering headlong brio. Moreover, the luscious Vonetta McGee lends her fetching, captivating presence as a foxy young African princess who helps Shaft out, Johnny Pate's intensely groovy wah-wah guitar-ripping score is very easy on the ears, the ever-wondrous and under-appreciated Frank McRae pops up in an amusing minor part as a bothersome henchman, the African scenery's gorgeous, Roundtree carries himself with his customary extremely watchable and winningly easy'n'breezy off-handed grace, and -- hubba! hubba! -- the tiny, adorable, curvaceous blonde looker Neda Arneric will definitely raise the blood pressure of any red-blooded heterosexual male with her smoking hot portrayal of Finley's sensuous, sex-starved main squeeze (Arneric's steamy seduction sequence with Shaft is so incredibly sexy and arousing that it nearly melted my DVD player). A hugely satisfying and immensely stirring final filmic fling for blaxploitation cinema's single most engaging and significant take-charge man's man rugged individualist protagonist.

Gordon Parks' sequel to his 1971 blaxplotation success seems to fall short of the popularity and status of the original. But, as the hyped update with Samuel L Jackson is on the way, Shaft's Big Score and the next film, Shaft In Africa, may become more well-known.

To be honest, I made my Shaft debut with Big Score. The hype over the new film made me eager to see the original but i had to settle with this sequel. For all the excitement, I was truly dissapointed but i am going to refuse to judge the original, Shaft In Africa and the Jackson update by this film's standards.

Richard Roundtree returns as John Shaft, the supercool black detective, quick with words and quick with a gun. The opening sequence sees him speeding towards the place of a friend who knows he is about to get murdered. We see some money being hidden, so we ourselves try and figure what it's all about. Shaft doesn't make it on time but he takes over the case.

What follows is a detective thriller that never explains itself well and confuses the audience even though at the end of the day, the plot - Shaft looking for his deceased friend's hidden money which is sought after by gangsters - is simple. At most times, the violence and language is unecessary but despite how excessive these things are, no real tension arises between the characters - they just swear at them and beat them up. No edge arises in the plot so there are no scenes which feature suspense. Finally, when the climax comes it starts out as a simple graveyard shoot-up but ends up on a dock-side building site complete with boats, helicopters, etc. It's spectacularly over-the-top and ridicously overlong and again there's no excitement.

The only thing that kept me watching really was Roundtree. He's great as Shaft and has a real strong presence. Actually, Roundtree makes Shaft come across a nice guy but can easily toughen him up and make his brutality come out. The supporting cast features no one famous but no one gives a bad peformance.

So, Shaft's Big Score is a big let down. But I advise you (and myself) to check out more of Shaft's adventures, as the hero has the potential and status to feature in thrillers a lot more satisfying than this.

The offspring of deceased scientist Seth Brundle is growing up at an accelerated rate, and after reaching the human age of five but looking much older, starts the inevitable metamorphosis into an upright walking fly creature that seeks revenge on the two-faced, rotten scientists who pretended to be his friends.

The child, named Martin by the scientists, is played at different ages by Matthew Moore, Harley Cross, and Eric Stoltz. At five Martin also finds his first love interest, a lovely night shift computer file clerk played by Daphne Zuniga.

I thought it was a fairly intense and entertaining creature feature even if debuting director Chris Walas, creator/designer of the special effects, is not in the same league as David Cronenberg. I think it could have been worse. Performances are reasonably good, even if the villains are one-note and unimaginative.

Probably what I got more out of it than anything else was a certain visceral pleasure in seeing a bunch of jerks and otherwise expendable characters get their just desserts.

Not as good as the first movie but not that bad either.

I wasn't too impressed by "Return of the Fly", but it still fascinated me! When I learnt that there was a third one, I was quite intrigued to see it. I just watched it for the first time on DVD, and I was quite impressed on how smart the story was, and even though there is no Human-Fly monster in it (which, to be honest, is a smart approach), I thought it was more clever to base the movie around the Delambre legacy, rather than focus on the whole "man gets gene-spliced with a fly" blah blah blah! To be honest, I was expecting something REALLY dreadfully cheesy, but surprisingly, I loved it! The visuals (especially, the opening credit sequence, very well thought up!), and the originality of it is superbly done! It's got the classic horror movie style down perfectly! True its not as frightening as say... Alien, but, for its time (1960s), the mutant make up and story are very well sorted! TOTALLY UNDERRATED!

Obviously, this sequel is nowhere near as good as the original 1958 film 'The Fly', but despite obviously being a cheap follow-up and working from a story that basically just rips off the first film, there are some good ideas here and the film is definitely worth watching. The only actor to return from the original movie is Vincent Price, but the story does lead directly on as in true horror sequel style, in this film we follow the fortunes of the original scientist's son, who naturally decides to follow on his father's experiments. Price isn't the only thing that was recycled for this film, however, as the film was apparently written to incorporate sets from the original, although this does make sense considering how the story follows on. The hapless scientist this time is Philippe Delambre, son of Andre Delambre, and a man who has decided to rebuild the transportation device. Along with his friend Alan Hinds and uncle Francois Delambre, they conduct a series of experiments in the hope of succeeding where Andre failed...but naturally, as nothing runs smoothly in a horror film, events take a turn for the macabre...

I'm guessing that black and white film was cheap around 1959 as despite the fact that the original film was shot in colour, this one is in black and white. However, I actually prefer films like this in black and white, so this wasn't a problem for me. Vincent Price took a backseat in the original film, but as his star was rising by the release of this follow-up; he gets a more central role, although he still doesn't appear enough if you ask me. His role here isn't one of his strongest, but anything that features a performance from the great Mr Price is well worth seeing if you ask me. It has to be said that most of the performances (and dialogue) in this film are pretty ridiculous, but among the rest of the cast Brett Halsey, an actor who would go on to make Italian films along with this likes of Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci, stands out as the unlucky scientist. The film obviously isn't very graphic; although it's slightly more violent than the first film, and the transporter machine is put to much better use here. The special effects are inventive too, and work well despite obviously not costing much. Overall, this is at least a worthy follow-up, which while not as great as the original; has its moments and is worth seeing.

Mutated hillbillies can be a real pain in the arse. And eye socket. Basically, more of the same from the franchise that wants to be the next Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This time out, instead of Eliza Dushku, we get the quite gorgeous Erica Leerhsen (from... wait, you'll never guess - The Texas chainsaw Massacre remake) and the less than lithe figure of Henry Rollins as the main characters.

A reality TV show show called The Apocalypse sets up it's cameras in the same mutant-infested forest as the last film and the local residents quickly set about slicing and dicing the interlopers like an enraged Gordon Ramsey. Body parts fly off in every direction and blood gushes, spurts, leaks, drops, squirts and cascades in virtually every scene. If you could define this movie in one word, it would be "wet". There's a gratuitous boob shot and obligatory sex scene to keep the titillation quota up in between the carnage, but there's so little story that you could write it on the back of a matchbox. Not that story actually matters here one little bit.

Rollins is an ex-marine turned TV presenter who, when he realises the hills not only have eyes but bear traps, axes and other assorted blunt and sharp weaponry, turns into Arnold Schwarzenegger faster than you can say "Last twenty minutes of Predator". I'm not giving anything away by saying the bad guys get killed and the prettiest girl survives, but poor old Hank? Well, let's just say he's not likely to feature in another sequel...

All in all, it's your typical teens/twenty-somethings against psychos scenario. All is played out with arse-numbing inevitability, with only the gore and death scenes to keep you wondering what's going to happen next. Basically, if you didn't like the first one, then you'll hate this. Oh, and it contains probably the most unintentionally stupid tagged on twist ending I think I may have ever seen. One of those moments that if you're watching it at the cinema, you'll burst out laughing, feel embarrassed for a second or two before you realising everybody else has done exactly the same.

