Science Fiction

If the rumors are to be believed, then approximately fifty minutes of footage for Star Trek: Nemesis are lying somewhere in Paramount's vault. While the movie itself is technically well-edited with a slick Hollywood gloss, this might explain why everyone but Picard and Data are left short-handed with minimal screen time and dialogue. Hopefully, the missing footage will find its way to the DVD release, where we can get the final tribute the crew of The Next Generation deserves.

As a story for a final adventure, Nemesis isn't quite the epic one may hope for. The plot mostly focuses on the parallels between Picard and the new Romulan leader, a human named Shinzon (Tom Hardy), who claims to desire peace between the Romulans and the Federation. He also has a special bond to Picard, which I won't give away, suffice to say Data also gets to experience something similar throughout the film. Essentially, the plot isn't particularly interesting and it works primarily as a set-up for the climactic space battle, definitely the movie's highlight.

Before then, the only setpieces worthy of interest are a gratuitous but enjoyable car chase (!) on a desert planet that resolves in a grin-inducing fashion, and a fast-paced shootout on board Shinzon's warship, the Scimitar, which also resolves in a pretty cool manner. That's all the action we get in the first 80 or so minutes, meaning there's a lot of talky scenes that go nowhere and clumsily insert the good ol' "Nature vs. Nurture" debate to no avail. Outside of the action, what makes the first 3/4's of the movie watchable are the excellent special effects and the crew's camaraderie. Acting wise, we get excellent performances from Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner (by the way, is it just me or does Stewart look even more physically fit than ever? Old age is doing little to bring him down)

Clearly, the final space battle is what we've been waiting for, and after 10 movies and 23 years, we get what is easily the most elaborate action sequence of the entire Trek franchise. The segment runs just short of a half-hour and features the Enterprise going toe-to-toe with the Scimitar, and to keep the concept of one starship battling another from getting boring (because let's face it, that gets old in a matter of minutes), director Stuart Baird throws in a few more ships, some more phaser fights from boarding enemy parties (which prove to be the most exciting parts of the movie), fisticuffs, and even a self-destruct sequence that could prove fatal for everyone. It's a doozy of an action scene, even if it is slightly marred by Troi's psychic link and tiresome reports of collapsing shields. This is the sequence that makes the movie worth watching to sci-fi action fans.

Personally, I would have preferred had Baird just spaced the action out more evenly (a la First Contact), rather than stuffing it all in the conclusion, since the plot itself is hard to hold interest on its own. Still, from the space battle alone, this is more action-packed than any of the original crew's films and comes out just ahead of First Contact in terms of quantity, if not in quality. The finale also features the death of a beloved character, which isn't executed quite as properly as it should have, but is touching on its own. Once again, I'm hoping the director's cut will fix that up. Until then, this is just satisfying enough to those who thirst for outerspace action.

Don't let some of the bad reviews for this film put you off watching it. I finally got around to watching it last week and I must say that It was no where near as bad as what some people have said about it. In-fact I thought it was pretty good. It's not the best Star Trek film but it's not the worst either. Some people have criticized it by saying that it looks like an extended television episode- All the films except 'the motion picture' have - what's the point of changing the television look and feel when it is so good? The one time they did try to change it from the episode feel (the motion picture) it was crap. Come on people, this is Star Trek - what were you expecting - this was not meant to be another Shawshank Redemption. I like this film so I'm going to give it 8 out of 10 because I don't care what other people say.

Star Trek VIII: First Contact - Stardate: 50893.5

Finally, after the dismal Generations outing, they got it right with this one! First Contact indeed is on par with the very best of the Star Trek films - The Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. Unfortunately, they won't get it right again to the present day (with the above average but still not as good Insurrection and awful Nemesis). The script is very solid, the acting above par (with kudos going to Alice Krige as the seductive Borg Queen and Alfre Woodard as the trusting Lily Sloane), and the score by Jerry Goldsmith again another hit. All of that combined with visual effects that service the story and not is the story makes this outing a spectacular success

I always loved this movie. From the very first time I saw it, at the age of 10, I absolutely adored it. It took a big risk, admittedly, in bringing the Original Series and TNG together, but I believe it did it extremely well and with a lot of ingenuity.

The first part of the movie seems to pick up where "The Undiscovered Country" left off; and it does so on a somewhat sour note. Retirement does not sit at all well with Captain Kirk, and he hates the idea of being a "legend" and having the namesake of his beloved ship run by a bunch of inexperienced kids and a skeleton crew (the running "tuesday" gag is hilarious). I think Walter Koenig and James Doohan were marvellous in the first part of this movie, and the scene where they arrive on deck 15 and find themselves staring into the void of space is chilling.

After this, it picks up with the Next Generation Crew, and boy, does the camera love the Enterprise D. It's emotional to see the crew going through the changes this movie throws at them, and by the time Geordi's kidnapped and Data's emotions are uncontrollable, my heart was in my throat.

It's also a pleasure to see Whoopi Goldberg reprise her role as Guinan, and as far as humor goes, Data's newfound sense of humor had me on the floor.

I LOVED Picard and Kirk's interactions and the segment in Kirk's cabin is an absolute hoot. (Picard: "This is not your bedroom.") Soran is a great villain, truly ruthless and threatening. Out of all the Next Gen films, this is probably my favorite. It has an atmosphere about it that's very appealing to me, and the only other TNG film that had the same feeling was Nemesis, which I still maintain was a WICKED movie.

I saw this film when I was 11 and I thought gosh this is really different for a Star Trek film. It had so much suspense and conspiracy, and so much mystery that this was one of the best films in the collection. The acting is great, the action and the effect are superb, and the music is very good! I recommend this to all Star Trek and sci-fi film fans!

V has some of the best moments in the entire series. The camping scene is both funny, and insightful. I also love the scene in the brig. ("I oughtta knock you on your Goddam ass!"......."Want me to hold him, Jim?")

The only mistake was hiring an effects crew who had never done motion control blue screen model effects before. And that was NOT William Shatner's fault. That was Ralph Winter's and Harve Bennet's fault. Quit blaming William Shatner. The producers hold the purse strings, and hired idiots. Watch the new DVD and you will see model test shots that were not for action blocking, but were the effects team actually trying to figure out how to do the effects. Lame

Watch this movie, focus on the characters, and ignore the space shots, and it's pretty good. I think since they reworked ST:TMP with new effects based on the original story boards, they should have done the same for ST:V for the new DVD. That would have fixed the whole movie.

Besides all of the exterior ship shots, the scenes I would have fixed are as follows:

The turboshaft - Change the deck numbers to make sense and erase the shadow made by the boom holding them up.

All viewscreens - Insert remastered footage digitally to replace the poor rear-projection versions. The new Enterprise would have an even clearer screen, not a grainy, dim one. The only one that worked was the observation windows as they approached the great barrier.

The fall scene at the beginning. Inserting the closeup of Kirk and Spock ruined the entire scene.(Exactly like the parasailing scene in Die Another Day) Seeing a real stuntman is always better than seeing a fake shot of the actor.

Still on the Vulcan planet awaiting repairs to their captured Klingon ship, Kirk and his crew are summoned to earth by the Federation to stand trial for making Star Trek 3 so very dull. However a deep space probe is approaching earth sending out a communication signal that is disrupting power and damaging the whole planet. When they find that the signal relates to the now extinct humpback whale, Kirk decides to travel back in time to the 1980's to recover and bring back a whale.

Part 2 of the series is easily my favourite to this day of the Star Trek movies, so part 3 was a major problem, being so very dull and heavy, but part 4 was an improvement simply because it was so much more light hearted and fun. The plot is potentially very silly and a barely hidden ecological subtext that threatens to sink the film, but it is delivered with tongue in cheek and it is that saves it. The mocking humour is gentle and really carries the film as fish-out-of-water gags abound and the contrast between the crew and their surroundings is used well.

While the plot is nonsense, the cast all enjoy themselves in whatever roles the script gives them. Shatner has the biggest role of course but has the least fun as he has to carry the unlikely love interest. Nimoy is good fun despite having a follow on from the last film that is a little heavy and he does a steady job as director. The rest of the crew have small roles but each is funny - whether it's Chekov appearing to be a communist spy, McCoy berating modern doctors as the Spanish inquisition and Sulu happily flying helicopters for some reason.

