Stealth-5 Reviews

The Village (2004)

A GREAT er...Love Story?!!?!

[19 September 2004]

Sitting at home, watching a trailer for the "Village" - i saw what seemed to be a cool horror film. I sensed atmosphere, i sensed suspense, i sensed fear, i sensed horror....I SENSED WRONG! You must question though from the same guy that bought you the fantastic "The 6th Sense"- and seeing the trailer you'd really expect it to be on par with it- but the 6th sense does RINGS around "The Village".

There's been a deep absence of horror in cinema recently, after the whole slasher moment (1995-2000)- i noticed a calm in all forms of horror...Oh and was i hungry for more horror. I decided to go check out the village and i cant say too much besides what a GREAT disappointment. The trailer is the most misleading thing you will lay your eyes upon. The story consists of a village in the woods that is surrounded by the myth of creatures that lurk in the woods- its simple...Don't cross their neck of the woods- and they wont cross yours. It sounds like it has premise to be something scary.

M. Night Shyamalan is FAMOUS for his plot twists and turns, but oh boy was someone trying a little TOO hard here. There's trying and trying too hard! He did that right here. Although "The Village" had a decent cast and some very good acting, you will find yourself falling asleep in no time. If you love horror and suspense- this is NOT your film. The film is more or less a soppy love story between the villages hero and a blind girl. It was so funny how about half way through the film people were getting really impatient with the film.

I wont say "The Village" was a BAD film because it wasn't. It just wasn't what it was made out to be and it WILL disappoint many people. The cinematography is truly beautiful, the acting is fine, actors are good- but it loses points for being boring, slow paced and when it came to "revealing" the monsters that was by far hilarious. All in all "The Village" is a film that lies to its audience- read more below.

ACTORS: The actors are good. Newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard is a GREAT actress, Joaquin Phoenix played his part well. There were a few other famous faces- including Sigourney Weaver who in my opinion didn't match her role. The acting was fine in general and that wasn't the problem with the film.

SCRIPT: Pretty poor. This film tries to rely on a "twist" to be its saving grace, but its terrible how it just goes from one "twist" to another, they go way too far with all these twists and turns, in the end it feels like a rushed confused film. You can see the whole quality of the film really dies down in the last 30 minutes. More mystery, more suspense would have been great, less talk and pointless nonsense such as the "bad color" etc.

CINEMA: Cinematography was in general great. The whole village looked fantastic, people were dressed in period clothing. Long sweeping grass, scary woods- i cant deny the good job on the cinematography, its an attractive film thats for sure.

HORROR: A REAL lack luster here ladies and gentlemen. As i said this is more like a romantic film than a horror film. There is ONE scene which will give you a little bit of a jump and thats about it, for the other 90 minutes expect to be twitching while getting impatient and drifting off to sleep when you finally have had enough.

MUSIC: The music in the film was pretty good. Atmospheric in parts, well timed. I cant really complain about the music.

OVERALL: "The Village" is something you REALLY can not judge from its cover. Although everything about it spells out "HORROR FILM"- it could never be so wrong. I find the Village to make a great Romance film, a deep drama maybe- but in no way shape or form is this a horror film, it is not scary at all- horror fans will be totally disappointed. A misleading trailer will really rake in some good dough- but expect it to rake in some bad reviews and a loss of respect to M. Night Shyamalan.

** / ***** (2 out of 5 stars)

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

It's Been Hit By The Overrated Stick!!

[10 July 2004]

Well with the recent "wave" of comic film movies in the last couple of years (Spiderman/ Hulk/ Daredevil etc. ) I found myself fairly anticipated for the sequel of Spiderman. The first was was pretty cool and deserves its IMDb rating of 7.4...Yet Spiderman 2 being on the TOP 250 is completely out of place, there are SO many other films that deserve to be on this spot and in my own humble opinion, this doesn't belong..

Spiderman 2 seems to have a fair bit of concentration on Characters "Development"...Thats if you want to call it that, you already know that his life sucks and totally loves MJ. People need to see through the Semi- Good effects and realize that this film definitely isn't as good as its said to be. Sure there are action scenes but most of them are very short lived, then are accompanied by boring talk talk talk...! Although its basically a famous thought that Sequels never seem to work, Spiderman 2 is a fair enough example of that- get off the hype and see this film for what it is..."Just another superhero flick"!(*MINOR SPOILERS**)

ACTING: The acting was was mediocre. Tobey McGuire i would say had very little lines in this film, masked or unmasked he is just quiet. Kudos for wearing that seemingly uncomfortable suit though. Kirsten Dunst is no Meryl Streep, her performance is the same as any of her other films, nothing outstanding but she is a very beautiful girl. The others did a decent job, i can't say anyone here was a BAD actor, but definitely not great.