Sometimes They Come Back... Again starts in the small American town of Glenrock where an old lady falls off a chair & dies in mysterious circumstances... Cut to Los Angeles & her son Jon Porter (Michael Gross) in informed of his Mother's death, together with his daughter Michelle (Hilary Swank) his goes back to his childhood town to attend the funeral & sort a few things out. However once back strange things begin to happen, a sinister figure from Jon's past in the shape of Tony Reno (Alexis Arquette) comes back to haunt his daughter. As past memories come flooding back to Jon a series of brutal murders take place all of which seem to come back to him & his daughter in someway. Only another figure from Jon's past seems able to help, an old priest named Father Archer Roberts (Willaim Morgan Sheppard) who talks of demons & sacrificial rituals...

Co-written & directed by Adam Grossman Sometimes They Come Back... Again was the second film in a series of three which started with the Stephen King inspired made-for-TV Sometimes They Come Back (1991) which I have not seen & continued after this with Sometimes They Come Back... for More (1999) which I have seen & liked. The script by Grossman & Guy Riedel moves along at a nice pace & has a certain air of mystery about it, I mean it won't take a genius to work things out but at least it tries to do something a bit different & keep you guessing which is a hell of a lot more than a lot of dull boring horror films even attempt. The character's are OK & no one annoys, the main villain reminded me of John Travolta as Danny from Grease (1978) & I was half expecting him to break out into a 'feel-good' pop tune at any moment! Personally I have seen far worse & I thought this was a decent way to spend 100 odd minutes but it seems I'm in the minority & no one has ever accused me of having a particularly good taste in films so you may want to bear that in mind.

Director Grossman does an OK job & the film looks fine throughout. There isn't much gore but what's here is decent, there's a cool scene in which someone has their head run over by a lawnmower with the expected blood spraying results & Sometimes They Come Back... Again is probably the only film to feature a literal death by Tarot card! The demon make up is alright.

With a supposed budget of around $3,000,000 Sometimes They Come Back... Again is a competently made film with a certain polish to it, I mean it ain't brilliant but it's far from bad. The acting is good although Arquette is a bit campy as the main villain & I think we could have done without a lot of the tacky one-liners which start to creep in towards the end. A pre fame Hilary Swank does an OK job & makes for a likable leading lady.

Sometimes They Come Back... Again was, in my opinion, a pretty good film & better than I had expected. Personally I think you could a lot worse, sure you could do a lot better but not every film can be a Citizen Kane (1941), can it?

I'm a huge fan of the first one and as much as I hate agreeing with some of the comments, well I do. This isn't even close to the first, simply because kitamura's touch was missing badly. The unique sense of camera angles, sword fights, wire work etc... There's still plenty of violence and blood but not quite as impressive and breathtaking as the first. I hoped for kitamura's direction as it really would have been more intense than the first but not everything goes our way. Still the acting was good and the scene with a copy of the ninja scroll sword boomerang was pretty cool I must say.

Nevertheless I still love this simply because I love the franchise of this type of samurai flick and once again the cute Aya Ueto's presence once more. Recommended to all action and samurai fans out there.

thoroughly enjoyed this movie by the time the credits started rolling! I was like the other skeptics. "PG-13??? YIPPIE KAY YAY MOTHER-FATHER?" If you go into this movie knowing it's not going to be Nakatomi Tower, or With a Vengeance, you can save yourself a lot of whining. Die Hard 2, to the fans, was not a very good movie. THIS ONE makes up for it! There's wasn't much potty language, but realistically, I don't think anybody had any time to drop any F-bombs on account of them having to constantly dodge the real ones. At first the dynamic between McClane and the Mac Geek seems a little "ah here we go again, clash of the generations", and it doesn't seem like a real Die Hard movie until about 30 minutes into it, but once we start recognizing Shoe-less John, a lot of that goes away! The hacker stuff seems to get sort of hokey, at times, but a lot of Die Hard fans won't have trouble letting that slide since John couldn't be bothered with it; he's too busy kickin' ass and takin' names! The action scenes keep you on the edge of your seat at all times. This is definitely the next level of action flicks (best since Casino Royale). Some of the blows McClane delivers are so intense, even Chester A. Arthur felt them.

There's no rehashing of old characters to forcefully remind you it's a Die Hard flick. That means no Sgt. Al Powell, no Zeus, no Holly Gennero side story, no Inspector Cobb, hell, not even a Gruber family member! Also, there's no jurisdictional cliché argument he had with the LA cop or Airport Cop from the sequel we all like to pretend never happened.

Trust me, by the time he says "Yippie Kay Yay..." your jaw will drop! A MUST SEE for Die Hard fans!

Someone calling himself Simon detonates several bombs in the centre of New York City. He then sets a series of dangerous tasks for Officer John McClane to achieve or he will detonate more. McClane sets out to meet the demands of the terrorists with bystander Zeus Carver in tow.

This is the third in the Die Hard series and it makes an immediate improvement on the second by bringing back the original director John McTiernan. Here the film doesn't try to repeat the formula of the first film (terrorists/wife/rescue) but instead takes on a whole new plot while still tying it into the first film. The second movie tried to repeat the first film's plot but set in an airport, here the different angle makes this feel a lot fresher and feel like a movie in itself. The tie-in to the first film is clever and not too much of a stretch of the imagination - happily this is not the reason for the action itself - instead the terrorist's main aim is the gold held in vaults in the Federal Reserve on Wall Street, but the game with McClane is a special treat.

McTiernan was great in the first film, making everything feel tense and claustrophobic. Here he has the whole of NYC to run across and the camera shows this new found freedom. In action scenes the camera swings wildly round and zooms into focus on the action. During scenes set in offices etc containing a lot of dialogue the camera slowly prowls round like it's dieing to rush off to the next action scene. It's the opposite to the style in the first film and again makes this feels different enough to be a film in it's own right.

Usually film series can get a lot of baggage (watch Lethal Weapon 4 for proof), but here all the repeat characters are dropped, even McClane's wife only features as a voice on the phone. And that works well here and the only characters that are brought back here are McClane (of course) and Hans Gruber (in a flashback). This frees the film up to basically go where it wants without having to squeeze in old characters the way the second film did. However it links the films by having Simon Gruber taking supposed revenge for the death of his brother. The fresh active feel to this movie really gives it life and lifts the series out of the hole that the second film had threatened to put it.

The chemistry between Willis and Jackson is great and lends a lot of comedy to the film, there's lot of racial humour between the two and Jackson is more than the "black sidekick" that exists in many films. Irons continues the fine tradition of English actors playing Hollywood villains and is good for the most. His ticks and stutters stop him being anywhere near as good as Rickman was in the original role but he's still good. Willis gets good support from the likes of Graham Greene, Larry Bryggman and Colleen Camp as fellow cops but really him and Jackson carry the show.

Some of the scenes are a little forced and the plot doesn't always join together easily (a scene where Willis is fired out of a water pipe just as Jackson happens to drive by is a little too convenient) but many iffy bits can be overlooked if you focus on the action. The most effective thing that returns from the first film is the musical score. In the first film the score used variations on Christmas music to dramatic effect, here the score uses music well to add tension and comedy in a different way. It's difficult to put into words but this effect was missing from the second film.

The film has a hatful of nice twists towards the end and the only problem is that the conclusion in Canada doesn't feel like it fits in (the original ending was changed following the Okalahoma bombing) but this is a minor problem in a film that is a great addition to the action packed Die Hard series.

If you're a fan of the franchise, you'd know the drill by now, and can probably mentally run through all the cliché moments you'll be expected to see being played out on screen once again. Start with a spectacular death-defying escape from certain demise, and because Death cannot accept those who cheated on him, hence begins that hunter-prey game where the Death's invisible hand starts to design some elaborate life-ending sequence for its victims, sometimes with some wickedly black humour thrown in.

Seriously though, Death has turned hip in the series, allowing a select group of survivors led by a prophetic messenger, if anything just to challenge himself to pick them off one by one through the simple rule of elimination in order of the premonition, dangling the carrot that whosoever can break any of his death traps, will be worthy of a second chance in life, not. One thing's for sure, an audience is not going to just walk in and expect great acting or high drama. All we want, simply and crudely put, is to see how brutal or comical death can result from sometimes the most ridiculous of set ups.