Overall this is not the best Star Trek film as it lacks any real action, excitement or tension, but what it lacks in this area it makes up for in terms of gentle laughs. Looking at it alone it is only reasonable but after watching the dull `Search for Spock' this is a fun relief.

Picking up where "The Wrath of Khan" left off, McCoy seems to be going mad, the Enterprise is being retired, Kirk mourns the loss of Spock and his son Dr. David Marcus is off exploring his newly created Genesis planet with the lovely Vulcan vixen Saavik (exit Kirstie Alley, enter Robin Curtis). Kirk then finds out from Sarek (Mark Lenard, who had a brief, unrecognizable role in the opening of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as an ill fated Klingon Commander and played a Romulan before playing Spock's dad) catches up with Kirk and tells him that there's a chance at resurrecting Spock, who's mind and spirit are housed in McCoy's brain while his body is on Genesis. Feeling obligated to return the favor for saving them all at the end of #2, Kirk and the gang hijack the Enterprise and rush towards the Genesis planet to rescue Spock "in whatever form he may still be alive." Meanwhile, a bodily resurrected and rapidly re-aging Spock has been found by Saavik and David and they are stranded on Genesis after their ship is destroyed by Klingon Commander Kruge (Christopher Lloyd) and he comes looking for them in hopes of unlocking the secrets of the Genesis project, which he thinks could be used as a weapon against his people. Who will survive?

Considered by some to be trash and by others to be the only good odd numbered Star Trek film, this is a sufficiently entertaining bit of science fiction yarn that continues following the theme of what happens when you mess with mother nature. Good performances as usual, with Lloyd giving one of his best as the Klingon Commander Kruge, who becomes oddly sympathetic in light of his blood thirsty actions when you consider that he was just looking out for his own brood and was willing to spare the crew of the USS Grissom. Shatner's brawl with Lloyd is also fun to watch, and the film still has that great James Horner music. Don't miss Shatner kicking Lloyd in the face shouting "I... have HAD... enough of... YOU!"

Robin Curtis is a capable Saavik. As a bit of trivia, Saavik apparently engaged in sexual intercourse with Spock while he was going through his aging phases and, as part of an idea never utilized in the films or even in the spin off series, Saavik became pregnant with Spock's child, which was originally why she was supposed to stay on Vulcan in "Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home".

I've always held a special place in my heart and mind for this second installment in the "Star Trek" movie series. Mostly, because this is a movie that appeals to both places.

Not only is this movie loaded with the original characters from the series, it also touches on such subjects as revenge, family, duty, age and, of course, sacrifice. That was the best thing about the series - that it touched on topics that were (pardon the expression) universal, no matter the species.

Everyone is uniformly fine right down the line, especially Montalban's Khan (returned from the "Space Seed" episode of the original series); all hatred, vengeance and single-minded of desire to see his enemy laid out before him. Namely, Kirk.

Alley is rather fetching as Saavik and it's a shame she wasn't carried over to the next film. I can't help but, seeing her on TV anymore, to expect her to raise an eyebrow in contemplation. Buttrick makes a complex character out of David, the son Kirk never knew he had. Hurt feelings and resentment meld somewhat explosively with a new-found father/son relationship.

And what can one say about Spock, Bones, Sulu, Chekov, Uhura and Scotty? They are characters some pivotal to the plot at hand or not, it's always good to see them.

For anyone who hasn't seen the movie, I won't discuss it in great detail. The story is simple enough (scientists find way to rejuvenate life on dead planets; Khan finds escape from prison planet, vows revenge on Kirk), but there is one plot point that will, if you are unfamiliar with it, blow you away. Suffice it to say, never has friendship been elocuted so well in this or any movie before or since.

Ten stars and a special Kobuyashi Maru simulation for "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan".

This DVD version has improved and restored and made Star Trek: TMP a pleasure to watch rather than a chore. You're less inclined to hit fast-forward in those lengthy scenes. This movie will resonate well with mature-age viewers because the story is not what you would expect from today's action packed cinema. I appreciated the movie more as I got older. Bob Wise explains on the DVD that production was extremely rushed and had no time to preview the film with an audience that would now after 20 years, tell him to tighten the opticals and emphasize characters. This is precisely what he has done in the DVD version and its magnificent.

Aesthetically, the DVD version shows you the best Star Trek: The Motion Picture can possibly look. Film is sharper; color is dead on however there is still a lot of film grain present unfortunately. My guess is they cleaned the original negative up as much as they could but it had deteriorated so much in storage, or was badly preserved. Certainly looks better than my bad pan/scanned VHS copy.

The DVD truly shines with its brand new sound mix. This isn't your standard stereo to 5.1 DVD conversions like they are doing for movies pre 5.1; they have gutted it up and added new stuff. The original release was so rushed that very little in terms of ambient sound and special effects audio elements were done on the sound mix amongst other production elements. For this DVD they went back to the original audiotapes and remixed them digitally.

Goldsmith's score sounded fantastic when it originally came out now sounds even better on the DVD version. It's tremendous, you will hear what your suppose to hear now with the added advantage of 5.1 surround sound. Goldsmith score truly has a chance to soar now by stretching into a clean high fidelity 5.1 environment rather than being squeezed onto a mono or stereo track. Bass kicks in often especially on big musical cues. You'll hear nifty panning and those surrounds and subwoofer will definitely get a workout. In instances they isolate different parts of the orchestra through different speakers, mainly the bass and percussion.

Most onstage dialog was re-recorded afterwards because of onstage noise due to mechanical devices etc; this is now common practice in the industry. The result is cleaner dialog that comes prominently out of your center speaker. The dialog audio is good, but on occasion it shows a mild muffled and tinny quality probably due to age of material or analog technology of the time, nevertheless I guarantee you, the average viewer will like it, I'm just being picky. In short the movie will sound almost as good as if the movie was made recently.

Not only having rebuilt the original audio they have put in more surround elements, like ambient bridge noises and computer voices. Not sure why they changed the `Intruder Alert' voice, I don't mind but I guess it was because they rushed the sound mix in the 70's and chose that voice as a last minute thing. There are other elements that have been changed, for the better I would say.

The DVD contents have been remastered with Wise's overseeing. There are too many subtleties to comment on so shall briefly discuss a few. Before opening credits you are treated to Goldsmiths V'ger/Love theme, a nice touch. Then you hear the bombastic Star Trek Theme. Newly done credits over moving starfield.

First main new special effect is the Vulcan landscape, tilting from sky to the surface. Then cuts to a new matte painting of the beautiful orange sky. Originally Spock shields his eyes and in the reversal, not only is there no sun there is little sky visible. The new matte painting now fits in nicely.

San Francisco sequence has been redone, 3 new matte paintings that better show the futurized city, Golden Gate Bridge and a bigger shuttlebay.

When they get into V'Ger they encounter a weapon heading towards them that is suppose to dissipate, in the original it simply disappears instantly, now we see a new visual that shows it dissipating just before it hits the ship.

Later we see a probe heading towards the ship on the viewscreen and then through some hokey editing it appears on the bridge. This has been replaced with an improved FX shot showing the approach of the entity on an exterior shot.

A new 'Wing Walk' sequence. Breathtaking new CGI's that show the away-team walk from the hull to the V'Ger stage, some using the original live action shots. New FXs for the most part are based on original storyboards. They didn't go overboard with the effects which is good, Bob tells us that they made FX that they could only do in the 1970's, unlike Star Wars whom George Lucas went overkill on new FX when he redid his in the 1990's.

There are trims, some rearrangements of shots for the better. E.g. Ilia/Deckers exchange of looks, Kirk's `Oh My God', his second `Viewer Off.' I suspect they had to edit within Jerry's score, or have to also edit Jerry's score to accommodate the new editing, if so they have done it very well, I couldn't notice. Some lengthy scenes remain in its entirety, e.g. flying up to the enterprise, I don't blame them for not trimming them, some are sentimental.

The 2 DVD's come with a plethora of information. Audio commentaries by the director, 2 special effect's guys, an actor and the composer guide you through the director's edition. Text commentary by Okuda gives even more scene specific info. Disc 2 gives you most of the trims, deleted scenes from the TV and Theatrical release not used in the DVD version and an outtake of an abandoned visual effect. Plus 3 documentaries about the abandoned TV series ST:Phase II, Directors edition DVD and the movie itself. Plus advertisements/trailers plus storyboards.

A MUST BUY FOR FANS! You'll Love It!

