camelot2302 Reviews

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Oh dear, too much hype, too little delivered

[5/10 · 23 May 2008]

First I want to get it on the record that I am a HUGE Indiana Jones fan and I have been patiently waiting for this sequel for 19 years. So any complaints I may make here are not gratuitous and for kicks. I more than anyone wanted this film to kick butt but after having just watched it and having considered things deeply before writing this, I have come to the opinion that Lucas and Spielberg ended up making a sub-standard movie - but saying that it could have been a LOT worse.

The main drawback is that we waited too damn long for this movie (19 years) and the suspense and anticipation from fans was consequently too high. Then when we finally get the movie, Ford is 65 years old (and showing it), Denholm Elliott is dead (leading instead to a rather campy performance by Jim Broadbent), Sean Connery won't return (he probably saw the script) and the movie is set in 1957 and the bad guys are Russians (give me bad Germans any day!). Cate Blanchett, who normally delivers knockout performances looks bored, Ian Hurt looks like he wants to be somewhere else and Shia LaBeouf is just downright irritating from the moment he appears. I just want to take that crystal skull and smack him with it.

As for the script, well it's average, nothing to write home about. I was actually quite pleasantly surprised by the minimal computer special effects. Spielberg must have had Lucas on a leash. But the story itself is actually nothing great and the action sequences short and few. I found myself nodding off to sleep a few times and I never thought THAT would happen in an Indiana Jones movie.

But the icing on the cake was the ending. If you want a real jaw-dropper of an ending, a real "what the hell!!", a "what drugs are Lucas and Spielberg smoking?" ending, then watch this movie. This movie has one of the most ridiculous endings ever. In fact, only Lucas and Spielberg could have come up with an ending like this. They probably think this ending is arty and classy. I found it cringeworthy.

The absolute ending has Indy's hat falling at the feet of Mutt Williams - Shia LaBeouf. Please God no. Either make another Indiana Jones movie or end the whole thing. Don't pass the mantle to LaBeouf. Please Lucas, don't screw up Indiana Jones the way you screwed up Star Wars!

Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

A VERY big disappointment

[4/10 · 23 December 2007]

I am a huge fan of the first Elizabeth movie. I have it on DVD and watch it relentlessly. I am captivated by the intense acting and emotion in that movie and Cate Blanchett is simply mesmorising as Elizabeth. Geoffrey Rush is also brilliant as Walsingham. So I waited in intense excitement for this sequel - the Golden Age - hoping for more of the same.

I didn't get what I was expecting.

This movie covers the period when Mary Stuart (Mary Queen of Scots) is imprisoned and Spain is planning an invasion of Britain to assassinate Protestant Elizabeth and restore Catholic Mary to the throne. Which should all make for gripping stuff so why does Clive Owen bore us all to death for most of the time? I was headbutting the chair in front of me, wishing Elizabeth would order his head cut off or something. Anything to get him off the screen.

This movie PLODS along with pointless scenes and pointless characters. The bad guys are so badly developed and so badly acted that you don't feel anything when they fail. There is no real "good guy" to root for either. Half of the movie covers the old ground of "Elizabeth is still a virgin and unmarried so here's some potential pathetic husband candidates for her".

There is no real build up of suspense and when the Spanish Armada fleet (which is so blatantly CGI) finally gets underway, it's over before it begins (thanks to the dashing Clive Owens who does a Bruce Willis "only one man can save us!" act). I was looking forward to Blanchett doing her "I have the heart and stomach of a King!" speech but she didn't even do that either. Instead she looked as if she was trying to do a Mel Gibson "Braveheart" speech instead.

I am so disappointed and deflated I can't even begin to describe it. Even Geoffrey Rush (whom I was counting on to save the movie) looked so tired and annoyed throughout the movie, as if he signed the contract BEFORE looking at the script. When even he can't be bothered to make any effort, that doesn't bode well for the whole project.

Why oh why did they bother to make this movie?

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

A movie that makes you think - a rare quality these days

[9/10 · 22 December 2007]

Being a European, I have often looked with shock and bemusement at the USA and how fanatical Americans are about their guns. It's a big love affair between his man and his Glock over there and whenever you ask an American about this obsession, their stock answer is "it's my rights!". No matter that kids are shooting kids and Charlton Heston is in the running for "Crass Old Fool of the Year" Award - AGAIN. According to the average American, if it's in the constitution, it must be right and can't be changed to reflect the changing times.

Michael Moore has produced a brilliant movie which from the get go provokes thought and discussion. He chooses the right scene to start the movie - he walks into a bank that offers a free gun to new customers and opens an account. I think that first initial scene says it all right there and sets the tone for the rest of the movie.