To top its predecessors, this installment had its introductory big scene set in stock car racing, which is the perfect avenue for 101 things to go wrong, and when they do, have thousands of potential victims to pick off from. While the very first movie had a spectacular, and some say too realistic for good taste in having witness from within a plane break up and explode upon take-off, this one had an adrenaline pumping race that got enhanced thanks to the latest gimmick in town, 3D.

And while some films are presented in 3D format without exploiting its 3D elements to the maximum, The Final Destination milked every single sequence that it could. From the get go you have objects darting around and flying toward you, be it huge tyres or mashed body insides, everything got hurled toward you from the screen, which I have to admit made me duck a couple of times, having deliberately chosen to sit up front so that the screen totally enveloped my field of vision. But there were still some sequences that looked quite cheaply done though, akin to the quality of those made for television movies due to a smaller budget devoted to effects. But for what it's worth as a 3D film, this is one of the better contemporary live action ones out there now.

One does not expect Oscar winning material in its storyline or acting, though the eye-candy cast made sitting through this film palatable, even if they're acting range comes with vast rooms for improvement. The film's relatively short, clocking under 90 minutes, and had enough cheat sheet deja-vu moments (which included the opening credits priming you on what to excpect) to repeat itself for the sole purpose of bloating the runtime. It also ran out of steam in its final act, leading to a very convenient and rushed conclusion which was just probably director David R. Ellis' way of saying "I do not know how to end this".

Will there be another Final Destination? Sure, if the writers can dream up of another shocker of an opening sequence to set the stage for more deathly carnage to happen. It's no brainer, and if box office results this opening weekend prove to be stellar, then we should expect this franchise to develop some legs to keep going on. And on. But if that happens, this will be viewed in 3D, or naught.

I'm not gonna lie to ya, i wasn't looking forward to final destination 3.Just seeing a roller coaster full of screaming people on the poster made me roll my eyes and assume that this franchise has run out of steam .

So you can imagine my surprise to find that final destination 3 is a entertaining , funny and shocking thriller that proves that horror sequels can be pretty darn good if handled properly .

Directed by james wong with style and a pace that hits the ground running ,the film is very much like a roller coaster in its self - fast,packed full of laughs and most importantly full of frights .

The film is essentially a remake of the first film only with a different cast, gorier deaths and a higher level of self awareness.But this is a rare case in which copying the original isn't a bad thing- it keeps that sense of inventiveness and wit that made the first one great. It may be a clone , but its a very good one !

Final destination 3 is gory ,homourous and clever fun that will make me think twice about my horror sequel prejudice....

I loved the first film. I thought it was clever and genuinely creepy and scary. I also loved this film, but for a completely different reason. This film is just pure fun - don't expect to be scared if the first one scared you. The secrets out, you know everyone is going to die - its the waiting to see HOW they're gonna die that's the fun part! For the whole film, i didn't hear one person in the audience scream, it was either laughing or clapping at how the writers had killed someone off in the most ludicrously inventive and hilarious ways! (When that boy got squashed by the plate glass window, the audience broke out into spontaeous applause such as I haven't heard since the end of Chicken run!) Although the pile-up at the begining is fairly disturbing, the rest is too OTT to disturb at all! Don't try to follow the plot, just enjoy the gore and excitement.

I am a big fan of Chucky, i have been a fan on him ever since i was 6 years old. When I first saw this movie was going to be made, i thought it would be terrible. This film can just go to show you how wrong thoughts can be. I heard Glen was going to be in it. I thought he was going to be stupid at first, but i was wrong again.

Chucky was only in this movie for 30 mins. But, that didn't worry me at all. The other characters were interesting as well. No bad characters. just about everything you could ask for. Don Mancini did a great job at directing this movie.

This film had everything you could ask for. Glen was a very lovable character. Tiffany came back into it again. And Of course, Chucky! It had great actors in it. Jeniffer Tilly really helped this movie along with this movie. She plays a great part. And Introducing Billy Boyd. He played a great character. And Brad Dourif returns as Chucky again! This film is definitely for the Chucky fans. If you are not a Chucky fan, then you should not watch this film under any circumstances. This movie also had hilarious bits in it. Such as Britney Spears getting rammed off a cliff. If you are a humungous Chucky fan like me, you will not be disappointed at all.

Bride of Chucky starts late one night as Officer Bob Bailey (Vince Corazza) sneaks into the evidence room at his police station & amongst all the horror film in joke props he steals the remains of the Chucky doll that serial killer Charles Lee Ray possessed way back in the original Child's Play (1988). He drives the remains to an isolated area where Ray's ex girlfriend Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) slashes Bailey's throat & takes the remains back to her trailer. There Tiffany stitches & staples Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) back together again & using a 'voodoo for dummies' book brings him back to murderous life. Thing don't go as Tiffany had hoped & Chucky turns out not to be the man of her dreams after all so she locks him in a play pen at which Chucky is less than happy. While Tiffany takes a bath Chucky escapes, electrocutes her & using that book brings her back to life in the shape of a female doll dressed as a bride. Neither want to be stuck in plastic bodies & have to work together to get to a cemetery in New Jersey where Ray's natural body had been buried with the amulet needed to switch their spirits back into human bodies. The bodies of Tiffany's neighbour Jesse (Nick Stabile) & his girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl), who are both on the run from Jade's corrupt uncle Chief of police Warren Kincaid (John Ritter), will do nicely...

Directed by Ronny Yu I love Bride of Chucky. The script by Don Mancini is great fun, very fast moving, highly entertaining & references plenty of other horror film with good affection. From the opening sequence where we see Jason Voorhees hockey mask from the Friday the 13th films, Freddy Krueger's razor blade glove from the A Nightmare on Elm Street series & Michael Myers mask from the Halloween franchise. To the clips used from Bride of Frankenstein (1935) when it virtually recreates the same scene. Bride of Chucky never takes itself seriously which is just as well, there are lots of one liners, self referential gags that Scream (1996) made trendy a few years earlier & it doesn't seem afraid to poke fun at itself & the horror genre in general. I love the scene when Jesse & Jade are having a clichéd slushy romantic conversation that Chucky hears & he makes funny derogatory comments & gestures throughout. That's not to say that there isn't a damn good film in there as well because there most certainly is. Director Yu manages to create good atmosphere & a real sense of fun, both human & plastic sets of characters are likable & shine as each pair suffer their own sets of domestic problems that the trail of corpses that they are leaving behind would obviously cause. Technically Bride of Chucky is great for the most part & has that big budget polish about it & at about $25,000,000 I should hope so. The only thing that I will say is that some of the puppet effects by Kevin Yagher are a little stiff & unconvincing, I can't remember any CGI scenes in Bride of Chucky either. Thankfully the film doesn't neglect the blood & gore with a cool slit throat, nails blasted into someone's face in presumably a Hellraiser (1987) homage, people impaled on shards of glass, someone being bloodily obliterated by a huge truck, a ripped off lip piercing & various stabbings & gunshots. The acting is pretty good & Dourif as Chucky is very funny as he spouts the one liners out. I also like the scenes with Tiffany at the beginning & find her very sexy when she's wearing all that fetish gear, I can't be the only one surely? I personally think Bride of Chucky is a fantastic film, total entertainment from start to finish, great humour & horror in equal measure & at only 85 minutes long it never becomes boring or dull. A personal favourite of mine, watch it as soon as you can!

"Child's Play 3" is a reasonable second sequel from director Jack Bender. While the film doesn't really bring anything new to the world of Chucky, it remains faithful to the original films.

Andrew ("Dirty Harry", "Hellraiser") Robinson makes an appearance as a slightly bonkers barber and makes the film a tad more enjoyable.

The horror is all played for laughs but there's a few moments of suspense early on in the proceedings.

The effects are first class but this isn't anything more than "Chucky by numbers". A slightly lazy affair, this film was the end of the line for the franchise until 1998's inspired "Bride of Chucky".

An average day for everybody's favourite plastic playpal.

The first Childs Play was gripping, and some of the horrific scenes added to the sick, and violent mind of the doll called Chucky. This is just the same, thats why its so good. Chucky, once again tries to transform his soul into Andy, his ex owner. This film is brilliant. Although the ending isn't quite as good as the first. Avoid the third, at all costs. A real treat for all Childs Play lovers, Chucky remains the horrific, gory doll that he has always been!