It's odd to think that fifty years from now there may only be a handful of movies released in 2004 that will be remembered at all. I don't care to venture any guesses as to what they may be, but it's easy to see why The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of the ones from 1951 that remains a classic, while so many others sank into obscurity. The movie deals with a theme that was at the forefront of so many peoples' minds in the early 1950s, in America and the rest of the world, and that is the conflicts between many different nations, and more generally the tendency for humans to fight each other. It was released at the time of the Red Scare and so soon after World War II that international tensions were still high. Also odd is that if you switch the last two words in the title, why, it's not very frightening at all!

Okay, that made no sense, but I couldn't resist. My respect for the movie dimmed sharply when I saw that the alien was not only a man, but a good looking man who spoke perfect English, but then won back my respect completely when it took the time to explain that his culture had learned about humans through intercepting radio transmissions over many years. Unlikely, but it's an explanation, which is more than most science fiction films provide. Granted, not much time should be wasted on the science of science fiction, but in this case something had to be said. The alien didn't give may details as to his physical condition, but scientists hypothesized that since he so closely resembles a human, he must have a similar environment to our own on his planet.

Speaking of which, there is one thing about the science that I'm also curious about. At what stage were astronomical studies in the early 1950s? I'm wondering how far into space scientists were looking, because Carpenter, the alien, states with some grandeur that he has traveled 250 million miles to get to earth, which in astronomical terms is a tiny, tiny distance. Considering that the sun is 93 million miles from earth, this would mean that his planet is within our own solar system. And here's another little factoid ? Earth makes a complete revolution around the sun every year, as you know. Pluto, on the other hand, takes something like 248 years to revolve around the sun. That has nothing to do with the movie, but is an interesting digression, I should think.

I found the political backdrop to be one of the most interesting things about the movie, and not only because of what the political landscape was like at the time. It was interesting to watch a movie about aliens that so quickly and completely dissolved into a close examination of volatile human relations, and without ever becoming preachy or devolving into peace propaganda (oxymoron intended). I actually think that a large part of what made up for the lack of aliens in this alien movie was the validity that its argument has.

When Carpenter (who they stopped just short of simply naming Jesus) was greeted with the response that a meeting with all of the worlds leaders was impossible because of tensions between nations, he was genuinely surprised and saddened. He gives as his reason for visiting earth the fact that his civilization has noticed satellites being launched around the Earth's atmosphere and, since humans clearly are unable to get along, he was sent here to tell us to join them and live in peace or face our present course and face obliteration. Most importantly, if we chose the latter, they would be there to ensure that we would not export our violence to peaceful civilizations in space. The descending nature with which he speaks is truly revealing, it makes humans look childish because of our constant battling with one another.

This is also where the movie coincides with some of the themes that Jonathan Swift presented in Utopia, his novel upon which several failed civilizations have been attempted. They have created robots, which we seen in the Iron Man, to prevent the rise of violence in their society. The robots have tremendous power, which cannot be revoked, and at the first sign of violence they react swiftly against the aggressor, which results in a peaceful society. I'm also reminded of Gulliver's Travels, also by Jonathan Swift, particularly the section where Gulliver lives among the Houynymns which, interestingly enough, are talking horses with a remarkable ability to live at peace. When at one point Gulliver describes lying, which does not exist to the Houynymns, one of them responds incredulously with something like, "Why on Earth would one say something that isn't so?" Carpenter displays exactly the same shocked surprise when he learns of some of the awful characteristics of human beings, which seems to suggest that before we look for other civilized worlds in the galaxy, maybe we should work a little more on civilizing our own world.

The famous quote that I've quoted in my summary line is one of the many delights that this film presents, and Evil Dead fans will be thrilled to see the origins of those strange words that Ash had such a hard time speaking in Army of Darkness. The genre of science fiction has a much larger than average ratio of bad films to good ones, and I think the best ones are the ones that have a concrete connection to the real world, as The Day the Earth Stood Still obviously does. Given the political atmosphere here in the first month of 2005, it's obvious that humans have not taken much advice from this movie, but then again, as Arnold stated in Terminator 2, "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."

Beyond the entrapment of lavish special effects (for which "Logan's Run" won an Oscar anyway), few science fiction films actually present a good story, much less one that makes you think and/or presents new ideas. "Logan's Run" is one of those few.

Before "Stars Wars" enraptured audiences with its stunning special effects and created a precedent for a string of similarly effects-laden knock-offs and genre wanna-be's (mirroring what "The War of the Worlds" had done for audiences in the 50's), true science fiction films such as "Logan's Run" were giving us stories simply complimented by special effects, not about them. I say "true" because "Star Wars" is of the fantasy genre; it is not a science fiction story, though it does share some common elements.

"Logan's Run" presents us with a vivid, somewhat horrifying vision of a possible future. It doesn't take place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." It happens on earth in a believable time frame. It doesn't ask us to greatly suspend disbelief by accepting alien races and magic powers. Instead, it presents us with a chilling fast forward of our own technology, attitudes, and policies. Concerning the latter, the film includes an almost creepy euthanasia undertone to it.

Though, in all honesty, I care more about and become more closely associated with the characters in "Star Wars," the disassociation I feel for LR's characters somewhat aids the lack of individuality that the story tries to convey. The actors, however, give great performances.

Beautiful cinematography and settings greatly compliment the film's mood and timeframe, from the sterile domed city to the decimated Washington D.C., which still provides one of (if not) the best visuals of a post-apocalyptic world that I've ever seen. It's right there with "The Planet of the Apes'" Statue of Liberty.

Another thing that SW does well is disassociate itself from the decade in which it was created. You have to overlook this aspect in LR because like so many films of the 70's, it carries its decade's time stamp.

Though minor, another thing I, in particular, enjoy about LR are the weapons. Unlike every other weapon in and out of science fiction history, LR's "blasters" do not actually shoot anything. There is simply an explosion at their designated target. It may be campy (or corny), but it's definitely different and a fine example of real, working props.

Another interesting note: the film varies greatly from the original novel, but most people agree that the film is much better. I tend to agree with them.

For me, in terms of science fiction, "Logan's Run" takes its place among such decade-defining films as "The War of the Worlds" (50's) and "The Planet of the Apes" (60's) and among such thought-provoking science fiction as "Soylent Green" and "Gattaca."

Ask yourself this: what or where is "sanctuary?" Isn't that what we're all looking for? Answer both, and you'll have the film's theme.

In a futuristic world Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) a gawky bureaucrat clerk gets himself caught in the middle of a revolution all because of an error, where terrorists lead by Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro) are out to destroy the bureaucratic governing state and also his literally after the girl of his dreams.

A totally grim and surreal fantasy is portrayed in co-writer/director Terry Gilliam's film. The bleak world that we see is truly bizarre and visually astonishing, by representing a domineering world run by an unfair bureaucracy and technology that has gone chaotic- because of obsession, daily routines and power. Its a materialistic society thats filled with unfair rules and regulations. The special effects are spellbinding with the gizmos and gadgets that flow through the film. The engaging screenplay is excellent in representing the disturbing life style of this future and the script filled with sharp satire and amusing black humour and wit. The set and art direction is nothing but breathtaking, while the plot might have it's flaws- but the superb detail and imagination that went into it you just glaze over it. The plot itself is filled with many interesting sub-plots on technology, the government system, pleasures of this life-style and terrorism- but also there are some subtle details that may go unnoticed- but with repeat viewings you catch onto them. The story has it's tense, mysterious and macabre moments that seem to gel perfectly, while the dream sequences that Sam has were simply splendid and very hypnotic and the same goes for the haunting music score that spirals with emotion.

The performances were good and quite colourful- but nothing really spectacular, Jonathan Pryce is charming as the love struck Sam; Kim Greist is elegantly mysterious as Jill Layton the girl Sam's after, Robert De Niro as a chirpy plumber/terrorist Tuttle, Bob Hospkins as Spoor the repair man, Katherine Helmond as the obsessive mother of Sam Mrs. Ida Lowry and Ian Holm as the twitchy Mr. M. Kurtzmann.

This is a brilliant and innovative Sci-fi film. Though it's long, but never dull and it leaves you wanting more at the end. It definitely leaves a significant impression? well, it did on me.

This movie truly is a piece of cinematic science-fiction art. People who say the last couple of years that George Lucas is a bad writer and director should be forced to go and watch this movie.