Columbine is only part of the movie. He actually only barely scratches the surface of that incident and instead chooses to examine the gun issue from a much broader overview. He asks why Americans love their guns so much and then in a part that I found brilliant, he then examines Canada, the United Kingdom and even Germany and compared their ultra-low gun deaths to the explosive number of gun deaths in the USA.

But you ultimately know where the movie is headed. You know that everything is ultimately pointing to a showdown between Moore and Charlton Heston, and finally they meet (although it doesn't last long). When Heston runs out of stock answers and glib excuses and realises Moore knows his stuff, the NRA lackey runs away.

This is a movie that should be seen by EVERYONE.

The Golden Compass (2007)

Not bad but not brilliant either.

[6/10 · 6 December 2007]

After the emotional devastation of seeing Eragon being gutted in the movies, I went to "The Golden Compass" expecting the same kind of wholesale slaughter. I mean, how can you possibly capture the essence and spirit of Phillip Pullman's book with all the allegory, the politics, the religion, the whole back-story, and still make it a movie for all moviegoers of all ages, within a 2 hour time frame? Pullman himself said he was very happy with the movie so that reassured me somewhat.

After going to see it, here are my observations :

1) The casting was spot-on. I don't recall any actor who provoked a "oh hell, what is he / she doing in the movie?" reaction.

2) As one previous reviewer said, the director has turned Pullman's story from a hard gritty thought-provoking story into a cuddly family movie. The whole heart of the plot has been gutted - the religion & politics has been strongly toned down to the point where Derek Jacobi comes across as Darth Vader on the Death Star and Lyra is Princess Leia. In other words, an unoriginal "good versus evil" story. Yawn.

3) How did they persuade Christopher Lee to take on a role that involved only one scene and two lines? That guy doesn't get out of bed for anything less than a Jedi Knight or a Lord of the Rings. He was tragically underused!

4) I'm in two minds about the computer CGI. On one hand, it managed to conjure up some great scenes and special effects. On the other hand, it did get in the way sometimes to the detriment of the movie. When the Tartars turned up at Bolvanger, that was pure PC games graphics!

5) If you've read the book, you'll notice that in the movie they CHANGED THE ENDING! At the end of the book, Asriel is about to cross into the parallel world and he begs Mrs Coulter to go with him. She refuses but Lyra and Roger jump through instead. There the book ends. This is NOT in the movie! But a friend told me that it was in the movie trailer. So did someone do a last minute change to the movie ending??

Overall, not a bad movie. I was expecting a slaughter and instead got a friendly skirmish. It is also generally faithful to the book. Just don't expect a masterpiece.

Casablanca (1942)

A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh....play it again Sam!

[9/10 · 13 November 2007]

I am staggered that it took me so long to finally get round to watching this movie! Casablanca has always been one of those movies that I've always wanted to see but never got around to it. Now that I have finally watched it, I am sure to be watching it again and again. And "that song" is firmly stuck in my head!

There's no need to rehash the plot as everyone except me knows all the lines by heart. But let's just say that this movie is definitely a classic and you WILL watch it over and over again.

I do have one little gripe though - the movie is slightly tainted by the fact that there are German officers in it and it was made in 1942 - the height of World War II. So I got the feeling there was a little bit of blatant Allied propaganda put in there - the devious Germans and the heroic Resistance, that sort of thing. But saying that, the movie also portrayed the French Vichy regime in a kind of positive light, which I'm sure didn't go down too well with the Free French.

But these are just minor points. On the whole, this is an excellent and timeless piece of film-making!

Play it again Sam!

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

An excellent film but pales in comparison to the Baum book!

[7/10 · 11 November 2007]

I finally watched "Wizard of Oz" last night, mostly motivated by the fact that I had just read the first two Oz books by L Frank Baum. I am always leery of anything made by Disney as they have a really annoying habit of changing the plot to suit themselves and this movie was no exception.

For example, the first 20 minutes of the movie is NOT in the book at all! The book starts with the house getting swept away by the tornado - so how come we have Judy Garland singing "Over the Rainbow" to her pet rat (sorry, dog)? Then we have that pointless steal the dog, Dorothy running away, Professor Marvel telling her her mother is ill....blah, blah. Get on with the story for Gods sake. Baum is probably turning in his grave by now.

And all the characters in Kansas appearing as characters in Oz! That is pure Disney invention! Again, NOT in the book! Sorry but I am a purist when it comes to book adaptations. I strongly feel that movie studios do not have the right to re-write books. Either follow the book or don't follow it at all.

When Dorothy finally gets to Oz, the movie starts to improve a great deal and things more or less follow the book (except all the singing which was obviously inserted for Garland's benefit).