#33: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Not quite the glorious revival we were hoping for: dodgy CGI, a messy plot and Ray Winstone?s wildly implausible character almost derailed the whole enterprise. But we can?t help loving old Indy, still giving archaeology a bad name after all these years. Plus, Cate Blanchett was great fun as his icy Russian nemesis. Note to Messrs Spielberg and Lucas: Please, abandon any plans to make Shia Laboeuf And The Revival Of Franchise.

I want to write my review right now, while the cheerful childish smile is still on my face and the theme is still echoing in my ears.

To write my review, but how? I am just... speechless!

George, Steven,Harrison, thank you mates! Once again - you did it!

I am totally not giving out any plot details or whatever information connected with the story - I think it's a sin to spoil this experience for you. Because it's not just a movie, it's an experience. As a hardcore Indy fan I was waiting for this movie ever since there were rumors for a new sequel. The waiting, the revealing of the first teaser poster, the trailer, getting my ticket weeks before the date... But let's get to the point :)

The movie's opening shot is an instant classic - the Paramount logo, usually fading to a mountain on the horizon a second before The Man With The Hat gets on the screen, this time is being minimized to a molehill and this sets right away the sense of self-parody.

The first scene... Just beautiful! A nod to George Lucas' "American Graffiti", retro, vintage, like a post-card from the 50s. There hasn't been more entertaining and fun movie set in the 50s since Robert Zemeckis' "Back to the Future" and Brad Bird's "Iron Giant". The only disadvantage of this time period - I admit, I really miss the Nazis. I know, Indy is punching commies now, but still...

The directing - the name Steven Spielberg for me is more than enough to guarantee a great time in the cinema (at least). And for those of you who have been disappointed by "War of the Worlds" for example (I was not, but I know some of you were), for those of you who think that he has lost his touch or something - just wait and see!

The camera-work - Janusz Kaminski's work is recognizable and somehow typical (which by no means is bad!), though I read on the net that he studied and tried to imitate the style of Douglas Slocombe from the previous three installments. By the way, I watched the movie for the first time in Poland, Janusz Kaminski's native country :)

The special effects - is there any reason to talk about them? I'm sure you're perfectly aware of what the guys at ILM are capable of - they are simply the best. You won't see something absolutely new and groundbreaking here, though everything is masterfully animated.

And the soundtrack, oh the soundtrack... And I don't mean John Williams (who is, of course, brilliant as usual), but the classic Rock'n'Roll tracks, featured in the film... OK, I told you no spoilers, but I just can't help it! The movie opens with Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog"!

And of course, the actors... I don't want to get boring with another paragraph full of superlatives. The cast is amazing. All of the actors are just perfect. Unfortunately Denholm Elliott is not among the living anymore, he died more than 15 years ago, but they didn't forget him and the movie pays tribute to his character, Dr. Marcus Brody. And if you have been disappointed by Sean Connery's rejection to return at least for a cameo appearance - they didn't forget him as well. You'll get a lot of fan service from George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, I assure you! And for sure you won't miss the father and son relationship, the new generation is here in the face of Shia LaBeouf, who steps into the boots of Mutt Williams. Karen Allen IS Marion Ravenwood, and Cate Blanchett is indeed a chilling villain.

But I guess you want to know about Harrison Ford's performance. "Isn't he too old?", "Shouldn't he use a walking stick instead of a whip?"... Are you kidding me?! Geez, Mr.Ford is alive and kicking, and he kicks hard! Harder than ever actually.

Yes, Indy is older and we know it. But what's more important - he knows it as well and he's not afraid to admit it. You've already seen the "Damn, I Thought That Was Closer!" moment in the trailer, and believe me this is only a vague glimpse of the humor you're in for! Honestly, this movie is packed to the top with in-jokes and one-liners. Harrison Ford even has his trademark Han Solo style "I have a bad feeling about this" (repeated in every episode of Star Wars).

And by the way there are references to the old movies (which I'm not going to give out) and to the TV-series as well - at one of the scenes Indy tells Mutt about his encounter with Pancho Villa years ago (remember when Young Indy was in Mexico? :))

The movie has everything that you loved in the previous episodes - it's action-packed, emotionally-charged, mystery-filled, thrilling and entertaining to the max! It's a wild ride I wouldn't miss for the world. And the best in it are the characters' relationships - they are so much fun and at the same time sincere and human, it makes you both laugh at and identify with the characters. They still have that spark that we all love in the old three parts.

What can I say? The Adventure is back AGAIN, it has a Name and you know it!

Welcome back, Dr. Jones! We all missed you!

Best bit: Indy surviving a nuclear bomb by hiding in a fridge.

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.

Everyone complains about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. One of my friends and I used to argue for months on end about which Indian Jones film was the superior. Nearly anyone we ask say that Temple of Doom is their least favourite, and the worst in the Jones trilogy. I believe the only reason people say this, is because it's the middle film, sandwiched between an all time classic, and a Hollywood blockbuster. To me, there is NO question that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the far superior Indiana Jones film. To anyone who says Last Crusade is the best I can do nothing but disagree (let me point out that all THREE films are nothing short of phenomenal). Temple of Doom had so much to live up to after the first film, and instead of trying to re-create Raiders (something I feel Crusade did), Lucas and Spielberg decided to take the franchise in a new direction. In my opinion, this was a great idea. Crusade and Raiders are too similar: both of them take place in desert terrain, both have Indy going after a very famous, biblical artifact, and both have Indy fighting off the Nazi's from attaining this object for global domination. Without Temple of Doom, Last Crusade would be an obvious copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark. A different style of Indy film is needed to expand the trilogy, making Indiana Jones a truly global character, and Temple of Doom did just that.

The film itself is a non-stop action, adventure ride. Harrison Ford is once again AMAZING as the dashing professor/archaeologist thrill seeker. Short Round is a loveable character who adds a humorous touch, and reveals the more compassionate side of Indy's character. The ceremony scenes are truly breathtaking and tense. During these scenes the film contains some very graphic images, but are used justifiably to convey the real dark, feel of this film (i.e. the removing of the man's heart while he's still alive, and lowering him into a fiery pit). The mine cart chase scenes are the most amazing, fast moving action sequence in any of the Indy films, and you feel like you're on a roller coaster each time you watch it. All these events lead to the film's spectacular and memorable climax.

I know with three films as amazing as the Indiana Jones trilogy, it's hard to pick a best and worst film, in fact it's nearly impossible. I'm just going to say that each film is great on it's own, and really shouldn't be compared to the other two.

I love the Halloween series. The original is one of my alltime favourite films, and I love Part 2 along with H20. The others aren't great, but I still enjoy watching them from time to time. The remake disappointed me a bit, but I still thought it was an OK film. This sequel blows the remake away, and is better than any of the other films in the series besides the ones I mentioned above.

The film started out great. I loved the shots of Laurie walking the streets after shooting Michael. Then we moved to the hospital, where there was some actual suspense. After that, we move ahead one year. This is when it really gets good, as we get some brutal deaths along with some crazy dream sequences.

I love how Rob Zombie spent a lot of time focusing on how the massacre in the last film affected all the characters. He really fixed a lot of issues from his last film by making the characters more likable and toning down the sex and language slightly.

I also liked that this had the spirit of Halloween. None of the Halloween films have really had that, but this did. I also loved the scenes with the white horse. It sounds really stupid, but the scenes are actually quite eerie. It's like something straight out of a really creepy dream.

Overall, this was a great sequel that to me, surpasses the first film. As long as you expect to be entertained watching people die brutally, along with a few suspenseful scenes, you should like it.

I think it was a barrel of laughs,fun,action and suspense all rolled into one.Great performances by Orlando Bloom,Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley as well as good supporting performances by Chow-Yun Fat and Geoffrey Rush.It was more hilarious than the previous two.Great movie for all those who like action movies and families.The special effects and scenery were brilliantly exposed by the creative effects department who worked on this film.It is also a film which if you don't focus,it could easily confuse you.Good directing and producing by the team.It was just as good as the previous two,if not more better because there is more action and even a little bit of romance thrown in the barrel.

