Bicentennial Man

Bicentennial Man (1999) starring Robin Williams, Embeth Davidtz, Sam Neill, and Oliver Platt.

Before...I can't remember my exact feelings when I first watched this film but I am pretty sure they would be something close to excitement. A film based around Isaac Asimov's Robert laws...surely that is exciting...well maybe just for a geek like me...ah well. So excitement was up there...I watched and was disappointed...lets see if my views have changed years later.

This film follows the 'life' and times of the lead character, an android (Williams) who is purchased as a household robot programmed to perform menial tasks. Within a few days the Martin family (Davidtz, Neill) realizes that they don't have an ordinary droid as Andrew begins to experience emotions and creative thought with the help of an inventor (Platt). In a story that spans two centuries, Andrew learns the intricacies of humanity while trying to stop those who created him from destroying him.

My wife's view..."too long ago to remember, it wasn't as bad as we were expecting★★★☆☆"

Where to start...first thing that both my wife and I were surprised at was the length of the film...it's only just over 2hours and yet we thought it was nearer to 3. This is not a good thing. To have the feeling that a film is over an hour longer than it actually is means that it drags and it has no oomph or pizazz to keep your attention.

The special effects on this film are impressive, but that is about all I can say about it, it is neither clever nor dramatic enough to keep me all teared up when it should do. It is over emotional and all a bit sappy for my liking. All in all thoroughly unimpressed with this film, so little to say about it too...which leads me to give this film...

★★☆☆☆

Thoughts and developments...

Have no fear, the blog is not changing merely evolving. One of the key problems with film reviews these days is that I find more often than not they do not take into account the genre and try to judge the film against all the other films out there. From now on I will try to rectify this. Each film will have a genre label attached to it, so you can have a quick and easy access to searching through my blogs quicker for what you are looking for. On top of that the review will reflect the genre that it is meant to be in more than I have done in the past! :)

Comments and appraisals are most welcome!:)

Drag Me to Hell

Drag Me To Hell (2009) starring Alison Lohman, Dileep Rao, Lorna Raver and Justin Long.

Before...I had heard very good things about this film. Said to be one of the scariest films ever and in reading the back I had to agree. All about curses and spiritual stuff...it made me scared of What Lies Beneath! So i was looking forward to hiding behind a pillow for this one, quite apart from the fact that it's a new horror film from the legendary Sam Raimi!

A loan officer (Lohman) ordered to evict an old woman (Raver) from her home finds herself the recipient of a supernatural curse, which turns her life into a living hell. Desperate, she turns to a seer (Rao) to try and save her soul, while evil forces work to push her to a breaking point.

My wife's view...she did not have one as she cleverly left me and a friend to watch this one!!

Where to start...before I begin this review I feel it is necessary to let the reader know that I am not one of those "quiet horror movie viewers". I don't sit there in silence and take the film in. I will talk to the TV set. I will say to the characters (some people have said I shout) "Don't go in there" or "Don't open that door" or as was used last night effectively "NOOOOOOOO". Already from this piece of information you will realise that this definitely was a scary film. It wasn't pant changing in it's scariness like What lies Beneath but it was up there. Anyway onto the review...

As Julie Andrews once said "Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start". What Raimi is really good at is building up tension. Fiercesomely and violently he plunges straight into the horror with a brilliant sequence of a small boy being dragged to Hell. Then after the opening credits we are quickly introduced to Christine Brown and soon before we know it she is cursed. The great thing about this film is that it is tense and keeps you tense for 93minutes.

You are fearful about what is to come and yet at times it flies off into a comedic vein. I know Raimi's past films with the Evil Dead franchise had comedy but it was not until this morning in reading the reviews for Drag me to Hell that i realised that this too was supposed to be a comedy horror film.

It is such a rarity in the film world for someone who can balance pure horror with such hilarity. Yesterday when watching it I feared that Raimi had lost the plot and there was too much cliché and silliness in it, however this morning, in doing my research for the film I found that these comedic elements are very deliberate on his part. Looking back I realise that it is an excellent device to lull the viewer into a false sense of comfort only to scare you half to death a second later.

The performances are chilling and you definitely sympathise with both Lohman and Long (her boyfriend in the film). The woman is horrifying and I hope she doesn't haunt me in my dreams, last night I was free of her and I hope it stays that way! Last night I was going to give this film 3 stars, but armed with the information that Raimi's comedy genre is deliberate I cannot help but have a more compassionate view of this film. It makes me like it more...and so I am going to give this...

★★★★☆

Beowulf

Beowulf (2007) starring Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Robin Wright-Penn, and Angelina Jolie.

Before...One of my favourite poems of all time. I was looking forward to seeing this adaptation of the film, as I don't really think it could be done without being in CGI.

In 507, a monstrous troll wrecks havoc in the mead hall of the Danish king and Queen, Hrothgar (Hopkins) and Wealthow (Wright-Penn). He offers rewards for the death of Grendel (Crispin Glover), so Beowulf (Winstone, a great and boastful Geat warrior, arrives with his thanes. Beowulf sets aside his armor and awaits the monster; a fierce battle ensues that leads to Beowolf's entering the watery lair of Grendel's mother (Jolie), where a devil's bargain awaits. Beowulf returns to Herot, the castle, and becomes king. Jump ahead many years, and the sins of the father are visited upon Beowulf and his kingdom. The hero must face his weakness and be heroic once again. Is the age of demons over?

My wife's view... "Bleeeurgh-WOLF. A hideous attempt to try and merge cartoon and something more real. I know it's from a classic but this won't encourage anyone to read it. Painful to watch! If I never cross paths with this film again I will be quite happy. ☆☆☆☆☆"

Where to start...I knew that Laura would never like this film. It is a CGI masterpiece and Laura doesn't like CGI films at all. However part of my heart completely belongs to this film because I studied Beowulf at school when I was younger and this was one of my favourite poems. The thing that I annoyed me about the film was that it decided to distance itself from the film by making some key changes that altered the feel of the poem. It is disappointing and yet at the same time in taking this different angle it propels it into challenging our views of it. Thinking about the characters in new ways. The scriptwriters claim they were able to do this because the narration in the poem is flawed and therefore they can take some rather contraversial angles on the poem.

However, even though they have taken a different angle to the poem, this action packed and glorious CGI film is truly wonderful. It is visually stunning and filled with some amazing action-packed sequences. Also, the CGI shows some trul fantastic images, with it sometimes hard to see whether the actors are actors or whether they are CGI, it really is that impresive in my view.

All in all although visually stunning and action-packed it did disappoint me in way of the big changes it made. Although challenging it takes away the essence of the poem. So this leaves me with giving the film...

★★★☆☆

Behind Enemy Lines

Behind Enemy Lines (2001) starring Owen Wilson and Gene Hackman.

Before...I remember watching this a few years back on DVD, but I don't remember what I felt beforehand. I know I wasn't too impressed after watching, so here's hoping I will enjoy it more this time.

Fighter navigator Chris Burnett (Wilson) wants out: he was looking for something more than the boring recon missions he's been flying. When he fights with Admiral Leslie Reigart (Hackman), he quickly finds himself flying the lone Christmas day mission over war-torn Bosnia. But when he talks pilot Stackhouse into flying slightly off-course to check out an interesting target, the two get shot down. Burnett is soon alone, trying to outrun a pursuing army, while commanding officer Reigert finds his rescue operation hamstrung by politics, forcing Burnett to run far out of his way.