The movie is very artistic and therefor is not really that watchable for everybody. Fans of the science-fiction genre however will love this movie. Star Wars fans will also notice some subtle things and elements in this movie, that Lucas later used, mostly in "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope".

A lot of professional people were involved in this brilliant serious big movie debut by George Lucas. Producer Francis Ford Coppola, composer Lalo Schifrin, Walter Murch and actor Donald Pleasence. Robert Duvall plays the main part in the movie but he was a fairly unknown actor at the time. Donald Pleasence really was a wonderful actor and he shows that once more in this movie. Robert Duvall also really is excellent as the main character THX 1138.

The story really is secondary in this movie. It's all about the visuals. The special effects in this movie were also surprising good especially when considering that this movie was made in 1971.

The movie also knows to be tense at the right times and the end chase is pretty spectacular and nicely done.

I for one truly love this perfect piece of visual art. Not a movie for everyone though.

In the late 1960's, Hollywood was starting to go downhill. Movies were being made to please an older audience and not branch out towards a younger audience and just get more people. It was in California that the revolution would take place. This student film was one of the starting points in the right direction.

A young man attending USC by the name of George Lucas made a little film that would change his life and others around him. He called it Elecrtic Labyrinth THX 1138 4EB. It is only 15 minutes long but it gets across a message that was just right for the time. That rebel yell that the people were waiting to scream out. To rise up against authority. This film was the launch pad for Lucas and his career as a film maker.

Electric Labyrinth is about one man's escape from the grip of oppression in a futuristic society. He and everyone else it seems is under surveillance and the only way to get out is to run. THX 1138 is the name or title of the man on the run. Although the movie is short, it seems like we connect to the person. We all feel like just running away sometimes. Although we don't know much about the man, we feel for him. All attempts at stopping his man seem futile. They can dish out anything, but little can stop the determination of someone.

This is what would spawn a feature length production of the film starring Robert Duvall as THX 1138 and also would help Lucas on his way to directing bigger things like American Graffiti and what would make him a house hold name...Star Wars. In 15 minutes Lucas was able to shock the cinema world and help change the industry to what we see it as today. This little project would lead to advances in movie making, editing, and overall appeal of a movie. Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, and many more were part of the revolution in cinema that would bring people back to the theaters.

From the opening shot of "Nineteen Eighty Four" the viewer is plunged right into the hellhole of Oceania and the ultimate totalitarian nightmare. Whilst the year 1984 may be long past us, the essential themes of George Orwell's best known work still remain as timely and as relevant as ever.

Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a drone worker in the Bureau of Information, and his job is to edit the news in accordance with the needs of the governing Party (which is in continual, seemingly endless war with Eurasia and other opposing states). He must also refer to the dictionary of Newsspeak, which is the government's language for the distribution of information.

He lives in a world where there is no escape from the authority of the government who regiment the every thought and deed of their subjects. The Party is steadily working on a way to outlaw the concept of the family and the idea of conception. This is done to eradicate Thoughtcrime and guarantee the worker's total devotion to the Party and its leader, Big Brother.

Winston abides by this (recording his increasingly ambiguous thoughts about society in a hidden, handwritten diary) until he encounters Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), a strange young women with rebellious ideas, to whom he develops a powerful attraction. But their passionate, forbidden relationship cannot escape the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother.....

Screenwriter Jonathan Gems has a done a terrific job with the script. He successfully translates Orwell's ideas to the screen with great clarity. Micheal Radford directs with subtlety around the greasy sets and crumbling locations (the picture was filmed in and around the very area in which Orwell set his novel).

The performances from the chief principals are very strong. John Hurt is excellent as Winston, bringing a subtle and considerate approach to the character. Particularly disturbing is his final scenes, as he becomes gaunt and disfigured through government torture. Suzanna Hamilton is gentle and quirky as Julia and "Rab C Nesbitt" actor Gregor Fisher appears as Winston's ill-fated friend, Parsons.

Veteran actor Richard Burton lends a cold charisma to government enforcer O'Brien and he too excels in the film's final moments, as he coolly and sadistically tortures Winston, subjecting him to severe physical pain to subdue him, casually pulling a tooth out of his rotting mouth, then exposing him to the horrors of Room 101, all the while exhorting obedience to the Party and love to Big Brother.

The strong relevance of the concepts of "Nineteen Eighty Four" should not be underestimated. Whilst the term "Big Brother" is now synonymous with the ridiculous "reality" TV shows of the same name, others like the Two Minutes Hate (in which the workers are coerced, through a two-minute broadcast, into hating the enemies of the state); the idea of a government waging a perpetual war to advocate "peace" (especially relevant in the aftermath of September 11) as well as the editing of news and the abuse of language in order to suit the needs of government and disguise its true agendas are ideas that are chillingly present in today's society.

All of this is powerful and thought-provoking stuff, and helps to make "Nineteen Eighty Four" an accurate and powerful rendering of a still very timely piece of work.

Push
Expected: 6 February
Paul McGuigan directs the tale of young, gifted (as in telekinesis and clairvoyance) Americans fleeing from an evil Government agency that wants to turn them into weapons. Dakota Fanning and Fantastic Four?s Chris Evans star in the action-packed thriller. We got a peek at some of it during Comic Con 2008 and it looks like a lot of fun.

Push" is the best movie from a recent new genre of science fiction movies. This new genre of movies, which includes "Jumper" and "Wanted", generally involves characters with psychic or psionic abilities, a conspiratorial shadow group, and an unlikely anti-hero, set against a banal or dystopian realism. "Push" blows these other two admittedly weak offerings out of the cinematic water.

Both the visuals and the action in "Push" are quite good. "Push" is set in Hong-Kong. The city has enough exotic flavor to be interesting and enough grit to provide a realistic backdrop for the more fanciful elements of the film. The filmmakers captured the feeling of a William Gibson novel without having to set the film at night in the rain for the entire movie.

The action sequences are excellent. "Push" does not suffer from the hyper-kinetic, shake-the-camera-until-the-viewer-is-confused action sequences of "Bourne Ultimatum" or "Quantum of Solace". In "Push", you know who is punching whom and you can tell who is winning.

Visual effects? Here is what sold me on this film and on this filmmaker's vision: When a "mover" (a person with telekinetic powers) uses his ability to push something away or to enhance the power of a punch (yes, I said TK-enhanced fight sequences...don't drool on your keyboard) the visual effects people were smart enough to consider the effect on the nearby air. The air gets...crimped, and as a result the light refracts in a split second rainbow pattern at the moment of impact. That level of forethought and detail is what "Jumper" and "Wanted" lacked.

Another element that this movie possesses that "Jumper" and "Wanted" doesn't is a focus on the characters. Any movie or show about psychic powers or "superpowers" lives or dies on the relationships between the characters. The male lead and Dakota Fanning are excellent together and quickly establish a rapport that gives the film more depth. Honorable mention goes to the enemy "watcher"--she is genuinely threatening, lollipop notwithstanding. I also loved the tip of the hat to the anime genre exhibited in Cassie's (Fanning) wardrobe.

This movie is worth every bit of the matinée price I paid. And I will probably watch it again.

A few points: One, this is not a superhero movie. While people who like "Heroes" and some of the Marvel films might enjoy this movie, one should not go in expecting that kind of experience.

Two, I do wish that the producers had about 15 million extra dollars. The extra money would have allowed them to show more of the story and neatly tie a couple of loose ends, rather than telling the audience. I sincerely hope this film does well enough to garner a more expansively budgeted sequel.

Three, this movie has some minor plot issues, especially a small deux ex machina cum Toyota, that might bother some. But, if you choose to buy into the experience, "Push" will take you on a fantastic ride.

Look out for: Djimon Hounsou as the agency goon hunting our heroes down.

This is not "so bad that it is good," it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now.

Sure, it's not AS funny as Return Of The Killer Tomatoes (1988), but it's still pretty damn hilarious in its own right. Cmon, a tomato robs a bank. Thats on par with zombies renting Day Of The Dead in "The Dead Next Door." Seriously though. If you like B films, enjoyed Return or Attack of the killer tomatoes and want some good old fashion fun, RENT this movie! Seriously, it's almost as good as "robot monster." Anyways, you have Gomez Adams (John Astin) returning as Prof. Gangreen in this sequel in which the tomatoes have faces! Seriously, go see this film - it took forever to get it on DVD. Perhaps, one day, if we are lucky, they will add a 5th film to the series. And when will the TV show be released on DVD?!