ACTORS: Tobey McGuire, Kirsten Dunst, Alfred Molina, James Franco & more...The casting is pretty good,i cant really say anything bad on this section as the cast are pretty well known and match their characters pretty well...Especially Alfred as "Doc Oc"

SCRIPT: VERY WEAK! The script is basically what weighed down a lot of the film. All these people giving it a 8-9 really need to Watch the film again or READ the script, this is not quality work. Continuity is lacking, many conversations are entirely pointless, so many boring and yes pointless scenes that bare no relevance to anything really annoy me, some corny one liners too. Oh and one extremely lame part is when Aunt May is stuck next to a man in a bank that is being robbed by a guy with 8 robotic arms, well this dude picks up a coin he finds on the floor and Aunt Mary slaps his hand. How dumb! Other dumb parts are stupid lines like "I was always at your doorway" or another example would be "He died when he did the right thing" (Referring to his dad saying NO to an armed man wanting his car)...The writing is plain silly for the most part and there's barely any describing why Doc Oc had his intentions and suddenly turning him to Mr. Nice Guy, really screws it up!

CINEMA: Cinematography was par good par poor. The cityscapes and Spiderman (CGI) looked pretty good. Yet there were so many errors and bloopers, continuity was so poor, them CGI helicopters looked ridiculous. In general though camera angles were fair and not overused when it came to being fancy. So some good points and some lame ones.

ACTION: The action scenes had some things going for it. The train scene was pretty cool. Doc Oc was a cool, violent Villain (until he turned nice). Though it did get fairly repetitive with Spiderman doing the same things over and over again. There was quiet a lot of talk (that was pointless) that could have easily been replaced with fun action- but it never happened. All in all definitely not an Action packed flick, but i guess it hits its target audience of younger teens.

MUSIC: The soundtrack is nowhere near as good as the original. There wasn't so much music used here, and some of it had the "Batman Essence"...That didn't impress me really, but it did have the classic "Raindrops fallin on my head"- but in general the musical score here really need looking upon as it was bland.

OVERALL: Spiderman 2 is in no, way, form or shape a terrible film...But also in no way, form or shape is this a GREAT film, reading the reviews here I'm surprised as to how many people loved this flick, it was terribly flawed. All i can really say is Spiderman 2 was hit by the OVERRATED stick...BIG TIME! I found it occasionally boring, sloppy and full of errors and bloopers...For the amount wasted on this film i was expected a masterpiece, and in no section of FILM was Spiderman 2 a masterpiece.

** 1/2 (2.5 stars out of 5)

Scary Movie 3 (2003)

Third Time Lucky!

[12 December 2003]

Scary Movie 3 was a film i was somewhat waiting for. I guess it was just the guilt of watching Scary Movie 2 and just hoping..Praying that things would go better for the series as the first film was excellent. Well as Scary Movie 3 played, i was pleasantly suprised with the introduction it was very well done with Pamela Anderson and Jenna McCarthy. Don't let that fool you though, remember the Classic Scary Movie 2 "Intro"-? We all know what happened after that. As the film progressed half an hour on i wasn't enjoying it so much, things slowed down, very luckily things started to pick up. Scary Movie 3 spoofed films like 8-Mile, The Ring, The Others, Signs , The Matrix and alot more.

Now lets move on to some topics...Like the PLOT! What plot? There was none, then again it possibly had a bit more of a storyline than Scary Movie 2 and that aint saying much. There were a few laugh out loud movies in the film, but they were few and far between. Many jokes also were flat yet that was acceptable seeming it was a spoof right? Not quiet- this was involved with the Zucker brothers, they were legendary with the Naked Gun and Airplane series and this film is a prime example of how their outlook on comedy has changed- its just not the same.