My wife's view..."Well having thought for a week this was actually Enemy at the Gates (which I love), when I sat down to watch it I was thinking it was Spy Game (which I don't understand). I was delighted to find out what it actually was. I saw it a month or two ago and forgot. I love this film. Gripping from start to end. A boy film designed for girls. It's not a classy film but it is excellent entertainment and so I am giving this ★★★★★"

Where to start..."A boy film designed for girls" I couldn't pin why this film didn't work until a few seconds ago when my wife dictated her review. It's not the fact that it needs gratuitous action set pieces it's the fact that it being a boy film it has no plot...which is fine. What the girl film side decided to do was give it characterisation and empathy for the characters, but when you put that together with a plotless film it just doesn't gel right. I'm not saying I don't like, cause I do but it needs a bit more raison d'etre for me.

I think if I had watched it when it first came out, it would have been a clever political piece, but now it kinda fumbles and falters it's way through the tense bits of the film...which brings me back to another gripe, the tension of the film is non-stop. I just couldn't take it really, the constant tension...that combined with no plot made me confused about why I was tense.

All in all even though I have destroyed this film in this review I quite enjoyed it. The acting isn't amazing but the action sequences and the tense sequences of the film work. Slick and stylish it is not but it is enjoyable, in a weird sort of way. So i will give this film...

★★★☆☆

Beetlejuice

Beetlejuice (1988) starring Alec Baldwin, Geena Davis, Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, and Jeffrey Jones.

Before...I can't remember a time before this film. But I think it was one of the first films I watched when I was slightly older. It is a film that is close to my heart, but I haven't seen it in a while, so I hope it doesn't spoil my memories!

This is the story of Adam (Baldwin) and Barbara (Davis) who live in a beautiful house in New England. One day while driving home they are involved in a terrible auto accident. They manage to walk home only to discover later that they have died and now haunt their house. When their house is purchased by an out of state family (O'Hara, Jones and Ryder), they feel their home is threatened by the over-the-top artists wife and real-estate idea-man husband. Their only relief is the Gothic daughter of the family. Their attempts at scaring the family out of the house are ignored or laughed at. Finally they fall to the temptation to use the people-exorcizer Beetle Juice (Keaton). When they find his tactics too dangerous, they attempt to contain him and save the family they were trying to boot.

My wife's view..."Worse than I remembered (which is saying something). Won't be watching it again anytime soon. Really dated, acting was poor. ★☆☆☆☆"

Where to start...well, to put it bluntly, my memories were shattered. It just hasn't aged well since I last saw it, as it's definitely stuck firmly in the 1980's! From the haircuts to the clothes, all of it screams the 80's, unfortunately not in a good way.

The one thing that lifts this films from the doldrums for me is Keaton, he is fantastic in the titular role of Beetlejuice...which leads me onto one of the most confusing elements of the movie. Why, o why, did they alter the name of the movie. In the film Keaton's characters name is written down numerous times, and it is written as "Beetlegeuse". It confuses me to no end.

Anyway, as I said...rewatching this film disheartened me. It made me realise that some films are best left as memories, which is why I am giving this film...

★★☆☆☆

A Beautiful Mind

A Beautiful Mind (2001) starring Russell Crowe, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany.

Before...previously Akiva Goldsman had written some true stinkers like Batman Forever, Batman and Robin and Lost in Space. All in all this made me very nervous. How could a man like him produce a good script?? Sufficed to say I really needed to be convinced.

A brilliant but somewhat arrogant and antisocial man, John Nash (Crowe) preferred to spend his time with his thoughts, which were primarily of seeing mathematical formula associated with everyday occurrences, than with people. Two people he did make a connection with were Charles (Bettany), his roommate at Princeton, and Alicia Larde (Connelly), one of his students when he was teaching at M.I.T. in the early 1950's. He and Alicia eventually marry. As time goes on, Nash lives more and more within himself which causes major problems in his life. But Alicia stands by her husband to his redemption to the Nobel Prize win. Nash learns that his graduate school colleagues, with whom he had a cordial but somewhat distant relationship, are closer friends than he imagined, although in his later life he really does miss Charles' company more than anything despite knowing that spending time with Charles is not in his or anyone's best interest.

My wife's view..."Fantastic. Russel Crowe is a genius. I love Paul Bettany, so that helps. It's a very clever film and I always cry, without fail. It's kinda sad and scary, but I do love it. I think it is very unique as well. It's a must watch for me. ★★★★★"

Where to start...a dark and wonderfully crafted film. Akiva Goldsman has created a true masterpiece with this script and it was a true suprise to me that he wrote something so truly brilliant. Not only is the script brilliant but the direction is also fantastic. Ron Howard is a true genius of his craft. All of his films are either fantastic summer blockbusters or really dramatic masterpieces. It is brilliant and this film truly shows off his talents.

Crowe is also fantastic in this film. It is a true stand out performance by him and not only that but he is backed up by a stellar class. Ed Harris as a Government Agent, Bettany as Nash's room mate, and Connelly as Nash's wife, all of them are wonderful in this film.

That for me is the best way to describe this film, it is simply wonderful. Clever and scary, dark and brooding, there is nthing about the film that I don't like. Which is why I am giving this film...

Batman Begins

Batman Begins (2005) starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Ken Watanabe.

Before...a reboot of one of the most legendary comics that had long been languishing in ignimony and comedic failure. I was very excited about this film. Especially as it was going to be a complete reboot. GO BATMAN...that was my thought...:D...let's see if it is unchanged.

As a boy a young Bruce Wayne (Bale) watched in horror as his millionaire parents were slain in front of his eyes, a trauma which led him to become obsessed with revenge but his chance is cruelly taken away from him by fate. After disappearing to the East where he seeks counsel with the dangerous ninja cult leader known as Ra's Al-Ghul (Watanabe), he returns to his now decaying Gotham City overrun by organized crime and dangerous individuals manipulating the system whilst the company he inherited is slowly being pulled out from under him. The discovery of a cave under his mansion, and a prototype armored suit leads him to take on a new persona, one which will strike fear into the hearts of men who do wrong - he becomes, Batman with the help of his Butler Alfred (Caine). In the new guise, and with the help of rising cop Jim Gordon (Oldman), Batman sets out to take down the various nefarious schemes in motion by individuals such as mafia don Falcone (Wilkinson), the twisted doctor/drug dealer Jonathan 'The Scarecrow' Crane (Murphy), and a mysterious third party that is quite familiar with Wayne and waiting to strike when the time is right.

The wife's view..."Scary Scarecrow definitely requires a pillow to hide behind. I really liked it. The characters are better and just generally a classy movie. ★★★★☆"

Where to start...This film sets the Batman films up for an awesome reboot of movies. They are darker, and even more sinister. Nolan has created a universe that no longer is comedic, instead it is a dark and sinister world that has no room for jokes. In watching this film I realised that actually Batman shouldn't be the guy who makes the jokey remarks, which is why Christian Bales version of Batman is so brilliant. Ruthless and brooding his Batman is man out to save Gotham from itself and along the way brings a true tragic side to the character.

The surrounding cast don't simply just act as a supporting cast. Each character plays a key role in this from Oldman, the new Gordon, to Holmes, Wayne's childhood friend Rachel. Each character has a key role to play in the film, there are no cameo'sby famous actors that do not have a role to play.