If you expect a serious movie you'll be massively disappointed. If, however you're expecting a comedic spoof that doesn't take itself (or it's prequel) seriously then you're in for a wild ride. It's nearly worth watching just so you can admire George Clooney's 80's mullet. There's little plot, but instead there is a series of imaginative scenes which can really make you laugh (so long as you don't try and take the movie seriously). Heartily recommended.

No, it wasn't perfect. Name me one movie that is, honestly. But, come on. I see a lot of crud about this being "Unwatchable," and "Awful," and in some cases "The worst movie ever." Well, really. The only way anyone could possibly think that about AotKT is if they have absolutely no sense of humour. I'm 22, I just saw it for the first time, I loved it. If you like Mel Brooks movies, this is pretty similar. They took an idea (Hitchcock's The Birds), twisted it into something more obscure and off the wall (Tomatoes), and had a good time making fun of every little cliché of the horror genre, and then some.

If you, like another reviewer on here, watch two minutes of it and decide you're done with it, then I can't imagine you watch many movies at all. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that had my interest thoroughly grabbed in the first two minutes. The top best-selling movies EVER all failed to grab my interest within the first two minutes, and yet, I ended up liking them. So, my points are twofold; One, don't be a wuss, if you're going to watch this movie at all, actually watch it. Don't watch it for thirty seconds and say "Ugh, how corny, I'm ditching this." Two, consider what you expect out of movies in general, but especially this one.

Most people watch movies to have fun, and be entertained. If you watch AotKT for those reasons, you'll find it enjoyable. Some people apparently watch movies demanding to be blown away by every aspect of it, and come out of it raving like they've had an epiphany. Don't do that. Ever.

... Anyway. Yeah. This is about half-comment, half-rant, but so be it. I found AotKT enjoyable; if you watch it expecting a satire of horror and an entertaining watch, you'll get it. If you're expecting to be left convulsing on the floor feeling like life has no meaning since it peaked at seeing the movie; then you should try something habit-forming.

Star Trek
Expected: 8 May
One of the most anticipated movies of the year finally warps into cinemas as Lost/MI:III creator JJ Abrams aims to breathe new life into the ailing Trek franchise. Going right back to the start of the story, Abrams relaunches Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty and co with a grab bag of fresh faces and looks to add more action into the space-borne franchise.

"Set your phasers to STUNNING!!!"

It was a terrific atmosphere in a jam-packed cinema ? I was SO glad that I saw this at the Empire, Leicester Square, as this is a film that you'll definitely need to see on a BIG screen (preferably with a very LOUD surround sound system!)

This adaptation has "boldly gone" ? much further, and better than any previous "prequel" that I've seen ?

The action is non-stop ? the story line is very strong ? the effects are amazing ? and of course there is also the "sub-plot" of the prequel factor ? that let's you know how the main cast members first met and grew together as a team ?

A special mention should go to the Director (J.J. Abrams) for both the way the film moves along ? and for the superb casting of Zachary Quinto as Spock, Simon Pegg as Scottie and Eric Bana as Nero was a masterstroke ? the rest of the main characters are also strongly cast and are young ? suggesting that this team could be together in a series of films that could run and run ?

This has certainly breathed new life into this already epic story

This film has cutting edge effects ? Story ? Music ? Action ? Aliens ? what more could you ask for ??

This was a terrific movie ? if you liked any of the Star Trek franchise (T.V or movies) then you'll absolutely love this ! ? book your tickets now ? !

I think that this is the best of all the Star Trek films ?

This film has all the ingredients to take over a planet in a solar system near you

Look out for: Simon Pegg?s turn as engineer Scotty.

Terminator Salvation
Expected: 5 June
Charlie?s Angels helmer McG takes over the cyborg franchise with a story set just after Judgement Day. We find a battered, bitter John Connor (Christian Bale shrugging off the Bat-cowl for a different franchise gig) struggling to rally his forces as Skynet?s machines wage ever more brutal war against mankind.
This movie has a lot of good points, especially in comparison to Rise of the Machines, but it has some major faults as well.

***SPOILERS***SPOILERS***SPOILERS***SPOILERS***

YOU WERE WARNED

The story is a bit "all over the place" not really drawing into any characters struggle. You do sorta get to see Marcus Wright but even that seems overcomplicated.

The machines were unrealistic, going for horrific designs that, most of the time, seemed too well thought out. The original terminator was minimal. Even Arnie looked completely different to the original design. And, of course, there's the 50 foot terminators. Despite there size, they're still able to sneak up on a gas station in the middle of the desert.

Skynets idiocy even allows Wright the ability to shut down all its defenses so that John Connor can be ripped apart by a single robot. Given the fact that it apparently knows about Kyle Reece, and that 3, count'em THREE separate Terminators, two far more advance than Skynet can dream of, were unable to get Connors, why the hell would it think that this one could do it.

I'm after upsetting myself a small bit thinking of what's wrong with the movie... I do focus on the negative when I think of movies. This movie is worth going to see in the cinema. My expectations were low before I went in and I was impressed in parts. I wouldn't expect the magic of T1 and T2 though.
Look out for: Connor?s helicopter-based confrontation with a Terminator.

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Expected: 26 June
Little is known about this arty, quiet? Oh, who are we kidding? It?s Michael Bay directing the sequel to 2007?s explode-a-rama. Expect AWESOME robots fighting other AWESOME robots and destroying AWESOME things around them in an AWESOME way. Oh, and Shia LaBeouf and the lovely Megan Fox trying to stay alive as a horde of new ?bots is introduced.
Adapting Transformers into live-action movies is always going to be a bit of a nasty challenge to get right, but I enjoyed almost every minute of this action-packed extravaganza. It doesn't have that same magic of seeing Transformers battle for the first time and it seeming like a spectacle, but it makes up for it by having more action and more explosions.

So a quick few words on what I thought of the first movie. LOVED - watching the Transformers battle each other; Shia Labeouf doing his great mix of nutty comedy/nervous acting. HATED - Megan Fox's acting. It's absolutely all form and no charisma; most of the Transformers talking; the scene where the Transformers are hiding in the backyard of Sam's house while he searched for the spectacles in his room (just seemed to take all the seriousness away from the Transformers and portray them as silly)

Transformers 2 - flaws: Film tends to sag in the middle when the action slows down to progress some of the silly plot. Transformers is not a film about plot, it's about the action - just keep it coming and don't try to make a story from it because it's RIDICULOUS; Megan Fox still looks amazingly hot but cannot act to save her life. You may as well just put a cardboard cut-out of her next to Shia Labeouf and it'll do the same job for a fraction of the cost; A scene towards the end of the movie where there is a small "dream sequence" of sorts, and the word "destiny" is mentioned. I almost vomited. The word 'ridiculous' doesn't quite do it justice; The girl that Sam meets at college and who she is. I am simply AMAZED that they actually let that whole thing get put into the movie - it just doesn't fit into the Transformers world and leaves stupendous plot holes and questions; There isn't enough slow-motion in the action sequences for you to take it all in.

Transformers 2 - achievements: The action is mind-blowing. This is what you go to see the film for, and apart from the slow-mo flaw, it's pretty breathtaking and surprisingly violent too; Sam and his parents, and some of the new Transformers are genuinely hilarious.

And that's it.

I went to see Robots doing battle, and for 90% of the movie that's what I got. This isn't a film for those looking for a smart plot or realistic story lines and physical motion - this is something to visually gawk at, and sonically admire. This is special effects without having to think about it. There are plenty of other films that showcase superb character development and plot, but this isn't it and nor does it try to be.

