Fracture

Despite a brace of good actors and some convincing acting this movie is let down by its very predicatable plot. Where the screenplay required plot twists the best that Daniel Pyne and Glenn Gers could deliver were kinks.

Fracture

Plot: 13/20
Acting: 17/20
Production: 16/20
Entertainment: 20/40

---

Total: 66/100

The cinematography and soundtrack work very well to provide a suitably dark backdrop to this film noir-esque movie but Anthony Hopkins draws to heavily from his role as Hannibal Lector in the Silence of the Lambs giving you a very real sense of deja vu all the way through.

Spider Man 3

I was a bit wary or this movie before I even got to the cinema. I'd seen the reviews and knew that it wasn't going to be a classic, but having seen the previous two installments I couldn't really not go and see this, final installment.

The credits at the beginning were pretty rubbish, and this worried me for the first few minutes of the movie, my previously comfortable seat all of a sudden felt a little less so. Without giving to much away, the movie begins with Peter pretty much on top of the world, everyone loves Spider Man and he's basking in the reflected glory, and being generally rather soporific.

Spider Man 3

Plot: 12/20
Acting: 17/20
Production: 16/20
Entertainment: 20/40

---

Total: 65/100

Rather predictably things rapidly begin to deteriorate and old and new 'bad guys' start to appear with the inevitable consequences following. A twist or two here might have helped to keep my interest at this point but Sam & Ivan Raimi's screenplay was a shining beacon of straightness that should stand as an example to apriring builders and road engineers everywhere.

Any guesses as to how the story ends? If you were to say Spider man defeats his enemies and gets the girl, you wouldn't be far off and that's the problem, the entire movie is entirely predictable.

I'd like to say that the acting and special effects detract from the deficiencies of the plot, but they don't. The performances by the actors is commendable and I'm sure that they followed the direction of Sam Raimi precisely, but the unfortunate consequence of this is that they just emphasise the poor quality of the plot.

There were times when the performances and plot worked together to bring smiles, laughs and general hilarity to the entire audience at the cinema but there were not enough of these moments to offset the bland bits in between.

Save your money! The inevitable marketing push means that someone will give you or someone you know, a copy of the DVD this Christmas, and you might as well watch it then and use the money to go and see something better in the cinema.

300

A meta movie! 300 is based upon a graphic novel by Frank Miller whose graphic novels have been quite popular with Hollywood recently with his graphic novels of Daredevil, Batman Returns, Elektra, Sin City all been turned into films. The graphic novel itself was based on the 1962 film "The 300 Spartans".

300

Plot: 12/20
Acting: 15/20
Production: 16/20
Entertainment: 34/40

---

Total: 77/100

The Frank Miller version is not intended to be historically accurate, and the remake isn't nearly as detailed as the original movie, but all the same if you take it for what it is, an entertaining story in a historical setting then it is ... entertaining.

Yes there were a few bugbears but it you are going to suspend belief enough to enjoy the film then you'll let them slide, on the whole I thought that it was worth watching.

Happy Feet

I went to see Happy Feet in December. I've been looking forward to seeing it since I first saw the trailer last February, and after a long period of waiting I finally got to see it.

I was encouraged by reviews such as

is just the kind of feel-good animated film that works on a few different levels; it'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry, and it'll inevitably, unquestionably, make you tap your toes or bounce your leg, right there in the theater. It's charming and exquisitely detailed, and it succeeds where it really counts: It makes you really feel for the lovable lead penguin, Mumble- Dan Franzen

and from other people who obviously got LSD dosed munchies at their cinema.

Arriving at the cinema filled with excitement, I managed to finish my very large box of popcorn before the movie started. This was due to the fact that I was a bit hungry as I had not eaten that day and because there was an exteneded batch of trailers and adverts for childrens toys, games, DVDs, you name it that lasted 45 minutes. This at a 21:30 viewing where there were no children below fourteen years old.

All of which probably didn't put me in the best frame of mind, but once the movie started things progressed reasonably well if a tad bit slowly. I know that it is primarily a movie for children and that they might have problems following complicated plotlines but this was a bit slower than was strictly speaking necessary.