Many of the jokes were over-used and tiring like everyone being clumbsy, the boy always getting hit by an object, people hitting their heads on things, people falling over, people getting hit. It's just not funny after a few times. Scary Movie 3 had a great cast, fantastic to see Anna Farris back who is the only sign of promise in this trilogy. Some guest stars like Macy Gray, Ja Rule, Fat Joe, Denise Richards, Charlie Sheen and the classic Leslie Nielson. The acting was decent, thign is with this genre of film bad acting could easily be used as an excuse to simply be a "Spoof" maybe thats why Pamela Anderson was in it for a good 10 minutes. Lets check details below.

ACTING: The acting was nothing more than what i expected it to be. Anna Farris kept her awesome persona in this film and really knows how to play Cindy. The rest of the cast did well, yet Leslie Nielson seemed somewhat tired of his role. Pamela Anderson was there, and she DID Act- but note there was plenty of Clevage coming from her to keep you male critics all hush hush.

ACTORS: The cast in Scary Movie 3 had to have to best casting out of the entire series. Although there are no signs of the Wayan Brothers, or classic characters like "bobby"- things do change. The little boy was great. Plenty of faces in this film, most though are underused and have cameos, but that can never damage a film.

SCRIPT: The concept is ridiculous and its like they just thought of the plot after writing it and linked up the 2 main spoofs together. There are quiet a few gags to laugh out but only a very few are truely laugh out loud moments. They put in too much of the same thing in this script, like characters being really clumbsy that got annoying. The ending was very TYPICAL and quiet predictable and why did Cindy Marry that guy after knowing him for around 2 days? Oh and BRENDA got killed again- don't be fooled though she is eternal.

CINEMA: Cinematography was well..."Different". This film seemed to have a different approach, directed by different people and that really made the film seem different i almost couldn't tell this was part of the Scary Movie franchise, it looked different. The ring scenes were well done. Otherwise Cinematography was quiet average they did a fairly good job when copying other films.

COMEDY: It was quiet funny but nothing you can call "GOOD". Reason being The Zucker brother could have done SO much better with the material they were given.Some scenes were hilarious like the Michael Jackson Incident, The Brenda Corpse Scene, The Blonde Jokes, Cindy being her silly self. Other moments fell nice and flat as i mentioned...Cindy could be clumbsy but why does everyone else have to be? Be more original! The boy copping abuse was funny once and twice, but not fifty times. It WAS funnier than Scary Movie 2 and i did notice a lot less crude jokes in this one.

MUSIC: Not so much music used in SCary Movie 3. They used a very similar scene to Halloween/Exorcist. Otherwise there was barely any music to support the film, definately not a soundtrack anyone would want to hear or buy, i doubt it has any soundtrack they could have added some more music to give some scenes some more energy.

OVERALL: Well all in all, i wasn't exactly disappointed at the same time i wasn't very pleased. Its a netural subject, if you prefer more slapstick spoof you will enjoy Scary Movie 3 more than 1 and 2. If you prefer more sexy, crude jokes you would not like this very much. If you like a blend of both you will find this film quiet decent. Of course it could have been better but i read plenty of horrible reviews on this film before watching it, and some people really need to study film. This is far from being "THE WORST FILM EVER". Take it from me. Scary Movie 3 had it's moments and it was better than part 2 in the long shot- and that could only be positive- don't be too positive though. Scary Movie 3 has a different approach to each person, you will know which approach you have taken after viewing it. Enjoy!

** 1/2 (2 and a half out of five)

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

It Blasts Jason X Back To Space! But Is Even That Good Enough?

[25 October 2003]

Oh how long i and im sure most horror fans have been anticipating the comeback and battle of 2 of horrors most recognizable villains Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. Well i have to say i was pretty impressed with the premise of it all. For the concept, they used what they had really well. Yet of course this doesnt mean Freddy VS Jason doesnt have any flaws. Freddy hasn't been around in a while, he needs to be his powerful self again, who could help him? Jason Voorhees, as Freddy redeems his powers- Jason seems to be having too much fun- hence them battling it out eventually. One thing i was pleading for was campiness and we get it. Lots of nudity, some sex, woods, stupid teens, parties- how could one complain they did a great job with bringing back the original eeriness of the Friday and Nightmare series with the kids jumping the ropes singing the 1..2 Freddys coming for you, and the misty Camp Crystal Lake. Below i will state the pro's and cons of the film. First off the pro's. (*MINOR SPOILERS**)

First Pro- Freddy's Dream sequences with the teens was excellent. Very eerie and totally what i expected- hey even more. Freddy turns into a bong smoking capitillar (that was hilarious), Freddy gives Kelly Roland a "nose job" and he plays with the teens mind- It was great to see Freddy back in all his glory.