Considering that this movie was made in 1939, you've got to accept in 2007 that things in the movie (such as special effects) are going to look very dated (I mean, it's obvious the witch is climbing down through a hole in the floor!!). Plus the backgrounds are so obviously fake (painted pieces of wood!). However, if you can get past all that, this is still an excellent movie to watch.

But nothing beats reading the original book.

Transformers (2007)

A Guilty Pleasure

[10/10 · 21 October 2007]

Normally CGI-based movies turn me off completely but Transformers has proved to be the exception. I had all the toys when I was younger (I won them in a competition) so watching this movie was virtually re-living my childhood all over again.

Being based on a comic, the plot is nothing to boast about and George Lucas would be proud of the special effects. But where this movie comes into its prime is the pure adrenalin rush you get from watching the heart-stopping action sequences. The film is also extremely humorous with the bad robots looking up auctions on eBay and doing searches on the Yahoo search engine. No prizes for guessing which two big web companies sponsored this movie!

Jon Voight plays a great Secretary of Defense that knows how to handle a shotgun. My only casting complaint would be that the Australian chick and her black hacker friend were tragically under-used. They had the potential to add a whole new dimension to the movie if they had been used more.

The ending of the movie is virtually setting up the sequel. I can't wait. In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to watch this movie another ten times!

The Sentinel (2006)

Why oh why does Douglas have to bed every woman?

[2/10 · 5 October 2007]

I think I am brainwashed - every time I see Michael Douglas on screen, I get the "Basic Instinct Syndrome". In other words, I just know he is going to have sex with one of the female cast members. It's inevitable, just like death and taxes. What is it with Douglas? Why does he have to drop his pants at every available opportunity? Is his career going downhill so fast that a sex scene is obligatory in all of his movies?

But this one really takes the biscuit - he is having an affair with the First Lady of the United States? Oh please! If you were the First Lady, would you want to romp in the sack with an old, wrinkly secret service agent? Not bloody likely.

Kiefer Sutherland was moderately better but again stereotypes got in the way as he constantly did his Jack Bauer "24" routine in this movie - all energy, take charge, kick ass.

This movie, for me anyway, would fall under "watch it if you're extremely bored". And lower your realism threshold.

Oh and Douglas needs to start taking some cold showers.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

Jason Bourne comes storming back hard

[9/10 · 26 August 2007]

I never thought I'd hear myself say it but I love the Bourne trilogy more than I do James Bond. After a stunning "Identity" and a lacklustre "Supremacy", Bourne is back in full force with "Ultimatum".

Once again, the big bad CIA totally gets the wrong end of the stick by assuming that Bourne is a mole, revealing classified intelligence documents to a London journalist. After a gun battle at Waterloo train station, Bourne goes on the run, determined to prove once again that he is not Langley's enemy, while Langley has already decided that Bourne should die. They send their "best" assassins after him but they don't realise (or don't seem to remember) that Bourne IS the best. Cue lots of battles and high body counts.

For the next 2 hours, we go all over the world as Bourne is finally determined to find out once and for all who he really is, how he got into the dirty business of killing and also to find a corrupt CIA station chief who holds the key to Bourne's past (but who is also targeted for assassination by the CIA for betraying them).

What I particularly love about the Bourne movies is that you are thrown right into the fighting scenes so when Bourne punches someone, you kind of feel the blow yourself. The camera gets right into the middle of the action, so close up that you can smell the adrenalin and sweat of those in the scene.

I also like how you can relate to Bourne on an emotional level. He is not the macho flawless fighting machine that James Bond is sometimes made out to be. This is a guy who is flawed, vulnerable, scared and in search of his identity. All he really wants is to be left alone and he only fights when he has to, when his back is to the wall and there truly is no other way out.

My only complaint is that they tragically under-used Scott Glenn and Albert Finney. These extremely talented actors should have been given more screen time.

A very enjoyable movie and definitely on the same level as "Identity". Forget the flop of "Supremacy" - "Ultimatum" has given the Bourne franchise a huge adrenalin shot in the arm.

You will definitely LOVE this movie! Matt Damon is the man.

Zodiac (2007)

An excellent re-creation of the Zodiac killings

[8/10 · 10 August 2007]

I only had scant knowledge of the Zodiac case before watching this movie so watching the movie really educated me as to the suspects and the evidence.

But a thought struck me before watching - since the Zodiac killings were, in real life, unsolved, how were they going to end this movie? There could be no arrest, no trial, no guns blazing, no dramatic confession. The movie would have to...well....just stop because they would have nothing else to say. So they would build up all the suspense and excitement and suddenly the credits would start rolling. And that's precisely what happened in the movie - talk about an anti-climax!