Hollywood and numerous other places in which they make big fat expensive action/adventure thriller type films... are usually very lazy. They usually put in a hell of a lot of money, they may throw in some very good-looking actors, probably some expensive things like muscle cars (The Fast and The Furious), some really good looking girls, explosions, bad one-liners, POP CULTURE REFERENCES AND PERHAPS EVEN SOME POINTLESS CAMEO APPEARANCES, bad dialog and a really uninteresting or boring plot... if not no plot at all. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is not one of those films... IT'S A MASTERPIECE!!! I was a huge fan of the original and own it on DVD, actually, all three films. I have watched it many times over. The performance of Johnny Depp earned him an Acadmedy Award nomination and knowing this man I can honestly say right now that he without a doubt the greatest American actor of all time! I mean... sometimes you can hardly tell that its Johnny Depp because he gets to into this character of the legendary Captain Jack Sparrow. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are good in their roles but of course they are overshadowed by Johnny Depp and Bill Nighy. Davy Jones is a complex, dark and very original kind of movie villain and one of the best I have seen in a long time. The plot is very original, the action sequences done extremely well and the loads of money put into such a production hasn't gone to waste... every cent has been put into good use. This is "THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" or the modern age... and I am without a doubt not the very first person to say such a thing!

At the end of Evil Dead 2 Ash is sucked back in time through a time warp. He returns to medieval times where he is mistaken for the prophesied saviour. He is sent to recover the lost Necronomicon to save the people but also return him to his own time. Typically he makes a mistake when reading the book and he reserectes the army of the undead onto the land. Ash must fight to defeat yet more undead fiends!

The third in the series sees the gore drop off and the comedy step up even more. The previous two were both darkly funny but this is just plain hilarious. The sheer raft of one liners and silly/horror set ups keeps you laughing all the way. The horror is not scary as before ? mainly because the gore is gone, however I prefer this as the stop motion stuff gives it an old fashioned feel that adds to the value of it ? it's hard to explain but I really enjoy this because it feels like an old Harryhausen film.

Campbell is brilliant ? I bet he can't believe hi s luck, the rest of his career he's struggled but Rami seem to love him. And rightly so, he is like Jim Carrey but has so much more talent and is a classic B-movie leading man type. The rest of the cast are so-so but really this is an one man show and he does it really well.

Overall this is a great little film. Fans of the series will love it, fans of comedy should love it and fans of B-movie cheese should enjoy it. And the less gore means fun for all the family (nearly).

Having lost his girlfriend to the undead, Ash is forced to face the possessed corpse of his former lover Linda and cut her up with a chainsaw to stop him becoming her victim. However the demons in the cabin are not that easy to stop and soon his hand has become possessed as well. While he battles to stop his hand killing him, a group of four young people are heading to the cabin in seek of shelter for the night, only to find themselves trapped in the same fight as Ash as barely managed to survive thus far.

Despite that fact that Sam Raimi is now a "proper" director making summer blockbusters like his life depended on it, it is still heartening to see that his frenzied style is still present in his work, albeit it not dealing with such extreme material as that which made his name famous decades ago. While Evil Dead II may be a complete repeat of Evil Dead in terms of the basic narrative and content, it is still worth seeing because of Raimi's skill as director and writer of the film. In the UK Evil Dead earned notoriety for being one of the "video nasties" that the BBFC took such objection to and, in doing so, probably greatly boosted its cult appeal here, and to rerun this film is not a major problem because it does have enough energy and good qualities going for it to be worth a watch if you're into your horror.

However horror fans may find it a little tame by modern standards although I still found it to be pretty scary and gory ? certainly considering it was made almost 20 years ago with a budget that would barely buy you an A-listed movie star these days. The film is also pretty funny and is full of dark humour and comic moments that make it more entertaining than a gory b-movie has any right being. But here's the thing, the success of this film and indeed the whole trilogy, is mainly due to two people ? Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell. Raimi drives everything with his unique direction that places the action somewhere between a horror and a cartoon. It has great camera work, frantic shots and a real flair for the unreal; it is very hard to describe but it can be seen it many of his films.

Campbell's ongoing cult status has only been helped recently by Bubba Ho-tep but this is where it basically began and part II only sees his continue his good work as Ash becomes more of a hero than he was in the first film. He still has the cowardly quality that I loved in Ash but now has weapons and kiss-off lines to compliment his new status. As before his performance perfectly matches Raimi's direction and I can totally understand why the two have kept their close relationship decades later ? they really seem to "get" each other here. Support from Berry, Hicks, DePaiva, Domeier and Bixler is just about passable for this type of b-movie stuff but really the cast is dominated by Campbell playing his best character to date.

Overall this is a gory, cheap horror movie that won't appeal to everybody but to those that get it, it will be a hugely enjoyable, gory film with a great sense of humour. Director Raimi and actor Campbell truly make the film work better than the material would suggest it should and, on the basis of any of the three films, it is no wonder that this is such a timeless cult horror.

After her friends were murdered last summer, Julie James (Jennifer Love-Hewitt) has never been the same, still haunted by the guilt over her part in the killing of the fisherman her grades are dropping and her relationship is seriously strained. When she and her best friend win a trip to the Bahamas, she believes that finally things may be picking up; but the trip doesn't quite work out how they expected.

Its pretty much more of the same, but it's cheesier, weaker and more clichéd than the first. Don't get me wrong i still found some enjoyment in watching it, but classic material it is not! Anyone who loved the first film, will at least enjoy this one, but it is definitely inferior in every respect.

A film crew is making a sleazy low-budget horror flick at Crippen High School. This location hides a terrible past, where a few years ago a series of brutal murders occurred and the killer was never captured. Strangely enough members of the cast and crew start disappearing and on the minds of certain cast members is that it's happening all over again.

Huh? Yep, huh? "Return to Horror High" is a hokey low-budget tongue-in-cheek slasher that peculiarly rips on its genre in a very confusing muddle of ideas and bizarre pathways. There's just too much going on, as the illogical story switches back and forth in a rather disjointed manner. The reason for this messy situation can be attributed to story moving between the police investigation, that of the crew actually making the horror flick with killer knocking them off and then the murders the film is based on. That's quite handful and when they gel into one. You're left rather bemused by it all and at times it hard to tell when it's just a film within a film moment. It can get tediously bog down (especially the awkward romance link) by its chattiness and little action. The "Scooby Doo" mystery piles on the red herrings and the lambs for the slaughter, but it's nothing we haven't watched before. What I found to lift this outrageously silly comic horror was that it has a real good time mocking that of stereotypes and clichés and there are a couple of fun hammy performances from the elastic cast. It simply plays for one big wicked joke.

The story's structure and overall editing might be a choppy mess, on the other-hand the production was well prepared and the setting was atmospheric. A spine-tingling score that tries to keep you on edge combined with sweeping semi-doco cinematography and gloomy lighting made that factor passable. Although the embarrassingly cheese-filled 80s soundtrack can destroy the mood in certain scenes and the humour can over-rail the menace it tries to build in the opening half of the film. On a whole, it can be lacking, but director Bill Froelich delivers some inventive flushes in a few piercing scenes. A lot of blood (if "fake" movie blood) is splashed about and nudity is dished up in minor bursts. On the other spectre, suspense is quite minimal and clumsy false jumps only reveal the real one with dire results. Actually it can get unpredictable in spontaneous spurts. The ridiculously out-there climax only proves so when it builds up towards its final outcome. This big twist is easy to understand, but how it came to be doesn't make a whole lotta' sense.

The humour is quite overwrought in its not-so-subtle style, but these playful jests in the dialogues do have its shining light. Alex Rocco gets most of the best lines and is real treat as the flat-out, obnoxious, slime ball producer. Also the likes of Maureen McCormick as the hot and bothered cop raises a few chuckles and Lori Lethin's feisty awe only engages. While, the acting teeters on lousy, the over-exaggerated turns only enhances the film's eccentric energy and likability. Oh yeah, I actually found the characters rather likable. I'm sure some people will be waiting for George Clooney to hit the screen and you don't have to wait for long, but then again he bites the dust after only about 15 minutes into the flick. Even if it was only a tiny part, his charisma was evident early on.