This is a live-action movie that you could easily imagine being a cartoon. If that's what you want to see I think you'll enjoy this as pure entertainment. If you didn't like the first movie I can't see how you would like this one, but for those who liked watching metal smash into other metal, you'll be buzzing from this flick.
Look out for: Massive baddies the Constructicons

Okay, let's face it. We all have our own opinions on films. Some say the Godfather is one of the best films made. Personally i could name 10 films that easily beat it (Masters of the Universe isn't one of them by the way) but there are much better films out there. But despite our professionalism when it comes to rating films, there's always a special place in our hearts for those really cheesy childhood movies that made on hell of a difference to our upbringing one way or another. Masters of the Universe is one of those films. Frank Langella, Skeletor, plays the part of He-Man's nemesis better than anyone else i could dream of. Dolph was perfect for the part of He-man. Sure there were some good old fashioned bad guys missing. And where was battlecat? I'll tell you where, at the bottom of the budget. At least we had Air Centurions and a damn sexy Evil Lynn. But above all, we had some bad ass lines in there. I think they done well with what they had. Even the tune is good (thanks for Rocky too Bill). If you don't like this movie it's cause you've got no soul. Masters of the Universe is a masterpiece in every way, shape and form. There hasn't been a bad guy like Skeletor (with the exclusion of Darth Vader) who was able to do the role justice. You probably grew up on a steady diet of westerns (that didn't include Clint Eastwood) and therefor have no imagination. If you don't like Masters of the universe then there's a good chance you don't like other classics like Big Trouble in Little China and other such masterpieces. In which case go back to watching so called classics and pick out another sweater from bland wardrobe and rot.

have always enjoyed the movies that satirise the movie industry to such a startling degree. Two such films that come to mind are Robert Altman's all-star outing, `The Player' and Peter Weir's tour-de-force of directorial skills, `The Truman Show'. `Simone' is the next one in line and matches up to the levels of the former, vaguely similar movies. It is strange how `Simone' is simultaneously highly original and occasionally unoriginal. It recycles elements from those two mentioned films along with the surrealness of movies like `Being John Malkovich'. Luckily, it copies the best elements so the result is a very good one.

Of course the concept of digitally creating an actress has never been attempted before (hence the poster quote- `a star is. created'). It may sound highly implausible at first, but it isn't surprising that everyone in the world would believe that `Simone' is real. It skates over the surface of Hollywood hypocrisy but never cuts quite deep enough. Much like `The Truman Show', it is done in the delightfully bizarre style that Australian director Peter Weir created in that picture. The director of this film shows great potential for the future if he follows this up well.

The cinematography is top-notch and it is appropriate that Hollywood has an orange glare while a blue-ish shroud of mist surrounds the indoor areas and studios. The script is brilliant, sharp and witty in some parts, but in others, it seems a little patchy to say the least. The predicted interest curve greatly soars in the first 2 parts, but the surrealness sets in towards the third part, and the comedy becomes increasingly sporadic. While it may seem slightly sour in its offbeat way, it leaves a satisfying taste when the credits roll.

No one could have done the Viktor Taransky part better than la Pacino himself. He is simply tremendous as the Hollywood producer, and has finally dumped the `hoo-haa' image. It's ironic how Rachel Roberts had to pretend to be digitally created, while her digitised character had to pretend to be a human actress. This is one of the most daring roles in cinematic history and she handles it superbly. Supporting performances deserved some more of the limelight, and it's a shame that they don't get much screen-time. Catherine Keener, Jay Mohr, Jason Schartzmann, Elias Koteas and Winona Ryder (brilliantly parodying herself) do well in their small roles, but still needed a bit more conviction.

The movie's greatest powers and occasional flaws lie in the close attention to detail. The visual effects on the computer-generated character are a pleasure to watch and real candy for the eyes. The references to other stars (Sophia Loren, Jodie Foster etc.) are always funny, as is Simone's acceptance speech at the Oscars. It's just a shame that they used fake actresses for the other nominations.

The oddest PG movie you will probably ever see, `Simone' is a memorable, exuberant movie experience. I am puzzled by the `hit and miss' reviews it received and how it was ignored at the box-office. This is a great satire on Hollywood.

This is a true gem from the world of unintentionally comic monster movies. A giant spider arises from the earth and vents its rage against all humanity. It is knocked senseless and then brought back to town where it is awoken by Rock and Roll music (Egads! The evils of Rock and Roll!) Along with a witty script, there are scenes of a rope-net 'web', a tarantula (which even in black and white is obviously not the same spider throughout the film) walking over shoe-boxes posing as houses, a giant full-size prop which looks nothing like a spider's leg, and strange dubbed-on roaring noises. There are some tarantulas which can make hissing noises by rubbing the bristles on their jaws together, but I can't say I've ever heard any spider growling or roaring. That said, this film is great entertainment whether you love or hate spiders.

"Eight Legged Freaks" was originally titled "Arac Attack" before the film's star, David Arquette, thought of a better title ("Eight Legged Freaks"). The great thing about this title is it sets up the film perfectly--it's a parody, and a surprisingly entertaining and hilarious and fun one, too.

David Arquette is the film's main character: the local boy who has returned after 10 years and still has a crush on cute Sheriff Sam Parker (Kari Wuhrer).

Once he arrives, he tries to spark a relationship with her, but everything is put on hold when mutated spiders (which formed from pollution in the mining caves) start to attack humans and animals, and everything goes haywire. Now David's character must put an end to these eight legged freaks before all legs break loose. (Yeah, that was a pretty bad pun.)

"Eight Legged Freaks" was one of the biggest surprises of last year, mainly because it was so darn funny and such a good spoof. I went into the theater expecting, at the bare minimum, a film with a rating of...say...2, 2.5/5 stars. I'd have to give this a 3.5. It was completely overlooked, probably the most overlooked film of last year (though that is pushing it). The parody is classic.

Do you remember those old films about mining towns in the middle of nowhere, population: 9, where giant grasshoppers, spiders, worms--heck, I saw a film with giant ants once--start attacking? That's what "Eight Legged Freaks" spoofs. It takes the old formulas and twists it around to have fun with.

Towards the end I found myself having such a pleasurable experience that I couldn't believe this film was so underrated. Nothing is more fun than seeing a bunch of people going after giant spiders with shotguns--it's pure fun. The people that went into this film expecting Oscar material were nuts.

The most sad thing about "Eight Legged Freaks" is that the people going into "Men in Black II" were probably expecting something like this: something funny, smart, original, witty, and satirical. I went into "Men in Black II" expecting something as good as "Eight Legged Freaks," and apparently Roger Ebert did, too. I'm on the same level with him, because I thought this film was extremely entertaining.

There are some plot holes and stupid cliches, but most of them are there to be made fun of. People going into deserted malls late at night trying to escape the spiders, people going into the lair of the spiders (which ends in them being chased by a giant Black Widow Spider). Y'know those movies where people do things, and you hear people in the movie theater (maybe it's you) shouting, "Don't go in there! It'll get you!"? That's what "Eight Legged Freaks" plays on.

Basically this film makes fun of every misused B-monster movie cliche, and that's what is so darn funny about this movie.

This film delivered everything I go to the movies for.

Who should watch this film? Anyone who has ever taken acid, read Philip K. Dick, thought the premise of the Matrix was better then the special effects, has an interest in Philosophy, or likes having their sense of reality messed with. I laughed out loud at this film, just because it was so outrageous and so spot-on. This film is great. This film is cool. It is better than the Matrix, by a long shot (I didn't fall asleep in Existenz, for a kick off: action/special effects films bore me stupid, and despite a plausible philosophical gloss, that is exactly what the Matrix is). Existenz is gross, it is disturbing, and it is funny. David Cronenberg has done some shonky stuff (Rabid) and some works of genius too (Videodrome is another one worth checking out, as is Stephen King adaptation The Dead Zone). But this is one of my all-time favourites. I can't remember the ending- which is a good thing, cos it means I can watch it again. Or perhaps I never watched this film at all. Maybe it's an implanted memory. Or maybe it 'really' happened to me. I don't know. At any rate, it is now seamlessly stitched into my overall illusion of reality, and I'm glad.

Neil Blompkamp and the team have really delivered a great film here, in my opinion. One of the things I love is that it has obvious connections to other features with similar themes and settings -- notably the (soon-to-be-remade) '80s miniseries "V" and the excellent "Alien Nation" -- and yet it has a startlingly fresh and exciting approach all of its own.

Just about everything here appeals to me -- an intriguing story with powerful allegorical elements, and it's VERY political; it's skilfully told, with a good balance of action, drama and humour, excellent SFX (the aliens are terrific), strong performances and it's such a pleasure to see a film in this genre that doesn't regard all its viewers as uncritical clones of Comic Book Guy. It's quite gripping throughout and the final showdown between the hero and the security forces is tremendously exciting. The documentary style really works here and the hand-held camera work is for once a very effective tool, with Blomkamp very cleverly weaving us you in and out of the 'actuality' style.

The choice of setting is a brilliant touch in itself and it's good to hear Sarth Effrican accents right up front. It's terrific to see such an accomplished and thoughtful work coming from a country that was for a long time best known in films terms for the execrable 'The Gods Must Be Crazy'.