Plus it's movies like this that seem to make the police look stupid. The lead detective spends virtually a decade on the case, makes little headway then a goofy looking cartoonist from the local newspaper comes along and neatly and quickly puts the case together. If it was so easy for him to do it, how could the police not do it earlier?

Despite these drawbacks, this is still an excellent re-creation of the Zodiac murders and it makes you wonder if their prime suspect was really the Zodiac killer or if the real killer is still out there laughing at us all.

Hannibal Rising (2007)

Not brilliant but it could have been a lot worse

[6/10 · 29 July 2007]

My own personal opinion is that they rushed this movie out too soon. It's been less than a year since the book came out so they must have started making this right after the book was released. What they SHOULD have done was wait a while and make the movie properly. But on the whole, I was actually pleasantly surprised because it could have been a lot worse.

This is obviously a very different type of Lecter movie because Anthony Hopkins is not in it. Instead the honour of playing one of Hollywood's most well-known and infamous bad guys falls to Gaspard Ulliel and he actually does quite a good job of it. You can see him trying to sound and look like a younger version of Hopkins and he succeeds in this. It sent a shiver down my spine when he has his victim tied to a tree and he is talking quietly but menacingly to him. I half-expected him to say "hello Clarice!"

Prequels seem to be all the rage these days and the Lecter saga is no exception. This story goes back to Lecter's childhood in Lithuania and how his family suffered at the hands of first the Nazis and then the Soviets. Lecter escapes to western Europe where he settles in France and finds a surviving relative (Lady Murasaki played by Li Gong). He starts to study as a doctor but he is tormented by what happened to his sister during the war. He was there when she was taken by German collaborators but he can't remember what happened. He finally decides the only way is to travel back to Lithuania and find out the truth. When he does find out the truth, it unleashes a murderous fury which extends all the way back to France and finally the USA.

When the body-count starts to ratchet up, Paris sends out a chief inspector to find out who the murderer is. He suspects Lecter but can't prove it. As Lecter kills and maims, he has the chief inspector snapping at his heels, determined to catch him in the act.

All in all, the movie is surprisingly faithful to the book and isn't that bad to watch. But I can see someone in the future trying to do a re-make to better what was really a rushed movie.

Casino Royale (2006)

The name is Bond, James Bond

[9/10 · 29 July 2007]

Let's be honest here - the Bond franchise before Casino Royale was in serious trouble. The Pierce Brosnan movies had tanked, and the story lines were getting more and more ridiculous (invisible cars anyone?). Every person I talked to was extremely disillusioned with the Bond movies and we all yearned for a blazing comeback. So, going to see Casino Royale, the big question on everyone's lips was "does Daniel Craig have the power to resuscitate James Bond?". By the end, everyone was shouting "YES!!!". Bond is most definitely back.

Watching Craig's performance, you have to wonder what all the criticism of his casting was about. Craig is easily the best Bond since Roger Moore (maybe even better?). He brings a certain quality to the role that has been sadly lacking in the Pierce Brosnan interpretations. Craig partly emulates Tim Dalton by being a blue-eyed cold-hearted killer with the morals and scruples of a cobra snake. He notches up his three kills to earn his "007" status and then he is sent into the big wide world to wreak havoc on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Eva Green though is pathetic. I thought the Bond franchise had hit a new low casting Denise Richards in "World is Not Enough" but Eva Green seems to be even worse. To call her a wilting lilly would be an insult to all lillies.

But back to Craig, you know he has the 007 stuff when he shocks himself conscious with a defibrillator in his car then coolly goes back to the poker table to sip a martini and play another hand! Classy!

For the first time in a VERY long time, I am eagerly looking forward to the next Bond movie.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

From innocence to darkness - how a lot has changed in 5 movies

[6/10 · 29 July 2007]

I am not a die-hard Potter fanatic but I do enjoy reading the books (once I have wrestled them from my girlfriend's grasp). But watching this movie, it struck me how much the story has changed since the first one.

In the first movie, you had a magical world, strange creatures, innocence, magic and a captivated Harry discovering a new world. Now fast-forward to book / movie 5 - what do you have? Despair, depression, darkness, death, evil. Not exactly an uplifting message for kids is it? When I went to the cinema to see this, the kids were in tears by the end.

I can't fault the making of this movie. The special effects were outstanding and the script was excellent with good acting all round. But I just couldn't get it out of my head how dark and negative this story has become (and it gets even worse in books 6 & 7). This really has gone from being a children's story to being an adult story (should we really have torture in a children's movie? I'm not sure children should be seeing Harry getting acid on his hands).