This spoof isn't always on the mark, but it passes time decently enough.

So here we are at part 5 in the "Silent Night, Deadly Night" series, a series that was starting to overstay it's welcome by this point. Some would say it did that long ago, but personally I like parts 2-4 to varying degrees and was glad the makers of 4 gave it one more go around. Like 4, 5 has nothing to do with the storyline in 1-3, but instead goes for a more "Puppet Master" kind of story.

Pros: Overall an entertaining experience. Genuinely good performances. Good special, visual, and mechanical effects work. Some good twisted humour. A twist that I won't give away. Creative kills.

Cons: There have been so many killer toy movies that came before this one, so we've seen most of this before. Pace drags at times. Though it's nice to see Neith Hunter and Conan Yuzna reprise their roles from 4, they really aren't needed here. Aside from some good shots and camera tricks, the direction is pretty bland and the film looks like a TV movie.

Final thoughts: OK so perhaps the world didn't need another sequel to the controversial 1984 slasher film, but so what? They made 10 sequels to "Friday the 13th" and 7 to "Halloween," so why not 4 to "Silent Night, Deadly Night"? If you liked the previous 4 then go ahead and give this one a try.

As I watched this movie, I was baffled as why this film was in the Silent Night series. This movie was not scary at all, but was somewhat entertaining. The actors were okay. Clint Howard (House of the Dead) and Reggie Bannister (Phantasm) were the biggest names in this film, but otherwise the rest are pretty much unknown. Director Brian Yuzna (The Dentist) lacks the appropriate Christmas scenery, which would add to the film's intensity and horror. The movie seemed like Rosemary's Baby, with the occult, rape, and sacrificing scenes. Also those giant worm things were NASTY! This movie lacks some things, but it passes on okay

Dr.Newbury has saved the life of the hideously injured Ricky Caldwell.The doctor has encased his patient's explosive brain inside a Plexiglas cap,yet he has failed to revive him from his deep coma.In Newbury's attempt to reach the comatose victim's mind,he connects Ricky's brain waves to a gifted clairvoyant,Laura Anderson,who unexpectedly taps into the dark and twisted realm of his haunted dreams.Ghastly things begin to happen and detective Connoly(Robert Culp),must fight to stop the dangerous experiment."Silent Night,Deadly Night 3" is a mediocre horror film at its best.The pace is horrendously slow,the script is terrible and the acting is weak.Still there are some interesting camera angles and the film is suitably interesting.The next sequel was a completely unrelated gorefest from Brian Yuzna,whose unusual vision?often rejected by series fans?was at least a change of pace.

So bad it's great. Terrible acting, terrible writing, shoddy cinematography all add up to a barrel of laughs. PUNISH! The main actor is fantastic and does give off the aura of a demented madman. The fact they just used so much footage from part 1 really took some balls and I think they need to be applauded for this. the climax of the film is so insane. When the cop stops him and says "no funny business I know how to use this" referring to the gun he has pointed at the madmans head, the scene just cuts and somehow the gun has been turn on the cop and shoots him. But the number 1 reason to watch this film is what happens after this. All I'm saying is "garbage day!"

The first Creature film has been one of my favourites since I was twelve years old, but it wasn't until the advent of DVD that I caught up with parts 2 & 3 ... While RETURN OF pretty much mined the same vein as the first film, WALKS AMONG US sets out to do something entirely different.

In destroying the Gill Man's gills and inadvertently activating the Creature's vestigial lungs, the troupe of interfering scientists, led by a slightly whacked out Jeff Morrow, cause the Creature to jump forward to the next step on its evolutionary pathway. Interestingly, it's not just the Creature's appearance that changes (it seems to bulk up like a football player, for some reason) but also its behaviour. It seems to acquire some moral values. As long as the scientists treat it well, the Creature is perfectly docile, even obedient. But when Dr Barton kills the slimy Jed Grant in a jealous rage, the Creature loses its temper and sets out to specifically punish Barton for the crime. Once it's killed Barton, it wanders away from the compound and stands staring out to sea, enigmatically.

It's hard to fathom who this picture was intended for. Surely not the usual drive-in crowd of rowdy 1950s teenagers. Would they sit still for the "dramatic" scenes of the Barton's marital strife? Would they grasp the Creature's newfound moral outrage at the sight of a senseless murder? Probably not. So in that respect, WALKS AMONG US is that rare creature. A horror movie, with mature themes in search of an audience.

Did I like it? Yeah, I suppose. But in the final analysis - too much soul-searching and not enough violence.

Revenge Of The Creature is the first and better of the 2 sequels to the excellent Creature From The Black Lagoon.

A team of scientists travel to the Amazon and they capture the Gill Man and take him to Marineland in Florida so they can study him. But it is not long before he escapes and goes on the rampage, destroying cars and kidnapping the female scientist (jsut like he did in the first movie). He eventual escapes.

The cast includes Sci-fi regular John Agar (Tarantula, The Brain From Planet Auris), Lori Nelson (The Day The World Ended) and Nestor Paiva, reprising his role from Creature From The Black Lagoon. With John Broomfield.

Revenge Of the Creature is certainly worth seeking out.

Well with actors and performances more wooden than Pinoccio's c*ck, this has to go down as one of the greatest send up horrors of all time. From the opening shots until the fantastic fight with the rubber, lightbulb-headed creature at the end (With inhaler!) this is absolutely hilarious (even more than intended). I have already read a review that criticized character development. I hope that this is a joke as this was hardly supposed to be a plant version of the Shawshank Redemption. I think there are times when people should see a film for what it is, and this one is an absolute B movie p*ss take with £20 dedicated to special affects and even less on the appalling actors. Magnificent.

A traumatised woman whose daughter has died, and who is being tortured by nightmares about her previous encounter with the monsters who slaughtered her friends, is forced to revisit their lair with a new and sceptical bunch of hunters - and this time round there's more bloodthirsty crawlers to deal with than ever before. But that's enough about James Cameron's Aliens. What the deal with The Descent: Part 2?

The Descent, you'll remember, was the original 'chicks with picks' flick. There were others - The Cave and, er, that's it. I dunno, you wait forever for a movie about sightless cave monsters relying on sound waves to molest a bunch of explorers, then two scurry along at once. But what The Abyss was to the deeply forgettable Deep Star Six, so Neil Marshall's The Descent is to the aforementioned Lena Headey bomb; an infinitely superior modern horror classic, pushing numerous primal buttons to do with claustrophobia, fears of the dark, and gore. Lots of lovely gore. More gore than Lesley Gore. Gorier than Vidal. It was also much praised at the time for featuring supposedly realistic female characters (by genre standards, at least), even if those women truthfully seemed about as believable as a bunch of pals in a Pringles commercial. Just the fact that a director whose previous film featured absurdly over-the-top alpha-males had made a so-called 'women's horror', the yin to Dog Soldiers' yang, was something to make a noise about.

The Descent would gain even darker (if unwanted) currency when a London double decker bus carrying a promotional banner for the film was ripped apart by a suicide bomb on 7th July 2005, killing 13 people. Amid the twisted metal of the No.30, the poster tag line survived, mockingly intact: "Outright terror." But above all else, the most important factor in the Descent's fortunes was that it was a British film that cleaned up, big time. Although the movie had been predicated on a UK based business model, nobody had foreseen just how astoundingly well it was going to perform overseas. Given its returns, then, this sequel was utterly inevitable. As inevitable, in fact, as Neil Marshall taking a exec producer's role and tossing the directorial baton to somebody else. In this case, former Eden Lake editor Jon Harris.

"Everybody be kind to Jon" urged a heavily-pregnant Shauna Macdonald, somewhat embarrassingly, from the stage at Fright Fest 2009, where The Descent: Part 2 had its UK premiere. "He may not be Neil Marshall - but he may be even better." Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves, eh. But you know what? Shauna might just be onto something. Because amazingly enough, this is one of those very rare and special occasions when a horror sequel (scratch that - any movie sequel) doesn't totally and utterly suck. Surely reason alone to raise a glass of Cava or two.