Unusually for a high-concept sci-fi flick, the plot elements are sparingly revealed, and many are left unexplained. It's also those rare movies with an ending wide open for a sequel ... but one that I'd really like to see. So many questions left deliciously unanswered ... what IS the story with the aliens? Why are they so seemingly so passive? Are they -- as it appears -- merely a degraded worker caste, or is there more to it than meets the eye? Will our hero be redeemed?

Sharlto Copley gives an amazing performance in the lead role and it's part of what sets this movie apart from prefabbed Hollywood dross like 'Aramgeddon' or '2012'. In the hands of Michael Mann or Roland Emmerich, the role would have gone to an obvious 'everyday hero' type like (urgh) Russell Crowe, but Copley fearlessly plays Wikus with such an amazingly convincing nebbish persona that it at first left me wondering whether the whole thing was heading for 'Scary Movie' territory. But fear not -- it rocks. I was blown away to discover that Copley was not a career actor and indeed had never acted until he appeared in the original short-film version. Incredible -- I predict big things for this guy.

I have no doubt that (at least in artistic terms) Blomkamp is going to be very glad indeed that he didn't end up directing Halo. This will undoubtedly come to be seen as one of the great sci-fi films of its time and I sincerely hope there is a sequel. A no-brainer for any serious sci-fi fan -- just go and see it.

Well, were to begin?

First off, when I first saw Scanners, it really didn't do that much for me. Nowadays, I've learnt to view the film through more enlightened eyes, and appreciate it for the masterpiece that is most rightfully is.

Apart from the much-lauded 'exploding head' scene (which could have used a little more blood spattering everywhere) one of the film's most chilling scenes is at the very beginning when the lead character, Cameron Vale (Stephen Lack) causes a woman to have a fit in a shopping mall before being captured by a pair of heavies. The scene was so convincingly played out that it really shock me up.

The more interesting aspect is the fact that most of these 'scanners'(or telepathic curiosities as the CEO of Consec calls them) are usually forced to live on the fringes of society as their telekinetic powers are feared and misunderstood by many. It would seem that the director, David Cronenberg, was using this plot device as a metaphor to comment on society's prejudicial attitudes towards the mentally ill. Like many of his low-budget horror films right up to 'The Fly' (1986) 'Scanners' has a very subversive, fly-on-the-wall take on society's ills. The modern society portrayed in 'Scanners' is a world viewed through the eyes of the outcast.

Throughout the film, there is a general feeling of starkness, from the synthesiser-tinged score by Howard Shore, to the general sparse look of the film. This gives the viewer a rather apt feeling of coldness and isolation.

Michael Ironside steals the show as the unhinged renegade scanner, Darryl Revok, who has a vast army of scanner converts at his disposal ready and willing to annihilate anyone unfortunate enough to stand in their way.

The only down side, however is the casting of Stephen Lack as Cameron Vale. Although he makes a fairly decent effort of playing his part, Lack just doesn't seem to have that much-needed 'spark' to bring his character to life.

All in all, 'Scanners' comes highly recommended as a 'must-see' feature.

Before he became a respected director, upon the release of classics such as The Fly and Videodrome, David Cronenberg was the director of cheap little films such as Rabid and this one; Shivers. Of the two movies mentioned, Shivers is certainly the weakest of the two, but then again it was also the earliest, so budget constraints are more likely to have been a bigger problem and it was also made before Cronenberg was a fully fledged professional. While the film is lacking in many elements that are needed to make a successful film, things such as coherency and interesting characters, it does feature lots of horror, and that just about pulls it through. Obviously, due to the man in the director's chair, it's not a straight horror and the film focuses primarily on the psychological terror of changes occurring in one's body, and although Cronenberg explored this idea much better in films such as the aforementioned The Fly and Videodrome, along with other films such as The Brood and Dead Ringers, he doesn't do a bad job here.

The film is halfway between a zombie flick and an alien film such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and it certainly could have been a lot better if it had been more professionally handled. The film is typical of this type of movie in the seventies as it is cheap looking and the camera work, lighting and other techniques aren't exactly high quality either. None of the cast stands out, and the acting is terrible on the whole. Still, these things are part and parcel of this sort of movie and personally, I quite like it. The movie is very much of the 'schlock' persuasion, and the way it fuses a fast paced plot with sex and violence will ensure that fans of that type of film will be happy. The creature effects in the film aren't very spectacular, but at least they look real enough not to simply look stupid. Some of the images that Cronenberg presents to his audience are shocking, and a lot of the fans of this movie no doubt will be so for that reason. Personally though, I just like it.

Was looking forward to seeing what the directors of Crank would do next and they didn't disappoint. Non-stop action from the very start with awesome camera work and a unique story line. This movie takes video gaming to the extreme and makes you wonder if there are any boundaries to what man will do to amuse themselves! Michael. C. Hall is a hoot to watch and the singing and dancing scene was hilarious and genius in a movie like this. It had the feel of the Matrix/Running Man and didn't take itself too seriously which is why I loved it. Also if you play video games you will enjoy the scenes in "Society" and the characters that are portrayed. This is without doubt a modern day action blockbuster with hints of the 80' and 90's classics. If you like action and something new go and see this you wont be disappointed!!

Surrogates explores some interesting ideas about the direction that technology is taking humans in. The fundamental premise behind it is that humans in the future use "surrogate" robots to live their life, whilst the "operator" is sitting safely at home controlling their robot. This is prevalent throughout the world, although a sizable minority are against the idea.

The film highlights man's vanity: the surrogates are all slim, tall and good looking; whilst the operators are unhealthy and have unkempt facial hair (and that's just the women). The creators of the film have tried to emphasize the 'simulated' aspect by making the movement of the surrogates too smooth to be human. The same goes with their skin: it's smooth and synthetic looking and lacks the roughness and variance of real humans. Bruce Willis looks like Bruce Willis, but with ten years chopped off and an bad strain of post-botox-expressionless-face-syndrome.

Which takes me nicely onto the acting in this film. The characters are wooden throughout. At first I assumed it was because they were robots and it was deliberate. But when the human version of Bruce Willis was on the screen he was even more robotic than his surrogate. Some of the interaction between him and his wife were painful to watch. But to be fair to her she had the excuse of being an android.

The storyline is decent. It moves at a fast pace. The storyline briefly gets a little confusing in the middle of the film but soon works itself out.

If you are into sci-fi, this film is worth seeing. If you are into technology, probably likewise. Overall the idea is nice, but the execution isn't quite up to scratch. One other thing is that it's a short film so there isn't a great deal to lose by going to see it.

Strange Days is a truly astonishing science fiction offering, part scripted by James Cameron and directed with relentless panache by maverick lady-director Kathryn Bigelow. It presents a depressing and bleak, yet worryingly probable, view of the near future, and hooks its story threads upon the impending millennium eve celebrations. Although December 31st, 1999, has been and gone since the making of this movie, it is a credit to the makers that this film still offers a plausible viewpoint about where the world might be at in the next decade or so.

Ralph Fiennes seems initially miscast, but soon wins over the audience as Lenny Nero, a sleazy racketeer who sells "memories" captured on some form of disk, similar to virtual reality but recorded from real experiences rather than computerised ones. He is desperately trying to get back with his ex-girlfriend Faith (Juliette Lewis), but she doesn't want him as she has hooked up with a music producer named Philo (Michael Wincott). Lenny acquires two disturbing tapes, one showing the rape and murder of a woman, the other showing a racially motivated slaying, and before he knows it he is on the run from the culprits who want to kill him before he exposes their crimes. The only person he can trust is his best friend, lady bodyguard Mace (Angela Bassett). To complicate matters further, his ex-girlfriend Faith seems to know something about the disks, and may either be involved in the crimes or at great risk from those responsible.

Bassett is the real star here, in the role of a lifetime as a morally strong and physically stronger heroine. Lewis plays the same old white trash girl she has played many times, but at least she has the experience to bring total conviction to the role. The production values are incredibly high, especially the party at the end which seems to realistically convey an entire city celebrating in the streets. The plot unfolds slowly, but this is a strength rather than a criticism. Each new development slots into place beautifully, and the audience is given time to get into the characters and the situations (which, in too many movies, we are not allowed to do since the pace is often too frenetic).