Top marks though to Imelda Staunton who did a magnificent job of playing Dolores Umbridge, the woman everyone hates. She was perfectly cast in the role she was born to play.

Before watching this movie, take a big dose of Prozac. You'll need it.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Wow there's still life in the old dog yet!!

[8/10 · 29 July 2007]

The first Die Hard movie was (and still is) a classic. Die Hard 2 was just downright humiliating. The third one was slightly better but still slightly ludicrous (Jeremy Irons with that idiotic fake "German" accent). So you could say that I had pretty much written off the Die Hard franchise as a "one-hit wonder". But Brucie Baby has proved that, just like a good bottle of whisky, it really does get better with age. He may be older (and balder) but he sure still remembers how to kick ass.

The plot is basically the same - old-fashioned bank robbers out to score the heist of a lifetime, but who try to make themselves look more glamorous by pretending to back a cause - this time though they have updated the franchise to reflect the growing intrusion of computers in every-day life, and who better to tackle this new technological age than old-school Detective McClane?

McClane is ordered to bring in a computer hacker for interrogation by the FBI. Little does anyone know that this hacker has already been targeted for assassination by some people he did some illegal work for (the same matter the FBI want to talk to him about). When Brucie turns up to arrest the hacker, the assassins start shooting and from there on in, it's one big blood-fest as Brucie tries to keep the hacker alive while at the same time, bring the baddies down.

As usual with these types of movies, the plot's credibility does get stretched to breaking point (going head to head with a US Air Force fighter jet?). But if you're prepared to suspend disbelief for a couple of hours, you'll find this movie very enjoyable.

Oh and after seeing the hacker in his lair, I've decided that this is no longer my computer room - it's my "command center". When you've watched the movie, you'll understand what I mean.

Look out for Tim Russ (who plays Tuvok in Star Trek Voyager). Instead of a humourless Vulcan, he here plays a humourless Federal agent.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Extremely disappointing. Not up to the usual Simpsons standard

[5/10 · 29 July 2007]

When you watch the Simpsons, you know not to expect a life-changing earth-shattering event so I went into the cinema with my box of doughnuts, saying "doh!" to the cinema employees and settled back to watch what I thought would be a barrel of laughs. Now that it's over, my initial thought was "what the hell was that?"

Now before you say "ah, he's in Germany. They have no humour there", let me set the record straight by saying that I am British and the British sense of humour is the best in the world. We even "get" the Simpsons. But this was struggling for laughs from the get-go. When you have to introduce a pig as "Spider-Pig" then you know the movie is in trouble.

I think the problem is that the Simpsons is only really designed to be a 20 minute television episode. To stretch it to 90 minutes is really pushing it. The movie tries to be all things to all people by pushing in as many characters as possible and as many plots as possible. The sub-plots (such as Spider-Pig) are just plain stupid (even by Simpsons standards) and the producers couldn't even resist making a political statement by including Itchy (or was it Scratchy?) as President Hillary Clinton's Vice-President or making a dig at Alaska's dependency on the oil companies. They even had Lisa lampooning Al Gore by making an environmental speech called "An Irritating Truth".

The one moment that got the biggest laugh was US President Arnold Schwarzenegger who said to his aide "I was elected to lead, not to read!".

During the closing credits, Maggie utters her first word : "Sequel?". I certainly hope not.

Shrek the Third (2007)

Absolutely hysterical but Shrek 2 is MUCH better

[8/10 · 24 June 2007]

I went to see Shrek 3 today (after fighting to get past real live donkeys at the cinema door!) and after watching it, my view is that this is a really funny movie and worth seeing. But Shrek 2 still remains the best of the trilogy, the cream of the crop.

The plot is already described here on the IMDb so I won't rehash it. So let me tell you what I liked and disliked :

Likes :

1. The frogs singing Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" at King Harold's funeral.

2. Donkey and Cat changing bodies with each other.

3.Everything to do with the cat. That animal just cracks me up. Every time he opens his mouth, I am on the floor.

4. King Harold dying - then not dying. The whole "is he dead yet?" routine was just freaking funny as hell.

5. Shrek changing a baby's nappy and, not looking at what he is doing, puts it on the cat instead.

6. Mr Merlin, the depressed crazy wizard in his short nightshirt and trendy sandals.

7. The cat and donkey acting as Shrek's agents, making sure he gets the right food in his dressing room to "get in the right emotional state for his performance". The Royal Guards refer them to "Nancy in Human Resources"

Dislikes :

1. The cat and donkey getting less to say in the movie than in previous Shrek movies. These two are the prize assets in a Shrek movie and they were tragically underused and under-appreciated in this movie.