It ends as it did before, with a woman's arm clawing its way out of a woodland pit. And admittedly, it's a familiar retread through that ancient Appalachian cave system. (And yes, pretty much a thematic retread of Aliens too, with much attendant mother-and-daughter subtexts.) This time round, frazzled Sarah Carter (Shauna Macdonald) is helping the authorities with their inquiries: that's Gavan O'Herlihy's grizzled idiot, Sheriff Vaines ("My gun stays with me"), and Deputy Rios (Krysten Cummings), who've discovered fellow caver Juno's blood type on Sarah's clothes and are slightly sceptical about her tales of blind, albino Trogs. Aiding the trio are climbing specialists Greg (Joshua Dallas), Cath (Anna Skellern) and Dan (Douglas Hodge); and yep, the first Trog-treat might as well have a target tattooed on their forehead, with the logo "Me First" in the center.

Along the way there are rats, Trog droppings, ropes of drool, a big surprise, and more gore than you can shake a gnawed leg bone at. Never mind Aeneid and Enoch's "Tiber foaming with much blood": you want carnage? This movie has tsunamis of hemoglobin, and geysers of guts. As in the original, the interplay of light and shade is also handled very effectively. A German language website reviewing this film describes Shauna's "pretty face scattered with summer rungs", a lovely phrase which may have lost something in the translation, but you know exactly what they mean. On the downside, characterisation and dialogue have predictably taken a battering ("There's a mountain full of caves and f**k all time"), and some fans of the original are going to be annoyed that this sticks so safely and slavishly to the tried and tested formula.

That said, this should in no way embarrass or hamstring a first-time director. It delivers the goods as they say. A third film is surely on the cards, no doubt in 3D. But in order to retain any good will, this series is going to have to do the one thing our Crawler friends have demonstrably failed to do. Evolve.

Saw VI

Expected: 23 October

One of the very best horror films for a long time, Saw VI really delivers on all fronts. It serves up victims we want to see punished, more history to Jigsaw, more intrigue as Hoffman runs the risk of being found out, and best of all (and I don't apologise for saying this), some fantastic visual horror. The opening sequence had me turning away from the cinema screen, its an achievement that the sixth instalment still has the ability to shock. Midway through, there is a torture carousel scene, which had me glued to the screen, its one of the most effective sequences in the entire series. When the film switched from gore to backstory, it held my attention as more and more pieces of the jigsaw (pun fully intended!) are put into place. Critics will moan that the continued inclusion of Tobin Bell's character is a sign of desperation, but the makers go to great lengths, for the fans, to ground it into the story and I found it compelling.

Roll on many more sequels, if they can match this standard.

Look out for: A surprised twist.

Just saw this today, and I really loved it. Is it better than the first?? I say not, but to make up for that, it is radically different: it differs in its structure, pace, characters, plot and a big twist you may not see coming, actually I really think you won't, it is very unique.

The movie opens with an amazing line from the first film: "Grabalo todo Pablo, por tu puta madre" and then just immediately we revisit (REC)'s finale.

(REC) needed to provide us with interesting and multidimensional characters, some likable some not, but they wanted us to be involved with these people, so that the outcome of their lives could affect us one way or the other. It had a lot of tension and suspense and an amazing set up, who are these people? How did they end up here? Can they get out? What is happening?? Is it a virus?? Possession?? And all these factors made for an amazing and unique experience. But the movie worked because the story worked.

Having said this, (REC)2 lacks any true character development and most of the suspense and mystery from the first one is gone. Instead it has tons of action, gore, terror and a never ending climax, it sounds like any Hollywood sequel right?? Well it isn't simply because behind those deliberate elements lies a truly frightening, horrific and original story.

(REC)2 works, simply because the story works. And said story demands none of the elements form the original, it doesn't need any involvement with the characters, it doesn't need to establish them, the setting or the situation anymore. All they have to do is tie all those loose ends and give us a frightening movie while they're at it. AND IT WORKS!!! The movie manages to stay fresh (yes, even with the hand held camera and the relatively same setting) because it is told in three acts, each act from three different points of view. They expand the world from the first one so that you can understand what is going on outside, how they will proceed and why it has to happen inside the building again. The pace is frenetic and five minutes into it you already have gore, scares and just pure horror. You have one hour and a half of constant climax and terror. And what really saves it from being disposable entertainment is the amazing plot, which takes everything we knew and throws it away, giving us a brand new and absolutely genius take on the circumstances.

The ending is, of course, a cliffhanger; and a freaking shocking cliffhanger that is (even more so than the first). And, as most of you already know, (REC)3 has been confirmed for 2011 so I say we are looking at one of the best horror franchises ever. 28 days later who??

MILD SPOLERS AHEAD.... Angela comes back for the last 10 minutes or so, in a PIVOTAL role. Let's just say if they decide to make a sequel to Quarantine, it will be extremely different because of what said remake left out.... The final shot is the continuation of the first shot, I already said what the first shot is. We meet Jennifer's father We still don't know what happened to the dog, or how it got infected, no that it matters anymore...

Now you might think that from my title I'm going to slate Saw 4, well I'm not.

Like most I'm an avid fan of the series and when Halloween rolls around I'm always wondering will it be good how you keep a genre like Horror fresh.

Well they done it again while don't get me wrong there is a lot of gore in there its seems a lot more toned down and more apportite for the film instead of just torture torture torture, which I feel really helps the film develop into its own skin.

The story line focuses more on jigsaw's back story this time round and how he became to who he was at the end of Saw 3, this allowment of character development I feel is vital to the story as we have always wanted to know more about the man behind the machine.

The story also focuses on Rigg and his story into the sick world of Saw, this film picks up where Saw 3 left off so its the same thing that Jeff went through he has to try help other people decide their own fate.

The ending is a good one but obviously never as good as the first one its safe to say I doubt they will ever be able to recapture what they had to begin with.

My advice for anyone still waiting to watch this film is keep an open mind about it and never set expectations too high because this is a good film and you should really give it a try before dismissing it.

I enjoyed the first movie, but this is actually pretty great. The creeper is a lot better than ever, there's more action and awesome special effects. In the first movie, all he ever did was drive a truck, but in this one, he flies. Awesome. This really saves up the film to be really satisfying. Also I heard there will be a "Jeepers Creepers 3" that I'm really looking forward to see. Overall, One of the best horror movie sequels ever made.

Having said that however, I don't think this film is as bad as some other reviewers have stated. Sure they re-hash a lot of stuff from the first movie, but hey! It's still funny right? I think this movie has a lot going for it. Some of the jokes fall flat, but some are hilarious. You've just got to take the rough with the smooth.

Retirement has not been good for Frank Drebin. His marriage is on the rocks and he feels emasculated as he no longer has the power of the law or the ability to shot bad guys. When he is offered the chance to help out with some undercover work, Frank jumps at the chance ? even though Jane storms out. When the info Frank finds points to imprisoned bomb expert Rocco Dillon he agrees to go into the jail and infiltrate his gang in order to find out his plan.

Despite the fact that the second part was a little bit of a dip from part 1, Debin was brought back for a final insult and managed to produce a very enjoyable conclusion to the series. Opening with one of the best moments from all three films (a hilarious expansion of The Untouchable train station scene) the film keeps up a very consistent tone that has plenty of big laughs as well as lots of little things that will keep you chuckling. Its not that the film has no misses (it does) but they are covered by the sheer weight of hits that it includes. The plot is fairly simple but is well done to include a few basic set ups ? the prison, the break out and the Oscars; each part is very funny if you're in the mood for it and, hey, even if you're not it is pretty infectious.

The writing is good ? it is easy to forget how hard it is to write a good spoof, but recent attempts have shown had easy it is to misjudge the film and just be silly rather than funny. Another big part of the film working is yet another great performance from Leslie Neilsen, who makes it all look so easy! Ward is a great addition to the cast and is much better than the bad guy from the second film ? Ward plays it gruff and straight, making it all the funnier. Presley is so-so, with her character kind of shoe-horned into the film to her detriment, but she does have some good moments. Freeman is good value and Smith, well, Smith has a good body and that's about it ? but fair play to her for sending herself up like that, it's not like she needed the money after all.