The brilliant thing about this film is that it does not shy away from the scary and psychological nature of Batman and all the people around him. It is brilliantly done and sets the scene for the new dark and horrible Gotham City that is created for this reboot. This film is what made me so excited about The Dark Knight. All in all the only problem I have with this film is the fact that it is an origin story and it takes a while to get going, though that is a good thing as there is so much background for future films there. All of this leads me to give this film...

★★★★☆

Batman Returns

Batman Returns (1992) starring Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Christopher Walken.

Before...again like the first I cannot remember what I thought of this film before watching it, as I don't think I was old enough to appreciate Tim Burton in all his glory. However, watching it now has made me feel nervous about what I would think about it, especially after my review of Batman. So into the rabbit hole I go...

In this, the second Batman movie, megalomaniac businessman Max Shreck (Walken) sets a plot against Gotham City in motion. He is joined by Penguin (DeVito), a deformed and rather deranged man abandoned at birth by respectable parents. Penguin, backed by hoodlums and real penguins, runs for mayor. The plot is further complicated by Selena, a wronged secretary who transforms into Catwoman (Pfeiffer), a villain with mixed motives. How will Bruce Wayne (Keaton) pit his wits against two new villainous minds?

My wife's view..."Really obviously old, you wouldn't make a film like that now. If you know the Batman series already watch it, but people new to Batman don't need to bother. ★★★☆☆"

Where to start...Keaton again is back on form in this film, wonderfully brooding and the few jokey quips in the film make it all worthwhile. Not only that but this time the villains are darker and more sinister.

Penguin is played brilliantly by the diminuitive Danny DeVito. Grim gruesome and ghoulish in appearence this for me is one of his best roles. Then we have Max Shrek played by always excellent Christopher Walken. In every role he plays he always brings his A game! :) Finally Catwoman, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, is another complexly constructed character. Brilliant and wonderful, this film and Stardust are my two favourite films of hers.

The issue that brings this films stars down is, as Laura said, its completely UN-timeless feel to the film. It has aged badly, both in way of CGI and everything else. It has not aged well this film, and yet it is still a favourite of mine, which is why I am giving this film...

★★★★☆

Batman

Batman (1989) starring Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Kim Basinger.

Before...I cannot remember I time before watching this movie in all honesty. It feels like it was one of the first films I ever watched. It was one of those films that made me really excited about films!:) So all in all this film has legendary status in my mind...though I haven't seen it since I watched The Dark Knight....this may change things....

In Gotham City, a dark knight known as Batman (Keaton) helps to defeat evil and keep the city's citizens safe. By day he is Gothams favourite bachelor, Bruce Wayne. Wayne soon falls for new girl in town, Vicky Vale (Basinger). When Jack Napier (Nicholson) is transformed into the evil, Joker, he promises to take over Gotham City and have Vale for his own, it is up to Batman to stop him in his tracks before it is too late.

My wife's view..."A classic that everyone should see. It just didn't match up to the later ones. Jack Nicholson's Joker is completely wrong and bizarre. Kim Basinger is a bit pathetic, but Michael Keaton is quite a genuine nice Bruce. As always Alfred makes it for me. Not too much gadgetry, but it just fails to match up to the later ones. ★★★☆☆"

Where to start...first things first...Keaton is a legend. Even Bale has not lived up to the awesomeness that Keaton delivers in Batman and Batman Returns. His role, his brooding darkness combined with comedy help to make this film great, my issue with the film comes not with Batman, but instead with the Joker...

"HERESY" I hear you say, but ultimately it comes down to this, Keaton has created a Batman which is pretty similar and close to the comics, whereas Jack Nicholson, on the otherhand, has created a camp and ultimately comedic version of Joker. For me, the only actor who has come close to the comic version of Joker is the late Heath Ledger, but I digress...

Batman is a film with a confused feel about it. It's director screams gothic, Tim Burton is one of the most intelligent and brilliant gothic directors out there at the moment. However I feel he lost his way with this film. The feel of this movie is not so much gothic, but instead humouress. The scripts play on the Joker was a far more jokey look at the character, which if you have read the comics is just not right.

Although a classic this film is not Batman as it should be, for which I am sure I will be condemned and damned for by most of you. Due to these reasons I cannot give the film more than...

★★★☆☆

Basic

Basic (2003) starring John Travolta, Connie Nielsen, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Before...considering before I looked at it on the shelf and thought it was a different film altogether, there is nothing much I can really write in this box, as watching it on Wednesday night, seemed to me like the first time I had watched it. It was brilliant, this barely ever happens and so I was looking forward to the film. Travolta and Jackson, back together after 8 years!! AWESOME!:D

Tom Hardy (Travolta), an ex-Army Ranger turned DEA agent, is drawn into an ever-widening mystery surrounding the disappearance of the feared and often hated Sgt. Nathan West (Jackson), as well as several of his elite Special Forces trainees on what appears, at first, to have been a routine training exercise during a hurricane in the jungles of Panama. Capt. Julia Osborne (Nielsen) struggles with her investigation. So base commander Col. Bill Styles calls in ex-Ranger Hardy, an old friend and a persuasive interrogator. What happened to West and his Ranger team? And what were they really doing out there in the jungle? As each layer reveals more lies and greater deceptions, Hardy and Osborne inch towards the horrible truth about the fate of the missing Rangers.

My wife's view..."A puzzle of a movie. Cryptic and clever, without giving too much away it keeps you thinking till the end. Poirot without the moustache. Probably will love it even more the second time, when I will have forgotten how it all ends up anyway. Don't watch it with a hangover...not that we did! ★★★★☆"

Where to start...clever, complex and intelligent, this movie gripped me immediately the credits started to role. Jackson plays a crazed army sergeant and does it brilliantly. You immediately want to hate him, and that is the point. Travolta plays an equally uneven and slightly off the wall DEA interogator, who immediately rubs Nielsen's Osborne up the wrong way. The cast of this film gels together really well and are all utterly believable for me.

The plot is highly complex and to some might seem convoluted, however to them I say all you need to do is concentrate. As my wife says, trying to watch this hungover or drunk is not the way to go with this film, your complete concentration is needed in order to fully appreciate this film. The twists are turns it makes might need multiple watchings in order to appreciate them, but I think it is well worth it.

Deep down this is a murder mystery whodunnit type film, and I am a sucker for these types of films, I love to watch them play out before my eyes, and with this one it is no different. Clever twisty and very enjoyable. It is a thinker but definitely worth it, which is why I am giving this film...

★★★★☆

Bad Boys II

Bad Boys 2 (2003) starring Martin Lawrence, Will Smith, Gabrielle Union, Jordi Mollà and Joe Pantoliano.

Before...I honestly can't remember what I felt about it before watching it. This time, however, I was hoping for the same kind of fun and enjoyment I expect from Michael Bay films, I was hoping that it wouldn't be one of those films that I would watch again and be disappointed about re-watching!