2. I thought the way Princess Fiona reversed the Charming situation at the end was a little rushed and too easily done. OK, this is Shrek, not "War & Peace" but in Shrek 2, they paced things out a bit more to make it last longer. Here, they just resolved everything in half the time.

3. I absolutely hate Justin Timberlake!!!! I would have much preferred to see Shrek take the crown and become the new king.

On the whole, this is definitely worth seeing but you'll be disappointed if you're looking for something that betters Shrek 2. Right now, part two really is, excuse the pun, King of the Castle.

Fracture (2007)

Surprisingly good

[7/10 · 28 April 2007]

I went to see this movie when I was on holiday in Scotland last week. I wasn't expecting anything wonderful to come from this film but by the end, I found myself pleasantly surprised.

The film centres around Anthony Hopkins' character who murders his wife when he discovers that she is having an affair with a police detective. Even though he readily confesses to the crime, he has absolutely no intention of going to prison for it. Instead we see him manipulating the system to weaken the case against him and we gradually discover how much planning and thought he put into a shooting that initially seemed to be random and spontaneous.

The prosecutor (played by Gosling) is an arrogant and cocky assistant DA who thinks that because he has a confession that the whole thing is locked down and secure. But he has severely underestimated Hopkins and step by step, Gosling gets his legs cut out from under him.

The only complaints I will make about the movie is that in order for the story to work, it relies on huge leaps and improbable events. I won't spoil one of the big twists but basically one of the story's mysteries is how they can't find the murder weapon. When you finally realise what Hopkins did, you realise that in real life, something like that would be a real stretch to pull off. Second, how could Hopkins know in advance that the investigating detective would be the one that his wife was having an affair with? Out of all the detectives in the NYPD, Hopkins immediately knows which one he will get. I don't think so.

If you're prepared to overlook these leaps of credibility, this is an enjoyable movie and Hopkins is just fantastic.

The Illusionist (2006)

What in the movie is real & what's an illusion?

[9/10 · 16 January 2007]

This movie actually surprised me. I'm no big fan of Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti is the kind of actor who impresses you in one movie and disappoints you in another. I have barely heard of Jessica Biel so when I heard the line-up, I was hardly jumping up saying "YES! let's go and watch this!". But after finally watching it, I am forced to admit that this time I was badly wrong because I enjoyed every minute.

Norton plays Eisenheim, a magician and illusionist who is able to perform magical illusions which no-one can explain. He is dismissed by some as a fraudster and a charlatan (especially by the Austro-Hungarian Crown Prince whom Eisenheim humiliated in public) but in general, the public love him and his shows and they are all sell-outs. It's this humiliation which I referred to that causes the Crown-Prince to order the police (a chief inspector played by Giamatti) to shut down Eisenheim's act and drive him out of town. But Eisenheim has no intention of leaving because the Crown Prince's fiancée is actually a childhood sweetheart of Eisenheim and the Illusionist is determined not to lose her a second time.

Needless to say, the Crown Prince doesn't take kindly to a charlatan and a trickster moving in on his girl and so he sets out to bring down Eisenheim by trying to discredit the illusion acts. You can guess already that Eisenheim is two steps ahead of the Crown Prince and a plot is hatched so he and his sweetheart can finally run away together.

A sub-plot has the Crown Prince plotting to overthrow his father, the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire so Princy Boy can take over. This is obviously high treason and Mr Prince decides that the Illusionist is a threat to his cunning dastardly plans.

The acting was really good and the script is great. I highly recommend this movie to anybody interested in this type of story.

Walk the Line (2005)

Hello....my name is Joaquin Phoenix and I AM Johnny Cash

[8/10 · 14 January 2007]

Before I watched this movie, Johnny Cash was just a name to me. I knew the name but if anyone asked me to name one of his songs or sing one of the songs, I would have given them a shrug of the shoulders and a blank stare. So when "Walk the Line" was released in the cinemas, I really didn't know if I was interested enough to watch it. But a friend persuaded me and so I went. That was May 2006 (or thereabouts). Now it's January 2007 and I have just watched it on DVD for the third time.

"My momma told me son, always be a good boy and don't ever play with guns...".

The lyrics are now ingrained into my memory, his songs as familiar to me as my other favorite singers. Watching the movie for the first time made me go to iTunes afterwards and buy four of his albums! In other words, this movie is magnificent and you will have the words to his songs stuck in your head forever. Watching the movie, you'll be sub-consciously tapping your feet and your shoulders will start to sway back and forth...when Phoenix stops singing, you'll be shouting at the screen for him to sing another song.