Overall, this is a very enjoyable film as long as you are in the mood. Even if you aren't roaring with laughter you'll still be chuckling along. The material is hardly the height of wit or intelligence and some viewers may find it to be all a bit broad but fans of the genre will love it and get plenty of laughs from the material and the mostly good performances.

When a bomb goes off in the offices of a research body looking an alternative energy sources, Lieutenant Frank Drebin is put on the case. Things are made harder when he finds that his ex-girlfriend (Jane) is one of the staff there. As unlikely as it seems, Drebin uncovers a sinister plot involving the heavy fuel lobby to kidnap the President's adviser and replace him with a look-alike that will say what they want. However, with nobody believing him, Frank is forced to take action to expose the leader of the plot ? Jane's new lover, Quentin Hapsburg.

Following on from the success of the first film, Frank Drebin is given a second outing and, as before, the humour is silly but comes in heavy doses, creating a pretty consistent tone to the film. The plot is, of course, nonsense and all you really need to know is that, as before, Drebin uncovers a plot that nobody believes while at the same time having love life problems ? but surely nobody will be watching this for the plot (and don't call me Shirley). Instead you will come to this for the steady delivery of absurdly silly jokes, all delivered with straight faces from all the cast. It is rather hit and miss but mostly the jokes are amusing even if there aren't as many laugh out loud moments as I would have liked. The addition of a lot of crude material didn't help and I felt it sucked a bit of the sense of fun out of the film.

That is not to say that I didn't laugh out loud (I did) but most of the time I was just chuckling ? which is good enough for my money. A big reason the film is funny is the cast. As always, Nielsen is brilliant at this sort of thing when he is given the material. Here he is not as good as his best stuff (due to the material) but he is still the core of this film and is consistently good. Presley has less to do but is good at the straight-faced stuff. OJ and Kennedy have small roles but they are funny with what they have. Goulet is not as good as Montalban from the first film but he has some nice moments.

Overall this is very funny if you are in the mood and, even if you're not, there is still much to enjoy here and it is consistently pretty funny with a real hatful of belly laughs. Not the most high brow of entertainment then but, if you're a fan of the genre then you should love this.

Let it be etched on stone: Since HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX was released American comedy cinema has been in a steep decline. Part of the reason for this is that HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX is an Everest of film-making that has yet to been scaled since. And once you reach the peak the only way is down. HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX has everything. It is the most consistently side-splittingly funny film since Chaplin and Keaton at their peak. It is the most devastating and uplifting story of love, war and sacrifice since CASABLANCA and it has rip-roaring action scenes (Die! Energizer! Bunny! Die!) on par with the mighty movies it is (lovingly) parodying. Charlie Sheen, despite his off-screen propensities, has always been an agreeable screen presence and here he delivers his performances for the ages. Valeria Golino is a goddess for all the ages and also displays impeccable comedic skills. She also kicks a considerable amount of butt without ever losing her grace and femininity. This is quite possibly the last great American female role with substance to it and sadly none have close since.

When people consider the great sequels of all time, usually they pick THE GODFATHER PART II. Then I think to myself - Why pick the three-hour plus GODFATHER PART II when a hundred times more out of the 90 minute HOT SHOTS PART DEUX? Does THE GODFATHER PART II have Al Pacino using a chicken as an arrow? No! So when you are looking at your shiny DVD collection and thinking "I think I'll watch a GODFATHER movie" my advise is to pick up HOT SHOTS PART DEUX and watch it... twice. The only way this film could be any better is if Miguel Ferrer had more screen time. That guy is a Plato of modern times. "War. It's fantastic!" Even Rowan Atkinson is funny in this film. Let's see Ingmar Bergman pull that feat off!

Many people hated this blockbuster but I actually found this latest installment to the Mummy franchise much to my satisfaction The storyline was OK. It is different from the first two movies but this was a better idea rather than being in Egypt again and using the same mummy or type of mummy otherwise it would have been a bit of a put off and a repeat of the previous movies. I really enjoyed the action sequences. The best I've seen in a summer blockbuster this year. The CGI was pretty impressive. And then there is the comedy. The Mummy films had very good humour and the new installment is no exception. I will admit that there are one or two silly moments which did displease me.

Overall I thought this was an enjoyable blockbuster.

Rick and Evelyn now married with a son, find themselves amidst the second coming of Imhotep. After their Son Alex is kidnapped by Imhotep as he seeks the Scorpion King (The Rock) Rick and Evelyn must pursue their sons capture, with the aid of the clues Alex leaves along the way.

Aside from some unusual revelations in Evelyn and Ricks past, the movie concentrates mainly on the action this time out and runs a little short on story.

I liked the evolution of Evey's character, now she's hardened up she makes a mean adversary, and takes part in some good battles.

All in all, I enjoyed the experience and once again the visuals were more than adequate.

If you enjoyed the first, then watch this one, its good fun and has some fine moments.

This was one of the funniest family films I have ever seen. I was young when I saw it, but I still love it. my whole family loves it and after renting it 4 times we finally bought it. there is very little colourful language and although its not as original as the first one, it is just as funny (if not more so). you've gotta check it out. Perhaps its a little on the cheesy side, but it's so original...and teaches you a lesson: are we really so much advanced than these people? Ignorance is bliss...

The Gods Must Be Crazy III (a.k.a. Crazy Safari- 1991) C- 96 min. Lung Chan, Sam Christopher Chow, Stephen Chow, Ching-Ying Lam, Man Tat Ng, N!xau, Peter Pau. Xixo, the bushman from THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY films returns, this time getting involved with a magician and an ancient Chinese vampire, along the way learning some kung fu moves. Odd, to say the very least, this movie was a hard find, video title CRAZY SAFARI and only available on coolvcd.com in the VCD (Video CD) format. The film itself is hard to understand due to the Cantonese language (the version I have was translated, but still barely audible) but some parts did make me chuckle and it was nice to see N!xau the bushman back in action, even if it was in a far lesser film than the first two GODS movies. The rating is solely based on what I could gather.

As a sequel to the brilliant "Gods Must Be Crazy` by Jamie Uys this movie is quite passable. I think, everybody loves N!xau, the bushman who never even tried to learn other languages than his own (which makes up the main difference between him and other screen "savages` like Tarzan or George of the Jungle). We want to see him and so we don't care about what happens around him. Sending him to Hong Kong is a lovely idea.

Of course, apart from some successful scenes, the movie is unintentionally funny at best. The actors and actresses from Hong Kong are so helplessly bad and amateurish that sometimes it's rather embarrassing to watch them. But also the guy playing the American boss - didn't they have enough money to employ a professional actor? The story is silly, the characters are most implausible - these facts disturb a little, after all: the movie doesn't do justice to Jamie Uys at all, although it features some references to the first part. Still, as long as we can see N!xau(R.I.P), we tolerate this God Must Be Crazymovies.

If you liked or loved the first one this one will definitely entertain. Even if you haven't seen the first one this one will still be entertaining, but you might not understand all of the in-jokes, which there are several of but they do not take anything away from the film. This one is a whole lot like the first one in that the two greatest Irish catholic killers of bad men are doing what they do best: killing bad men. We find the brothers living a quiet bearded life in Ireland, the beards are little silly but it gives you the idea that many years of no killing has taken a toll on the brothers and their looks. After getting a quick view of their simple lives they are quickly brought right back into action after news that a priest has been killed back in hometown Boston. This killing in particular upsets the brother because it is done in the same exact fashion that the brothers execute their big targets. Whilst on the way back home they pick up a new partner, a humorous Hispanic replacement for Rocco from the first one, who is their new contact into Bostons criminal underworld. Willem Dafoe is also replaced by a female FBI agent who does her job just like Willems character does because she is his protégé and she is very good at her job. Returning characters include the three cops that worked with Dafoes character in the first one and they are all hysterical and make a nice little side characters, their bar owning friend F#$% A$$ is also back and gives them shelter and drinks. While on their quest for revenge their are many laughs and many shoot outs, the violence is fun and stylish. Recommended for lovers of the first and anyone in the mood for a fun stylish action movie.