Happy Feet

Plot: 10/20
Animation: 12/20
Production: 14/20
Entertainment: 17/40

---

Total: 53/100

After a slow but reasonable start there were a few funny bits and some singing, but not a lot of dancing. The animation was not really special which was hugely disappointing especially as that was one of the selling points of the movie.

Yes there were moments when I was tapping my feet, but they were few and far between and I really did feel like going to sleep through a number of the scenes.

What really killed the movie for me was the ending. It was atrocious. What a waste, they could have saved themselves at least six months of production tiem and cost and left it out. The message was clear enough without having to add the rubbish that they did for the last quarter of an hour or so. It completely ruined what up until that point had been an almost passable animated feature. I think that the target age for this movie must be 3-4 year olds. This is a shame as it had a lot of promise as a concept and could easily have been written to appeal to audiences of all ages.

Casino Royale

Fuckin' 'ell!

I've seen every Bond movie and this was by far the best. Maybe my fading memories of Connery are affecting my judgement, perhaps it has been too long since I watched the dark menace of Timothy Dalton's Bond, but I left the cinema only slightly aware of the poor projection and slightly off balance sound (two sins for which I have left mid-movie and asked for and received for a refund before at the Odeon Richmond, which surprisingly they still haven't managed to correct).

It simply didn't matter tonight; I really enjoyed this, it surpassed my expectations for a 007 movie, which whilst admittedly were not too high in the first place, they were so completely surpassed that I have to say that this is easily on my shortlist of the best movies I have seen this year.

If you haven't already done so - GO SEE IT.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

I must admit that I was a bit apprehensive about forking out to go and see this in the cinema. I had read a number of mixed reviews in the press and was weary. It didn't help that as I was standing outside the Odeon a friend who was driving by stopped and asked what I was about to watch. When I replied that I was about to view 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest', all four occupants of the car said in unison "Seen it, it was rubbish", before driving off.

This instalment of the franchise starts off almost immediately where the last left off, Will Turner & Elizabeth Swann are just about to get married when lo and behold there is a hiccup. Without spoiling the story, all I'll say is that Will gets press ganged into finding Jack Sparrow before the wedding can take place and sets off on a not so jolly adventure.

Firstly the bad news. I was hoping that following the success of the previous movie and the near guaranteed success of the sequel, that Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio would have had a little courage and delved deeper into the psyche of the characters they created, but they chose instead to stick to what was a winning formula.

Without the benefit of being a shiny new concept, this doesn't work as well as it did in the previous movie. Apart from the fact that the major characters from the previous movie are all present there are very few new characters, and the writers couldn't be bothered to tell us much about them.

Where they did try to develop some of the characters didn't work particularly well in terms of the flow of the movie, so I suppose it is better that they did limit the character development after all.

Now the good news. The special effects and soundtrack are both excellent. Hans Zimmer dug deep into his Gladiator sound-a-like repository and provided more of the same, with the exception an interesting nod to Puff Daddy's reworking of the Police's song "Every Breath You Take" (which was different).

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Plot: 12/20
Acting: 15/20
Production: 17/20
Entertainment: 32/40

---

Total: 76/100

Overall the movie was still quite entertaining and I am glad that I didn't wait for the DVD (HD-DVD or Blu Ray) release. Intellectually challenging it isn't, but it isn't meant to be either. It is meant to be fun and light hearted and there was quite a lot of light hearted situational comedy on tap.

I suppose that it is quite rare for a sequel to be better than the original and so as far as sequels go, this movie is par for the course.

Roll on 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End'. Having seen the first two, I have to see the final episode! Although it really feels like 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest' is half of an episode, and that 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End' will be the conclusion of the second episode.

Lord of War

My first impression was Nicholas Cage playing the same old Nicolas Cage role, slightly depressed, slightly cheecky, naer-do-well. But on reflection this really is an understated, honest exploration into the character of a gun runner.

There were a number of aspects of the movie that felt very familiar and this wass probably down to the fact that the script was written by Andrew Niccol who also penned The Truman Show and Gattaca, and in many ways 'Lord of War' is very similar in mood to Gattaca, to the extent of sharing some of the same actors.