"Love is a burning thing...and it makes a firey ring..."

Some of the elements of the movie are fairly standard as with other movies dealing with the life of a famous person - the inevitable conflicts with parents, the marriage problems with the first wife, the affair with the woman destined to be your second wife, the alcohol, the drugs, a death in the family and how it all makes the subject stronger and makes them go on to bigger and better things (the saying that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"). So in that respect, I found myself bored a little.

But where it livens up is the music. Phoenix IS Cash. He looks like Cash as a young man and Phoenix gets the voice right and the music is top-notch. Reese Witherspoon delivers a knock-out performance as Cash's long-suffering singing partner, June Carter.

The best part is at the beginning of the movie when we get a slow close-up shot of the deserted yard at Folsom Prison and then we hear the steady THUMP-THUMP-THUMP of the prison audience stamping their feet and patiently waiting for Cash, while the back-up band plays warm-up tunes and looking nervous, thinking the prisoners are going to go crazy and start smashing things. Meanwhile in the back, Cash is in a dream and when the prison warden approaches him, Cash is suddenly transported back to his childhood in 1944 and there his story starts.

When you watch this, be prepared to be singing Johnny Cash songs for weeks afterwards! Then put aside some time afterwards to go shopping for a nice guitar because if "Walk the Line" doesn't inspire you to start playing the guitar yourself, nothing will.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

It's as good as any director could do it

[7/10 · 13 January 2007]

A lot of criticism has been leveled at this movie, almost as much criticism as the book itself. But I'm of the firm belief that this is the kind of story that doesn't adapt easily to the big screen and Ron Howard has done the best he was able to do with the material he was given.

My only complaint is the casting choices. I agree with Sir Ian McKellan and Paul Bettany - they were the right choices (perhaps the only choices) but I think Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou were the wrong choices to play Langdon and Neveu. Hanks is just not the Langdon type (if you've read the book, you'll know what I mean) and Tatou just looks to me like some kind of wilting lily, not the tough assertive woman portrayed in the book. I would have much preferred something along the lines of Harrison Ford and Sophie Marceau.

Jean Reno did a decent enough job as Bezu Fache. When it comes to playing French policemen, Reno basically monopolizes those roles!

The movie does do a fairly good job of following the book plot. There's a few minor changes in the movie but nothing worth mentioning. The "extended version" of the movie, now out on DVD, adds an approximate extra half hour to the running time and the extra scenes concentrate mainly on Bishop Aringarosa's dealings with the secret Vatican council.

By the way, look out for a cameo appearance in the movie from Dan Brown himself! He appears at the beginning when Hanks is doing his symbology conference. When Hanks is signing books, Brown is in the crowd talking to someone. Just look out for the Harris Tweed jacket and the blond moppy hair!

All in all, quite a good movie and surprisingly quite faithful to the book.

Beyond the Sea (2004)

Kevin Spacey will take your breath away

[10/10 · 6 January 2007]

Until I watched this movie, I had no idea who Bobby Darin was. In fact I didn't even know he existed. I had previously thought that songs such as "Beyond the Sea" and "Mack the Knife" were in fact Frank Sinatra songs (later I found out that Sinatra only did cover versions of what were Darin original songs). So because I had no idea who Darin was, I didn't know if I was going to like watching this film. But Kevin Spacey is one of my favourite actors and I figured "what the heck".

After watching it, all I can say is "WOW!". Mr Spacey, you took my breath away.

For a start, that dude sure can sing (Sinatra, eat your heart out). That's no dubbing you hear - that's Kev's actual voice. I really hope that one day he releases his own album and if he does, I'll be first in line to buy it. With a good set of lungs on the man and a wonderful supporting cast (especially Bob Hoskins), this is a movie to keep and to watch over and over again.

The best part has to be his comeback performance concert in Las Vegas where he sings a rousing rendition of his anti-Vietnam song "Simple Song of Freedom". It's an emotional scene in what turns out to be Darin's last ever performance before his premature death from heart complications, and Kevin gives it everything he's got. By the end, the audience is dancing and in tears. Kevin looks like he's about to start crying himself and believe me, I wasn't far off it either.

In the past few years, many movies have been made about the life of famous singers (such as Johnny Cash and Ray Charles). But "Beyond the Sea" stands supreme. Superb acting, superior music and an absolutely superior actor in the form of Mr Kevin Spacey. Take a bow Mr Spacey. Bobby Darin is smiling on you from heaven. You did him proud.

Eragon (2006)

A complete pile of trash

[1/10 · 19 December 2006]

I've just come back from the cinema in a daze. After reading the excellent Eragon book, I was really looking forward to seeing it on the big screen. But what I saw bears absolutely no relation to the book.