Mike Lowrey (Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Lawrence), who are part of the Miami PD's Tactical Narcotics Team (TNT), still don't always get along, and now they're keeping secrets from each other. Mike's secret is that he's been seeing Marcus' sister, Sydney "Syd" Burnett (Union), a reported paper pusher for the DEA's New York office. Marcus's secret is that he has asked for a transfer, because he wants to spend more time with his family, and less time with Mike. That's all set aside when their boss, Captain Howard (Pantoliano), assigns them to stop the flow of record amounts of ecstasy into the city. This puts Mike and Marcus on the trail of the most dangerous enemy that they have ever faced...Cuban drug kingpin Hector Juan Carlos "Johnny" Tapia (Molia), who wants to take control of the entire ecstasy trade in the USA, and is working with local dealers and club owners such as Russian mafia boss Alexei. Every time the Miami PD has ever arrested Tapia, Tapia has sued the Miami PD for false arrest, and won millions of dollars. This has caused the department to back off and not go after Tapia. Well, everyone has backed off except for Mike and Marcus, who have never faced Tapia before. Now, it seems that Tapia is using a mortuary as a cover for his operations, smuggling ecstacy hidden inside dead bodies, while sending his money to Cuba in hidden compartments in the coffins. While Mike and Marcus try to bring Tapia down, they also deal with the discovery that Syd is actually working undercover for the DEA to bring down a money laundering operation run by Alexei, and as part of her undercover job, Syd is in deep with Tapia. When Haitian gangsters try to steal Tapia's money and kill Syd, the two investigations cross paths. Syd's cover is later blown, and she is kidnapped by Tapia, who takes her to his compound in Cuba. With the unofficial help of people from the CIA, the Miami PD, and anti-Castro forces in Cuba, Mike and Marcus head out to rescue Syd, and bring Tapia down. How far will Tapia go to keep his drug empire? And how far will Marcus and Mike go to rescue Syd?

My wife says "Thrills and spills. It was designed for boys but that doesn't mean girls can't enjoy it too. A bit complicated for a film that is essentially car chases, gun fights and pretty women. There was some very silly boyish jokes. Generally enjoyable. Probably more enjoyable next time as I will know what the plot is and who the characters are. ★★★☆☆"

Where to start...The film, even after all these many action films, still manages, for me, to stand the test of time and be one of the most enjoyable and ridiculously fun movies out there. Mindless fun is how to describe it really. No the film has no definitive aim, other than wanting to blow things up really and that is what we get, especially from the first car chase. The first car chase is utterly stunning, the way it is filmed and the construct of it all is brilliant.

For me Smith and Lawrence are a perfect partnership. They both play off each other brilliantly and their comic backgrounds are evident from watching this film, especially when it comes to the guys interogating Lawrences' onscreen daughter. The issues for me come up when the film starts to go down a slightly sicker route, e.g. corpse tossing.

The issues really come to a head when the film passed the 2 hour mark...a good action movie, unless it has a fantastic plot, should not under any circumstances pass the 2 hour mark. Bay has created a film that has all elements of a perfect action, the problem is that he has added a bit too many explosions, a few too many car chases and a few too many bad gags (and if you know me the fact that I think there are too many is definitely saying something)!! So all in all there is a bit of a mixed bag here. Great in some parts, awful in others! Which leads me to give this film...

★★★☆☆

The Aviator

The Aviator (2004) starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin, and Alan Alda.

Before...with the amount of hype and awards it garnered I was really looking forward to seeing this film. The thing that made me nervous about this film was the length...could Leo keep me captivated for that long...could a story about a guy I'd never heard of keep me interested...only one way to find out let's watch it!!

Focusing on his early years (from the 1930 production of 'Hell's Angels' to the 1947 test flight of the Blue Spruce, when he was 42), this is the story of how young Howard Hughes transformed a small fortune into a massive one. The son of the Texan inventor of an amazing drill bit who died when he was 18, leaving him with 75% of the "Hughes Tool Co.", Howard Hughes (DiCaprio) quickly moved to Los Angeles to become a Hollywood film producer, where he helped launch the career of Jean Harlow and other starlets, and producing such classics as Hell's Angels, The Front Page, Flying Leathernecks, and Scarface (the 1932 original), eventually owning RKO Pictures. Hughes' legend came not from focusing on just Hollywood, however, as he simultaneously branched into industry after industry, including aviation in 1932 (including TWA Airlines), and during WWII, defense, leading to the creation of the (infamous) Spruce Goose, a flying boat of immense size. After WWII, Hughes' expansions continued, with an electronics company that was integral to the evolution of the satellite, and Hughes' several Las Vegas casinos (though this film may be ending before he moves there). This film will also focus on Hughes' romances with Hollywood stars like Katharine Hepburn (Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Beckinsale). (Baldwin plays the president of their competitor, Pan Am and Alda plays the senator trying to publically humiliate him)

My wife's view..."First time I watched it I was bored, but this time I could follow what was going on a little bit easier. Charming acting from the ladies, excellent acting from DiCaprio and that's what really makes it. Interesting story, but my husband tells me it's not quite how it happened in real life. Not a date movie. If you are gonna watch it, watch it twice! ★★★★☆

Where to start...First things first, Leonardo DiCaprio in this film is incredible. He is on screen practically from start to finish and at no point did I tire of him. DiCaprio is truly an incredible actor, and from seeing him in this and also The Departed he is becoming one of my favourite actors. Really looking forward to Shutter Island coming out at the start of 2010, trailer looks great!

The other actors around him do amazingly as well. All simply boosting his performances into the stratosphere, which is what supporting actors should do...all of them do this amazingly...all except Cate Blanchett. Blanchett, instead of taking the supporting actor role, seems to have decided to fight it out with Leo as to who is the better actor. When on screen together they both are fantastic. As Hepburn, Blanchett is stunning, not only does she look like her but also she acts near to exactly what she was like, simply incredible!!

Aside from that the plot of the film is great, though since researching about Hughes they seem to have missed out a few seemingly key facts, like that he was initially married. It leaves you feeling that maybe they Hollywoodised his life just that bit too much, which I can't understand why. For me it seems that Howard Hughes' life is so fantastical that no embellishment is needed. Ah well, maybe that's just my problem. All in all because of that I am going to give it...

★★★★☆

Addicted to Love

Addicted to Love (1997) starring Meg Ryan, Matthew Broderick, Kelly Preston, and Tchéky Karyo.

Before...Meg Ryan is not my favouritest of actresses, yes she has done some good films but I just find her plain annoying! On the other hand this film has Matthew Broderick...who I think is just awesome, my wife thought I was going to type "gorgeous"...no! It is a film that from the trailer is seemingly about two stalkers who want their ex's back...I went into this film with trepidation but intrigue, as my wife "loves" this film...then again she does love most films that she watches!

Good-natured astronomer Sam (Broderick) is devastated when the love of his life, Linda (Preston), leaves him for a suave Frenchman named Anton (Karyo). He therefore does what every other normal dumpee would do; go to New York and set up home in the abandoned building opposite his ex-girlfriend's apartment, intent on winning her back and waiting until she decides to leave her current lover. What Sam does not count on is being joined several weeks later by ultra hip tomboy Maggie (Ryan), a photographer and motor-cyclist who is determined to get revenge on Anton, her ex-fiance. Hostile at first, the two of them eventually join forces in an attempt to separate the couple, and ruin Anton's life. However, complications ensue when Sam and Maggie start falling for each other.

My wifes view...let me guess before she has her input though...something along the lines of I love it maybe...lets see..."It is a bit of rubbish, but I do watch it quite often. I like the idea of a Big Brother-esque telly (no not the channel 4 kind!!) on your wall. It's not my favourite but it is one to watch when you are feeling poorly, not as good as How to make an American Quilt for those occasions though. I guess it's just for colds not raging flu, for raging flu you need How to make an American Quilt. I think I liked it better when I was 15 than I do now. It is a bit adolescent. ★★★☆☆"

Where to start...as I said...I find Ryan highly annoying and it is kinda odd seeing her in a role out of the ordinary girl next door role. In my view, she, like Hugh Grant in About a Boy, suits this kind of different role better than her normal girl next door role. Broderick plays the same character he always does and does it brilliantly. In every role he does he brings his genius, in my view. Ferris Bueller, War Games, The Stepford Wives, Election, Inspector Gadget, and Godzilla. Broderick is great in this film.