Strange Days is challenging and aggressive and frequently disturbing. It is also inventive and exciting and ingeniously staged. It is simply a terrific science film which any devotee of the genre absolutely must see.

To enjoy this movie one must turn off their brain as soon as the theme tune of 20th Century Fox starts . The whole set up is very hard to swallow - A scientist who know the secret of miniaturization is injured by commie assassins and now lies in a coma due to a blood clot on the brain and only by miniaturizing a submarine type capsule and sending both it and its crew through an artery can both the scientist and free world be saved . It's never actually explained as to why miniaturizing is such a radical development for espionage or warfare . Think about it does this mean you can infiltrate the Kremlin by sending an envelope containing a miniaturized army ? Seeing as the enemy are aware of the process they can easily protect themselves against this - By running a rolling pin over all incoming mail . And wouldn't shrinking someone to the size of something little bigger than an element kill them anyway due to the changes in mass ? Wouldn't air pressure alone kill any miniaturized person ? And wouldn't it have been a good idea to vet the crew to find out if any of them were claustrophobic before sending them on their mission ?

You understand what I'm saying don't you ? The ideas and plot devices presented are entirely laughable because of their nature , that's why I told you to stop thinking about it . If you manage this you've got a pretty enjoyable escapist fantasy once it gets started . You realise that if the capsule crew go on an uneventful journey we wouldn't have much of a movie so we find obstacles at every corner involving detours , anti-bodies and a traitor within and if none of this gets you excited how about Raquel Welch in a really tight costume ? What do you mean she hasn't been given any decent lines ?

This 1987 film is a wonderful combination of sci-fi, comedy, romance and thriller elements. It is briskly paced despite being almost two hours in length, and features superb performances from the leads; Dennis Quaid is excellent as usual, as is Meg Ryan in her best role. Yet the plaudits must go to Martin Short in a truly great performance he has never matched. He just needs the right role. The supporting cast are great as well; the delightful villainy of Vernon Wells who is unrecognisable as usual! Also Robert Picardo camping it up superbly as The Cowboy, one of his most memorable creations, plus the great pairing of Fiona Lewis and Kevin McCarthy, who memorably says to his dog before feeding it: 'Never beg, never beg!' The cinematography and special effects/makeup are all great as well, and Jerry Goldsmith's score is brilliant, perfectly complementing the tone of the film, alternately exciting/sprightly/romantic. Joe Dante binds it all together with magnificent verve, plus Dick Miller makes his trademark appearance! A great, timeless classic. Highly recommended.

Three hundred years ago, the powerful weapon of the fifth element was removed from Earth. Three hundred years later and pure evil has stirred in the far reaches of space ? and is heading straight for Earth, with traditional weapons unable to stop it. When the Fifth Element is returned, the ship is attacked and seemingly lost ? but scientists are able to recreate the fifth element and are surprised to find it is a beautiful young woman, Leeloo. When Leeloo escapes custody she is helped by ex-army taxi driver Korben Dallas. Korben takes her to the priest she names, but he finds that everyone wants her for one reason or another ? then he finds that both the army and the priest need him to go on a mission to reclaim the missing four stones and save the Earth from evil.

I have seen this film several times and will usually come back to it if I find myself in the mood ? but yet I also find myself thinking of its flaws whenever anyone asks me about it. I can't understand why I do this because I really do enjoy this film even though there is much I sort of dislike about it. The plot is one of the weak points; generally it is quite good as an idea but it has many weak points that make it seem rather silly and overly busy. While this is not enough to really damage the film I know that it has put some people off in some audiences, but for me it was only a minor problem as these rather silly bits were all part of a film that had a great sense of fun running through it. Some of it didn't make much sense and at times I got the feeling that the film had more ideas than it really knew what to do with, but the majority of it worked well. The action is good but you should be prepared for the fact that, like much of the film, it is done with a certain amount of tongue in cheek humour. Suffice to say I never found it dull and it has plenty going on for the majority of the film

Visually is the area where the film is strongest and I could watch it for this alone. The effects are great and are full of imagination as well as looking very impressive. The design work of Dan Weil is very well used and compliments the effects used ? the film looks lavish and rich all the way through and matches the wonderful costumes from Jean-Paul Gaultier. Of course much of the praise goes to Luc Besson who has managed to pull this together really well to produce an endlessly impressive film, which manages to be a fun and exciting sci-fi.

The casting also backs this idea up and features many performances that are spot on with tongue in cheek performances that match the tone of the film perfectly. Bruce Willis delivers the same, great mocking performance that he tried in Hudson Hawk but here he does it in a film that is better structured and less silly than that one and it works a lot better. He still delivers the goods as an action lead but he puts his tongue just far enough in his cheek so as to be there without hurting the film! I don't want to overdo it (after all ? he is Bruce Willis!) but I thought he was very well cast here. Oldman is very hammy but this also works as it matches the humour of the piece. Jovovich had a very difficult role and it is easy to laugh at her baby talk etc but I think she made it work well and gave a good performance against the odds. Holm is pretty good and brings humour to his role as well. Tucker, sadly, fails to do the same as these and his overblown performance doesn't even fit well within this film (god knows where it WOULD fit!) and he only succeeds in being shrill and very annoying throughout ? not all his fault, his character is a wholly unnecessary part of the film. The support cast is roundly good and features a raft of famous faces in minor roles including Lee Evans, Brion James, Tricky, Luke Perry and Kim Chan. Generally the cast seem to be right on the same page as their director and compliment the material and tone perfectly.

Overall this is far from a perfect film and some may find the humour to be at odds with the sci-fi action; but for my money the fact that most of the film backed up this tongue in cheek tone made it all work. Some of the plot has too many ideas or unnecessary elements but most of it is really good and, combined with mostly good performances and stunning designs and effects make for a film that I will watch many times even if I cannot help but see the weaknesses that many others cannot get past.

I saw this epic last night at the Empire Leicester Sq in London, which is a superb venue in which to view this film. Huge screen, excellent sound and an extraordinary Dolby, 3 dimensional image. The whole effect is mind blowing.

This is a 'Must see' movie, innovative, and extraordinary. I think it will be regarded by most cinema goers as another milestone in the history of the art. The level of realism achieved is remarkable, and although the film is relatively long in real time, it retains it's excitement and holds the audience's attention to the end.

Performances are good, but this is not the sort of film that dwells on big star value for the actors, although Sigorney Weaver does shine and delivers a very convincing performance, as do the rest of the cast. But as there is so much entertainment and action value on screen the human element does not dominate in the usual way.

As Writer/Director, James Cameron deserves high praise for this creation and in my opinion it will break box office records. I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

I've seen TOTAL RECALL many times over the years and I'm never failed to be impressed with it . Some people dislike it and I feel I must defend the movie

" Confused plot " - Sorry but I managed to understand the complex plot first time I saw the movie and was impressed that Hollywood had merged a high concept plot with a FX laden extravaganza , such a pity this didn't lead to more thoughtful action adventures . If you want to see a confused plot try watching a James Bond movie from the 1980s

" The violence " - Yeah this is a violent movie for sure but I do wish people would educate themselves to the work of directors before they criticize . Paul Verhoeven had previously made FLESH AND BLOOD and ROBOCOP so a futuristic adventure by Verhoeven that was awarded an 18 certificate isn't going to be confused with an episode of the teletubbies

What I liked from Verhoeven's directing is that he's made everything so recognizable , nothing is ridiculously futuristic looking and we see the characters wearing clothes that wouldn't look out of place in the 1980s . Verhoeven also brings little satirical stabs to the proceedings as he did with ROBOCOP and it's a great shame we see less and less of this European director working for Hollywood

Verhoeven even gets a good performance from Big Arnie , okay this body builder was never in danger of winning an Oscar but Arnie doesn't send himself up and nor do his wise cracks like in his other blockbusters but he does make for an affable - Though violent - hero . Michael Ironside gives the most memorable performance which considering he spends most of the movie running around with a gun is no small achievement .

One interesting thing I noticed about TOTAL RECALL after seeing it again last night is that it's unapologetic on being on the side of the rebels who are waging a war against the greedy Mars company . Anyone believe that if it was made today the rebels/terrorists would be the bad guys?

Anyway this is along with the original TERMINATOR the best movie starring Arnie though most of the credit for this movie belongs to the screenwriters and director and it's a great pity Hollywood is reluctant to mix a high concept SF plot with a crowd pleasing action adventure.