Lord of War

Plot: 14/20
Acting: 15/20
Production: 16/20
Entertainment: 28/40

---

Total: 73/100

What is quite different from some of the other films both Cage & Niccol have made is that it is almost impossible to connect with the central character. Most of the other characters are easy to relate to and make some kind of connection to, but Cage's character Yuri, is deliberately difficult to empathise with. It is an interesting and effective plot device which I thought made the film interesting and edgy. The mood altering soundtrack is also very effective, subtly lifting and lowering the viewers mood throughout the movie. It adds another dimension to the experience and is a distinctly good piece of work in its own right.

Whilst it is not the best movie I have ever spent two hours watching I would definately recommend viewing it if you come across it as it is worth a view.

King Kong

I'm sure that you have already seen a hundred reviews of this film but I just had to add my thoughts. Peter Jackson has made a brilliant movie - again. His interpretation/copy/remake of the 1933 original is spot on. Andy Serkis does a great job playing Kong and Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody and Thomas Kretschmann all have creditable performances.

Peter Jackson makes long movies, and the benefit of this is that there is time to develop the plot and more importantly the characters. This is crucial to the whole experience as it allows the subtler nuances of the characters' personalities room to breathe, and in doing so allows the viewer to develop emotiona attachments to them. This movie really does really pull the wool over your eyes and as the film progresses you can easily suspend any beliefs about reality, you are sucked right into it.

King Kong (2005)

Plot: 15/20
Acting: 18/20
Production: 19/20
Entertainment: 36/40

---

Total: 88/100

Yes there are a few areas of the plot where I'd have thought that Jackson would have beefed up the characters' personalities, and there were also a few areas where the plot had to be bent into shape to fit but I would still recommend King Kong to anyone who is a fan of the cinema.

I'm not sure that it will translate quite as well onto DVD. It is definately one of those movies that benefites ffom the huge screen (the bigger the better) and sound of the silver screen. Whilst I usually find it irritating the audience reaction is also a plus when viewing King Kong (, at least it was when I went to see it yesterday evening).

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe

On Christmas Eve I went to the cinema to watch the "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe". I was quite surprised by how enjoyable an experience it was. The film adaptation of C.S. Lewis' timeless adventure, was more accurate than I thought it would be and a very good production.

For those of you who aren't aware of the plot, the story follows the magical adventures of four children sent to live in a country house during the Blitz. Whilst playing a game of hide-and-seek in the country home of an elderly professor they accidentally find a magical wardrobe through which they are transported to the land of Narnia. Whilst in Narnia they find themselves cought up in a battle between the forces of evil led by the White Witch and the forces of good which rally around Aslan.

The Chronicles of Narnia

Plot: 16/20
Acting: 16/20
Production: 18/20
Entertainment: 32/40

---

Total: 82/100

The production is very well executed and the story as ever is quite engaging. It is a great movie for children of all ages but also there is enough humour to amuse accompanying adults as well. Look aout for similarities between this film and The Lord of the Rings, Lewis & Tolkien were friends and there are similarities between certain scenes and plot devices.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I went to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on Friday evening. I wasn't expecting much after the last installment of the series, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Okay, it wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, or even the best movie I've seen this year, but it wasn't the worst either. Mike Newell seems to have done a reasonable job, much better than Alfonso Cuarón managed. It didn't turn out to be the "Harry Potter and the Giblet of Fowl" that I was expecting.

It was quite hard to set aside the fact that Radcliffe et al. looked a lot older than the characters they play, not as bad as a lot of old westerns where the eighteen year old character was played by a fortysomething year old actor, but still a little hard to ignore.

The movie was as with the others very true to the book, but despite the fact that the movie was 157 minutes long, there seemed to be a

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Plot: 15/20
Acting: 15/20
Production: 15/20
Entertainment: 30/40

---

Total: 75/100

lot of detail missing. I suppose that squeezing 734 pages of fantasy novel into two and a half hours of movie is a bit difficult, but I have a suspicion that another half hour of cut footage may turn up in the 'Special Edition DVD' when it is released.

If you are a fan of the Harry Potter franchise I would recommend you go to see it, but then again, you probably already have. If you are not a fan then I can say that it is not an unpleasant way to spend a few hours.