The plot is kinda weak and creepy if I'm honest. Two people watching their ex's through a camera obscura...slightly odd if I'm honest. This is not, as my wife says, "your typical get your ex back film", it is a bit more twisted and dark though hidden in a romantic comedy guise. The acting is great but the concept is odd. It is an immature odd film that you can't help but smile at but at the same time you feel uncomfortable about it.

All in all great acting but a bit of an odd idea for a movie. Sufficed to say when Laura has a cold I will let her get on with it if she decides to watch this film...

★★★☆☆

About a Boy

About a Boy (2002) starring Hugh Grant, Nicholas Hoult, and Toni Collette.

Before...well first off, I was intrigued that the Weitz brothers were taking on such a beloved Hornby book. These are the brothers who brought American Pie into the world, so to hear that they were doing this made me nervous. On the other hand having read the book I was excited to see how it panned out....so a mixture of feelings were present...

Will Freeman (Grant) is a hip Londoner who one day realizes that his friends are all involved with the responsibilities of married life and that leaves him alone in the cold. Passing himself off as a single father, he starts to meet a string of single mums, confident in his ability to leave them behind when they start to ask for a commitment. But Will's hope of a continued bachelorhood is interrupted when he meets 12-year old Marcus (Hoult), in many ways his complete opposite. So he begins his journey of growing up as he helps Marcus deal with issues surrounding his mother (Collette).

My wife's view..."Loaf of bread, need I say more?? I love it! Everytime I watch it I love it. Insightful, even wise, funny, beautiful. Every scene is a gem. Music is lovely. Everyone is lovely. It is Hugh Grants best role ever. Let's watch it again. ★★★★★" Ladies and Gentlemen...my wife!!

Where to start...this is the first film for me where Hugh Grant isn't the annoying idiot that he is in most of his films. He is not the foppish fool that he is in other films. Grant in this film is an arrogant obnoxious prat of a man to start with. Completely self centred and horrible and this is a really refreshing role for Grant, it is a real shame, in my opinion, that he hasn't done more films with this type of character...instead he has been type cast. Hoult is an inspiration in his role as Marcus. Refreshingly honest and brilliant.

The plot also is fantastic, that though isn't due to anyone other than Nick Hornby in my view. His book is brilliant, and the film changes certain sections of it but it doesn't lose the essence of the book in my view.

The other stellar performer of this film is the music. The soundtrack is written by Damon Gough, otherwise known as Badly Drawn Boy. It is rare that one artist is chosen to write AND perform all the tracks of a soundtrack, however as my wife says "it is perfect as it gives it some flow". The film moves from one scene to another fantastically. You could just close your eyes and listen to the film, the soundtrack is that good.

And so to my final words on the film. Fantastic acting, wonderful music and based on a brilliant book. Not the best film in the world in my view, which from the noises emenating from my wife means she completely disagrees with me. Not the best, but still up there...which leads me to give this film...

★★★★☆

Austin Powers

Austin Powers (1997) starring Mike Myers, Elizabeth Hurley, Michael York, and Seth Green.

Before...wow, it has been so long ago that I saw this film that I can't even remember a time before seeing this film, how sad is that. Anyway, kinda wasn't really looking forward to rewatching it. It is a classic but still very childish humour...would I be wrong?

Austin Powers (Myers) is a 60's spy who is cryonically frozen and released in the 1990's. The world is a very different place for Powers. Unfortunately for Austin, everyone is no longer sex-mad. Although he may be in a different decade, his mission is still the same. He has been teamed up by his boss (York) with Vanessa Kensington (Hurley) to stop the evil Dr. Evil (Myers), who was also frozen in the past.

My wife's view..."Good fun but kind of annoying. I've never watched this film by choice and probably never will, nevertheless it was quite enjoyable. ★★☆☆☆"

Where to start...childish and silly, this is a film you have to be in the right frame of mind for in my view. It is incredibly over the top and ridiculous, much in the same way that Anchorman is. Both of these films have been created by Saturday Night Live alumni's and it is easy to see their similarities in type of humour. They are entertainment at it's best in some ways...part of me however wants something more, I definitely know that my humour has matured since I originally watched this film.

Myers has to be commended for re-invigorating the multi-role portrayal in this film, it was 3 years later that Murphy did his role as the multi-tude of characters in Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps. For Myers this was only the beginning of developing this, as in Austin Powers 2 and 3 he created more characters in which to pour further jokes.

The brilliant thing about this film is that Myers hits the comedic nail on the head. It is funny in all the right places and doesn't over step the mark, which is an issue for the sequels. As I noted earlier though, you definitely need to be in a silly mood to truly appreciate this film, because of this I have struggled to give it more than...

★★★☆☆

Armageddon

Armageddon (1998) starring Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler, Michael Clarke Duncan and Steve Buscemi.

Before...it has been so long since I first saw this and I cannot remember what I was thinking before seeing it. Possibly I was excited at the prospect of a big action movie with explosions but honestly I can't remember. What I do know is that I saw it at the cinema and enjoyed it. Before seeing it this time, if I am honest I was not looking forward to it. I had remembered it for being a love story and forgotten all of the action surrounding it...

After New York City is damaged by hundreds of small meteorites, NASA and Dan Truman (Thornton) discovers an asteroid the size of Texas is on a collision course with Earth. They recruit the best deep core driller in the world, Harry Stamper (Willis), to train astronauts who will go to the asteroid, drill into the center and detonate a nuclear warhead. Harry says he can't train men how to drill in ten days, so he brings in his own team (Affleck, Buscemi to name but two) of roughnecks to learn to become astronauts and get the job done. Stamper must come to terms with risking losing everything, including his daughter (Tyler), in order to save the planet.

My wife's view..."I think it is probably one of my favourite disaster/end of the world films. Great fun, and easy viewing everytime. I hate Ben Affleck, but he is actually quite appealing in this. Very Hollywoodised, very smooth, very funny. Will make you cry...in a good way. I like it. ★★★★☆"

Where to start...well as I said I came into this film with trepidation and fear, and then it began. First scene a MASSIVE explosion as metorites showered down on the earth blowing things up. All fear flew away and I was excited about watching the film. Then the humour came, the film actually was very hilarious. There are quite a few laugh out loud moments, for instance where Bear (Clarke Duncan) and some other members of the drilling team join in with A.J. (Affleck) in singing "Leaving on a jet plane". CLASSIC!!

The key issue with this film is the fact that it decides to forgo the jeers and taunts about it being far too over the top in it's cheesiness. In fact, if it cut all of that out of the film then there wouldn't be much left to the film. However it is that mix of cheesiness and action that somehow makes Bay's films work absolutely.

The film has it's action, it has its hammy acting and it has it's humour. All of this put together create one of Michael Bay's best films. Stylish slick and brilliant, just a bit cheesy sometimes. This is why this film gets...

★★★★☆

Annie Hall

Annie Hall (1977) starring Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Paul Simon, and Shelley Duvall.

Before...A classic, possibly one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of the 20th century, so it had a lot to live up to if I am honest. Not watched many Woody Allen movies but I think I should try and watch more...