For a start, the casting is all wrong. The casting agent for this movie should be strung up by the ankles. The most awful casting choice was Djimon Hounsou as Ajihad. The costumes he and his Varden wore made them look like they were going to Goldmember's house for a 1970's disco evening.

What really riles me is that the movie is totally rushed and complete scenes are completely missed out. Characters from the book are totally discarded in the movie, other characters are placed in totally different scenes just for cinematic effect and the movie invents scenes not in the book. One example of this are John Malkovich's scenes. In the book, Galbatorix hardly appears and hardly utters a word. In the movie, he can hardly keep his mouth shut. Obviously the scenes were invented to give Malkovitch more screen time to keep his actor ego intact.

The only casting choice I just about agree with was Robert Carlyle as Durza but even then new scenes were invented for the movie and the scene where Eragon & Durza face off is a total fabrication on the part of the movie director. Brom's death at the hands of Durza was also completely fabricated.

But the biggest blunder of all - Eragon appears at the secret city of the Varden, a city built and owned by the Dwarfs - and yet there is NOT ONE SINGLE DWARF IN THE WHOLE MOVIE!

I am truly deeply disappointed with this movie which was rushed and botched up in a quick attempt to cash in on the success of the book. I'm hoping that when the trilogy is finished by Paolini that a true fan (like Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings) will take a more fonder view of the stories and do a fabulous remake. But I fear that is a long time away.

My advice can be summed up like this : if you've read the book, avoid the movie.

But hey, George Lucas would be proud of the CGI dragon and the cinematic special effects.

Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror (1942)

What a complete load of pap!

[4/10 · 18 November 2006]

This movie is so blatantly a propaganda movie that the filmmakers and actors should be taken out and shot! The script makes you want to cringe in embarrassment.

Lots of stirring "we shall never surrender!" type of speeches while the evil Nazi officers get a bullet in the back. Holmes strutting around like an Agatha Christie character explaining who did it, where they did it with the candlestick. Oh and Holmes snags a traitor to England for good measure! Tally-ho dear boy! Good show!

Oh and don't forget Watson's "Proof of Criminal Innocence" - if the chap was at Watson's old school and was a jolly good cricket player then by golly there's no way the man is a traitor. Cricket-playing public school boys don't go on to be traitors you know. So there Holmes, that's you told!

Pursuit to Algiers (1945)

Strangely addictive to watch but Watson is irritating!

[6/10 · 18 November 2006]

Being a Holmes purist, I should detest these versions which are set in the 1940's....Holmes is supposed to be a "Victorian" detective in the late 19th century but here he is in the mid 1940's driving a car and eating fish and chips! The Rathbone films are still quite addictive to watch however but they are nothing more than World War II propaganda movies, meant to boost morale as people watch Holmes defeat the enemy.

Plus Nigel Bruce is probably the WORST Watson ever. The Watson portrayed by Conan Doyle is a man of intelligence, a war hero with integrity and fortitude. Bruce's portrayal is one of a bumbling aristocratic pompous old fool who is extremely slow on the uptake. By the time Watson has worked something out in that big thick fog he calls a brain, Holmes is already 10 miles ahead of him! Plus when Watson says "you can rely on me Holmes!", that is another way of him saying "don't worry old boy, you want someone to really mess things up...I'm your man!". People being "guarded" by Watson get kidnapped all the time and he is always taken in by the most childish oldest tricks in the book.

But nevertheless, I can't stop watching the Rathbone / Bruce adaptations. At least I get a laugh out of watching Watson do his "how to be an amateur detective" routine.

Archangel (2005 TV Movie)

A surprisingly good book-to-movie adaptation

[7/10 · 3 November 2006]

Most book-to-movie adaptations positively stink but "Archangel" is the exception to the rule. This adaptation from the Robert Harris book is positively good and the director has stayed faithful to Harris' story.

Daniel Craig shines as Professor "Fluke" Kelso, a British history professor based out of New York, a "specialist in all things Stalin". Trying to resurrect a struggling career, Kelso meets an old man who claims he was present the night in 1953 when Stalin died. The old man leads Kelso to Stalin's secret notebook but is then brutally murdered in his apartment. The notebook leads Kelso, the old man's daughter, and an American reporter O'Brien, to a forest in the northern city of Archangel where secrets from the Soviet past are hidden. The present-day Russian government sends special forces commandos with orders to make sure that the secrets in Archangel stay hidden but the past breaks free in one bloody battle and sets events in motion which ensures that history has a good chance of repeating itself...

An excellent movie. If you loved the book, you'll love this movie. Highly recommended.