Romantic adventures of neurotic New York comedian Alvy Singer (Allen) and his equally neurotic girlfriend Annie Hall (Keaton). The film traces the course of their relationship from their first meeting, and serves as an insight into Singer's mind.

My wife's view..."I think I would have really liked this film if instead of choosing what kind of dog I would like I had actually paid attention. The bits I saw were quite funny. There is no rating for this one as I focused to much on the dogs...SORRY!!" Note to wife...focus on film and not silly frivolity!

Where to start...I love this film, and not just because I am a sheep who follows what the majority of the world tells me to enjoy. The thing that I love most about this film, much like with Virginia Woolf's books is that Allen decides to use stream of conscience as his key film style. Whether this is what he always uses and it is a common feature in his writing I don't know as this is the only film of Woody Allen that I have seen. I now await the mass of people telling me how shocked they are that I have only seen one Woody Allen film...

Anyway...the film has an excellent plot. The acting, well if you count Allen acting as himself as acting then it's brilliant, but from what I know he plays himself in every single movie. It is his opposite number that makes the film in my view. Keaton is marvellous in her role as Annie Hall, and it was only 20 minutes in that my wife actually realised who she was, and she loves her!!

So all in all this film is brilliant, a true classic. It is one of these films that changed the face of films. Allen is a genius and is able to completely captivate his audience. So because of that welcome to another of my favourite films...

Angela's Ashes

Angela's Ashes (1999) starring Emily Watson, Robert Carlyle, Joe Breen, Ciaran Owens, and Michael Legge.

Before...had heard about it, and had heard many good things about it. Though just before we started my wife did say that it was an extremely depressing film and I should be ready for it...this didn't fill me with confidence...

Based on the best selling autobiography by Irish expat Frank McCourt (Breen, Owens, Legge), Angela's Ashes follows the experiences of young Frankie and his family as they try against all odds to escape the poverty endemic in the slums of pre-war Limerick. The film opens with the family in Brooklyn, but following the death of one of Frankie's siblings, they return home, only to find the situation there even worse. Prejudice against Frankie's Northern Irish father (Carlyle) makes his search for employment in the Republic difficult despite his having fought for the IRA, and when he does find money, he spends the money on drink. His mother (Watson) continues to strive against all this pain and suffering and helps Frank as much as possible.

My wife's views..."Prepare yourself for some gritty reality. Piss on your head, puke on your shoes, and die on the doorstep stuff. Utterly miserable, but pretty beautiful. Kinda of like having a colonic, you really ought to watch it but it's not always pleasant. ★★★★☆"

Where to start...well see above if I am brutally honest, my wife has hit the nail on the head. The acting is gritty and realistic. Frank as he grows up turns from an excellent young actor to a rather cheesy and hammed up actor. In his youngest form (Breen) though Frank is amusing and full of emotional depth, which is very impressive for such a young actor. Carlyle gives his role the right sort of depth you would expect of such a seasoned actor, and Watson as always is fantastic in her role.

The other true star of the film is Ireland itself. Although we do not see the rolling hills of Ireland we are given a real gritty portrayal of what inner city Ireland is like, and it is not a nice one, but that all adds to the atmosphere of the piece.

A beautiful and passionate portrayal of Frank McCourt's book, it is a truly Irish Alan Parker film, the only other one that springs to mind is The Commitments, and this is a very different side of Ireland. Seemingly beautiful but dreadfully sad, be prepared with your tissues and enjoy this film that I am going to give...

★★★★☆

Anchorman

Anchorman (2004) starring Will Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, and David Koechner.

Before...the very first time I watched this I had no expectations from this film because it was a movie that slipped me by. I hadn't even heard of it. Now...seeing for the umpteenth time, it is one of my favourite comedies. It is completely ridiculous and you HAVE to go into this movie knowing that, otherwise you will go into it and not enjoy it. So, I have no doubt I will enjoy this movie as I always have.

Ron Burgundy (Ferrell) is the top-rated anchorman in San Diego in the '70s. The team (Rudd, Carell, and Koechner) behind him back him all the way. When feminism marches into the newsroom in the form of ambitious newswoman Veronica Corningstone (Applegate), Ron is willing to play along at first-as long as Veronica stays in her place, covering cat fashion shows, cooking, and other "female" interests. But when Veronica refuses to settle for being eye candy and steps behind the news desk, it's more than a battle between two perfectly coiffed anchor-persons... it's war.

My wife's views..."Didn't really like Will Ferrell, but I liked his possy. The fight scene was awesome, but the humour was weak, the plot was poor and it isn't one I would like to watch again too soon. Entertaining enough but not the best. I think it would be more fun to be in the film than watching it. ★★★☆☆ [BUT only because of the fight scene otherwise it would be ★★☆☆☆]"

Where to start...at times this film fumbles over it's focus and plot. It seems instead happy to hop from one joke to another, much like another Airplane movie. It almost feels that the cast never actually got a script and instead were free styling it for the whole 94 minutes. At times this comes acropper, but at other times it works like a dream. The stumbly fumbly nature of the plot mirrors the character of Ron Burgundy, scatty and disordered. The lack of focus works in this case, it is very strange, it just gels and works as a film, which is rare.

The acting in this is great, each of the actors plays their roles to perfection, the particular stand out role for me is Brick Tamland (Carell). Carell plays the village idiot and he does it with such pizaz and humour that he is easily the best thing about this film, and that is a really big compliment, because the cast as a whole are absolutely hilarious. Applegate, Carell, Ferrell, Koechner and Rudd all play their parts fantastically in the film and it really comes out as a true ensemble piece.

As with all comedies the drive of this film is all about the funniness of it all, and although ridiculous it is has its brilliantly hilarious moments. All in all there is no depth to it, and it is very shallow and this is why it only gets...

★★★☆☆

The Happening

The Happening (2009) Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, Ashlyn Sanchez and John Leguizamo.

Before...If I am honest I hadn't heard a good thing about this film, all of the reviews highlighted its shortcomings and none praised it at all, so I wasn't brimming with confidence about what it would be like. But as always I was looking forward to watching another film!

Elliot Moore (Wahlberg) is a high school science teacher who quizzes his class one day about an article in the New York Times. It's about the sudden, mysterious disappearance of bees. Yet again Nature is doing something inexplicable, and whatever science has to say about it will be, in the end, only a theory. Scientists will bring out more theories, but no explanations, when a more urgent dilemma hits the planet. It begins in Central Park. Suddenly and inexplicably, the behaviour of everyone in the park changes in a most bizarre and horrible way. Soon, the strange behaviour spreads throughout the city and beyond. Elliot, his wife, Alma (Deschanel) , and Julian (Leguizamo), his friend, Jess (Sanchez), Julian's young daughter, will only have theories to guide them where to run and where to hide. But theories may not be enough.

Where to start...the acting in this film is flater than a freshly cooked crepe. It was awful. Until this film I rated Wahlberg as good actor, but there is not only no emotion in his performance but the interaction that he has with other characters is stumbled and very messy. I wished for nothing more than a bit of heart to be added to this film, but I never got it. I didn't care for the characters throughout the film and I lay the blame at the feet of the acting for that.

If I didn't care for the characters due to the acting what does that say about the plot. Well it was confusing, jumbled and had no real direction to it. The whole concept of trees being the bad guy just doesn't do it for me, there just aren't that sinister at all. At one point in M. Night Shyamalan's career he was considered to be a highly accomplished director and writer. Then Lady in the Water came along, he moved to being just an accomplished director...and now this. He has created a movie devoid of characterisation and devoid of plot. In looking at the poster it is almost as if he knows he is on a losing streak, he is trying to remind people of the great movies he has made. A man desperate to pull back good memories. The only thing that he has going for him is The Last Airbender, a stunning film that looks like it could be something real special!

All in all I found this movie lacking in anything...plot, awful. Acting, dreadful. Scenery, clichéd. Again this is another movie that I could not find a single thing good about it...and so welcome to the second movie that recieves...

☆☆☆☆☆

Journey to the Center of the Earth

Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) starring Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson, and Anita Briem.

Before...I feared this film. A take on Jules Vernes classic Journey to the Center of the Earth with Fraser, who at times can be great and at others can be down right awful. What more due to seeing it on the small screen, rather than in the cinema, I wouldn't get the benefit of the 3D imagery unfortunately. So all in all my hopes were low for this film.

Professor Trevor Anderson (Fraser) receives his teenager nephew Sean Anderson (Hutcherson). He will spend ten days with his uncle while his mother, Elizabeth, prepares to move to Canada. She gives a box to Trevor that belonged to his missing brother, Max, and Trevor finds a book with references to the last journey of his brother. He decides to follow the steps of Max with Sean and they travel to Iceland, where they meet the guide Hannah Ásgeirsson (Briem). While climbing a mountain, there is a thunderstorm and they protect themselves in a cave. However, a lightening collapses the entrance and the trio is trapped in the cave. They seek an exit and falls in a hole, discovering a lost world in the center of the Earth.

Where to start...this film was meant to be seen 3D and it would have been a lot better if I had seen it such. The non-3D version doesn't cut any shots, it simply have the zooming out of the screen-ness that 3D films give you. It is a real showcase for 3D films and even though I didn't see it in 3D I could almost imagine each and every 3D shot that I saw without the need for the 3D glasses. This is the real shame, not of the film, but of the fact that I didn't see it in 3D.

The acting is brilliantly camp and it works fantastically. Fraser camps it up brilliantly, as does his fellow two key actors. There is an honesty and a realism that gives the film the lightness and humour to lift it in the league of other films of it's kind, here I refer to Robert Rodriguez's Spy Kids films all of which I have a lot of time for.

The difference between this and Rodriguez's Spy Kids films is that this is more adult friendly. The subtle adult humour of the piece is not unlike the sort of humour you would expect from Disney/Pixar films. It does it fantastically, the odd nod suggests a depth of film knowledge that hints at Indy/Rick O'Connell-esque fun. It is this type of role that Fraser excels in.

The plot jumps from peril to peril and yet it does it in such a way that lifts it above the other films that are similar to it. Through the humour and also the Indy style adventure this is a film that surprisingly was very entertaining and I look forward to Fraser doing more of this type of work. A thoroughly enjoyable blockbuster like this definitely deserves...

★★★★☆

American History X

American History X (1998) starring Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, Avery Brooks, Ethan Suplee, and Stacy Keach.

Before...this was a film I first watched around the same time as American Beauty and like that at the time I thought it was brilliant. Although it had a message to deliver it did it really well. This is one of my all time favourite films, so I can't see it changing with tonight's viewing.

After Derek Vinyard's (Norton) father is killed in the line of duty by a blackman, Derek's view of mankind is altered, but while in prison, he discovers that there is good and bad in every race. Derek returns from prison, where he was sent because he killed two blackmen, to find his younger brother, Danny (Furlong), caught in the same web of racism and hatred that landed him in prison. The task before him now is to convince Danny of his newfound enlightenment.

My fiancee's views..."It was highly sanctimonious but it was a good effort, someone had to make a film on the topic. ★★★☆☆"

Where to start...the one thing that hit me when I watched it this time, with my fiancee's helping to form my views, was the highly preachy nature of it. The reason I noticed it so much was Laura, she picked up on it through out the film, and to be honest it is there, but I think it kinda has to be there. With a film that deals with Nazism and how the young people of American are being sucked into it, if there isn't some sort of message then the writer has got it wrong. It is a good thing that David McKenna kept true to the material and gave the audience a thought-provokng, albeit, preachy message.

The acting is top rate. Ethan Suplee, as Nortons misguided friend, and Avery Brooks, as the headmaster of the school, both give excellent performances, but it is Norton's performance in the film that sticks with you. On one side you see a psychopathic killer and on the other you see a caring family man who only wants what is best for his family. There are many actors who can switch between roles in different films but the fact that Norton does it within the same film makes it all the more impressive for me.

The plot is simplistic, but not in a bad way. It notes the rise and fall of Derek as a White Supremacist and it does it fantastically, there is a small amount of shame over the clichéd ending, however I cannot see a better way to hammer home the films message. The plot wanted to portray and stark and real message to it's viewers and it is done wondefully.

As I look back over this film I find it hard to see the flaws, yes the ending is slightly clichéd, yes the film tries (and succeeds in my opinion) in ramming a message down your throat, but ultimately I feel that it needs this. In this film is both Beauty and the Beast, beauty being the film and the beast being the horrific and necessary scenes that are portrayed in order to see the two sides of the character. If you want to see a stark portrayal of modern day racism please watch this. I cannot praise this movie enough.

American Beauty

American Beauty (1999) starring Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Wes Bentley, Mena Suvari, and Chris Cooper.

Before...again another one of those films that came out a long time ago. I saw it for the first time on DVD and was completely captivated by the filming. It was a marvel, the director had really thought about every single shot. Looking back on it now I still see it as one of my favourite films...will I have the same view of it 8 years later?

Lester (Spacey) and Carolyn Burnham (Bening) are on the outside, a perfect husband and wife, in a perfect house, in a perfect neighborhood. But inside, Lester is slipping deeper and deeper into a hopeless depression. He finally snaps when he becomes infatuated with one of his daughter's friends (Suvari). Meanwhile, his daughter Jane (Birch) is developing a happy relationship with a shy boy-next-door named Ricky (Bentley), who lives with a homophobic father (Cooper).

My fiancee's views..."Weird and creepy, and not one that I will rush to watch again anytime soon. I also thought that the acting was poop.★★☆☆☆"

Where to start...looking at it 8 years later, my view of it has changed. Through watching it with my fiancee, I talked wth her about it and started to understand some of her views of it. It is hardly the most happy film, looking at some quite hard hitting topics. It doesn't shy away from the topics and shows them in an honest light, which is refreshing. It portrays the darker heart of American Suburbia, which is actually fascinating; looking at drugs, underage sex and homosexuality. All these things the film portrays as taboo, whether they are or not we are getting the views of the characters, not the views of America as a whole.

The acting in this film is fantastic, Spacey puts in an Oscar winning performance. It is not just him that gives what I consider a career best. Bening, nominated for an Oscar, Birch, Bentley and Cooper all give stellar performances. Each of the actors in it are born for the parts they play, Sam Mendes got the casting perfect. For me though it is Bentley's role as Ricky Fittsin the film thats the stand out one.

The thing in the film that makes me want to watch it again and again is the visual imagery. The use of the camera's in the film deliver the films true push for it to be considered a masterpiece. It is in cinematography that the film truly triumphs, and it is testament to the fact that Conrad L. Hall got the Oscar for Best Cinematography. From delivering fantastic imagery in Lester's dreams to the stunning use of the camcorder imagery done by Ricky Fitts, from the stark bare look of the rooms to the different array of camera shots, Hall has created a sumptuous piece of visual imagery. It is wonderful.

All in all it didn't have the same impact as it did 8 years ago, visually stunning yes, but in watching it with my fiancee I saw a more soap opera side of it. There is definitely more of a clichéd soap opera element to it than I remember. The ending is terribly clichéd, giving it an almost murder mystery quality to it that detracts from the fantastic story. It is this clichéd element that brings the movie down from the five star rating I would have given it to...

★★★★☆

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (2009) starring Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint.

Before...I was thoroughly looking forward to this film. The fact that I had to organise to go and see it with one of my fiancée's best friends as my fiancee wouldn't touch it with a barge pole made it all the more amusing. The reviews had not been kind but I still looked forward to it, mainly because the key grumbles about the film are the acting and that winds me up something rotten!! Anyway, I'll get onto that later.

In the sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft, and in both wizard and muggle worlds Lord Volemort and his henchmen are increasingly active. With vacancies to fill at Hogwarts, Professor Dumbledore (Gambon) persuades Horace Slughorn (Broadbent), back from retirement to become the potions teacher, while Professor Snape (Rickman) receives long awaited news that he is the new Defence against the Dark Arts teacher. Harry Potter (Radcliffe), together with Dumbledore, must face treacherous tasks to defeat his evil nemesis. Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson), as ever, are there by Harry's side to help him when needed.

Where to start...the main issue I have with the film is the plot. It is unfortunate that the script writers have simply only taken the essence of the book into the film. There are some key plot holes that are present, which means that only people who have read the book will understand what is going on. This is a real bizarre decision in my view, I know for a fact that there are some people out there who haven't read the books because "I'm not a book sort of person", and so their only knowledge of the Harry Potter world is through the films, and because of that they lose some of the vital plot details that are present within the books, eg what exactly a Horcrux is! There is little new exposition, and they even leave a key section of the book out from the film, presumably they will put it in at the start of the next movie.

My earlier comment about the acting in my "before" section is present because time and time again it is the acting of the younger cast that is condemned by reviewers and my retort to that is...what do you expect? The casting people chose the younger cast nearly 10 years ago now, and they choose children who maybe looked the part and enjoyed acting. So condemning the actors for their lack of believability is ridiculous in my view. Take them for what they are, 3 children who got lucky being chosen for one of the biggest film franchises in the world. Yes they aren't the best actors in the world but then again few child actors come out good do they...see AI for my comments about Haley Joel Osment. The acting overall I think is good, the younger cast are ok and the elder actors are fantastic as always.

The use of CGI in the film is excellent, as it is with all of the series so far. Especially the opening destruction of the Millenium bridge. I really liked how they used the first person perspective flying through the city...I am told that in 3D it looked stunning. Also one of the final sequences in the film, the scene in the cave, is brilliant. All in all though, it seems that they simply have used this film as a stepping stone in preparation for the next movie.

Overall, I was stunned by the spectacle of the film and excited by what is to come in the next films. The darkness was at the right level and because of the amount of darkness it never should have been given the 12A certificate that it got. I look forward to the next films, though at the same time, I am nervous that they too will be given 12A certificates and therefore will lose the sufficient darkness that they should have. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, even though the plot goes haywire at some points, and for that reason I am going to give this film...

★★★★☆

A.I. : Artificial Intelligence

AI: Artificial Intelligence (2001) starring Haley Joel Osment, Frances O'Connor, Sam Robards, Jake Thomas, Jude Law, and William Hurt.

Before...I have a deep love for this movie...well...all apart from the last 30 minutes of the film. Hopefully I will watch it this time and it will change my view of it...I am doubtful but who knows!

In the not-so-far future the polar ice caps have melted and the resulting raise of the ocean waters has drowned all the coastal cities of the world. Withdrawn to the interior of the continents, the human race keeps advancing, reaching to the point of creating realistic robots (called mechas) to serve him. One of the mecha-producing companies directors (Hurt) decides to build David, an artificial child which is the first to have real feelings. Henry Swinton's (Robards) family, a worker in the company, is selected to be the first family to own one. Monica (O'Connor) is the woman who adopted him as a substitute for her real son (Thomas), who remains in cryo-stasis, stricken by an incurable disease. David is living happily with Monica and her husband, but when their real son returns home after a cure is discovered, his life changes dramatically. David goes on the run after an accident and meets up with Gigolo Joe (Law), he and Joe go off to try and find out how make him a real boy.

My fiancée's view..."Really scary teddy bear. Bizarre role for Jude Law. All a bit too dark for me. Not looking forward to having to watch it again. ★★☆☆☆"

Where to start...the films problem persists to be the ending for me. There is not much that I can say about it without ruining the film to be honest. The majority of the film is dark and sinister, and this is what I love about it. Unfortunately, however, the ending is the Spielberg happy ending that people have come to expect. It is highly disappointing, especially as this was meant to be Stanley Kubrick's next film. Spielberg turned it from being a dark masterpiece into being clichéd and sickly sweet. Cut the last 30/40 minutes of the film out and you have perfection in my view...It should have been dark and Spielberg spoilt it, in my view.

The acting in the film is simply sublime, I repeatedly forgot that Law and Osment were actors and was completely convinced that they were robots...which is a very bizarre thing to say. Osment is incredible in his part, he is cold when he needs to be cold and warm when he needs to be warm. Back when it first came out Osment was billed as being the next big child actor, yet 8 years later and he still has to produce anything of any merit as an adult. Who knows he may still yet come up trumps...Law is also fantastic. His role in the film is magnificent, slick and stylish, he plays a Fred Astaire type gigolo and he is utterly convincing in this role. Whether this should be worrying or not, all I know is that Law is brilliant in this film.

Another brilliant thing about the film is that it, like many other Kubrick films (yes I know Spielberg directed it but I will always see it as Kubrickian in essence, apart from the end that is!!) it looks at topics that provoke debate. The film looks at some weighty philosophical questions: what does it mean to be real? What does it mean to love? Does being able to love make us real? And the real tough one: Is there a price to love? Although some people like to disconnect when they watch films, I think that every once in a while it is good to watch a film that truly makes you think and that sparks debate, and this is certainly one of those films!

Another thing that is truly impressive about this film is the CGI. Most of the time it blends so well that you question whether it is real or not. The Flesh Fair and Rouge City are two of the most impressive pieces of CGI I have seen, and that includes some of the recent films I have seen. Terminator 2 was groundbreaking in way of CGI and it is the same, in my view it is the exact same thing with AI. There are few films even now that come up to the technical genius of this film. It is simply sublime. The final act of the film, even though completely disjointed from the rest of the film has it's merits through the CGI. I cannot praise Spielberg, ILM and the Stan Winston Studio enough for their work. You may not have heard of the Stan Winston Studio, but they are the people that created all of the models and animatronics used on set. Simply stunning!

Usually I try and have 5 key points about the movie, but I feel I am starting to waffle in this revew so I am going to end it here. This film is TRULY remarkable and I love it, but it still comes down to the final act of the film. That is what ultimate takes away that star, yes it provokes debate and conversation about the film, but also in my eyes it ruins the original vision that Kubrick had of this film. If/when you watch it you can see at what point it should have ended in my view. Spielberg, it seems, needs to learn that sometimes it doesn't have to be the fairy tale happy ending. So for that reason AI gets...

★★★★☆