Second Pro- Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger. NO ONE in HISTORY will be able to play Freddy Krueger. Robert does a fantastic job at re-living his character, he hasnt changed one bit. Freddy had a few cool one liners and tacky comments, good they didnt go overboard too.

Third Pro- Gore! Lots of blood and guts, i was suprised that a lot of that didnt get cut into the editing room, after being disappointed by a few Friday films that were hideously cut left right and centre (Like Friday 13th V11: New Blood). Here we see bucket loads of blood and guts.

Fourth Pro- Beautiful girls. Oh yes were they beautiful. It's always fun to see hot girls either get tormented by Freddy or stalked by Jason, its not a win lose situation- all they can do is run with their silicone....Oh never mind me.

Fifth Pro- Excellent Cinematography. Half the reason they got the essence of the earlier days of both films is the Cinematography. Good camera angles, terrific use of lighting, creepy atmospheres- very vivid and colorful and exciting. Well done!

Sixth Pro- "The Final Showdown" (If you want to think it is). The 20 minute climax where Freddy and Jason battle it out is constant fun!Watch them turn against each other, i personally think Freddy owned Jason in most parts- but Jason got freddy sometimes too. It was a fun fight with lots of decapitating, mutilating, burning etc. Who wins you may ask? I will leave it to you.

Now i will admit there were quiet a few flaws too. But hey what were you expecting? Anyways here are the CONS:

First Con: No Kane Hodder As Jason. This Ken guy couldn't play Jason quiet frankly. He needed A LOT more training to me on par with Kane. The walking is wrong, the head tilt is wrong, it just doesn't feel right. I wish Kane just DROPPED his part in Jason X and played this part instead, what a waste of him to play part in Jason X (Which pretty much sucked) and to skip this.

Second Con: Why are teens so stupid? Oh i can blame the writers for the teens behaviour. I mean they are very stereotyped and there isnt much character development. You really dont care for them to die. I mean being chased by Jason and having a "weed break" is just plain silly to me.

Third Con: The acting. Okay i dont know what i was expecting, i guess the acting is never good in any of these films. Its just you know Kelly Roland. Singing artists turned actors have turned sour before, think Busta Rhymes, DMX, Ja Rule, Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez. Oh well it was fun seeing Kelly getting her nose job.

Fourth Con: Not enough creative deaths, i mean Jason mainly used his machete. Whatever happened to his creativity? Making most of objects that are around him to use them as his weapon? Also i have to mention there is too much flying in this film, as in getting punched and flying into the sky, or 20 metres away violently hitting a wall- then again it was directed by Ronny Yu.

Fifth Con: Underuse of music. There wasnt much music and the 1..2 freddy theme was rather underused and Jason didn't "he he chi chi ha ha" enough. They could have used some extra sound effects and musical score to give it that boost.

Otherwise i can tell you that most slasher fans (especially fans of Fred and Jase) will not be disappointed- i think this film also has good tilt value and is great to watch in a big group. The film isn't very scary, but its not comical either- it gives you a healthy blend of Horror and Comedy to make this a very fun, gorey movie for all the family! Okay maybe not grandma and grandpa, but i will tell you it was worth the wait- but i wont hold my breath for a sequel, as this one proved we might have to wait until 2018 until its release.

Overall Freddy Vs Jason Gets:

*** 1/2 stars out of 5 (3.5 / 5.0)

Cube (1997)

"The Cube" Was Designed To DISAPPOINT!

[14 July 2003]

The Cube was a movie i wasn't holding my breath for. Although the concept of the story sounded interesting i could just tell it would be a major dissapoinment. So i sat through the movie and there's one thing i will admit and give this movie. The first 30 minutes are well done, you are drawn into the creepy world of the Cube. The actors are scared, and things seem in place. Yet as time proceeds past the half an hour mark the film just collapses right there- and i was expecting it too. There are many plot holes in the film. I mean i think msot people sat through this sorry excuse of a film to actually end up with a conclusion and to find out what the deal was with this CUBE. Yet our demands are unheard of in the movie.

There are many flaws. Most noticeably was the acting. These bunch of unknowns couldn't act their way out of a plastic bag. Okay sure, the script they were given was pathetic but couldn't they see how stupid this film made them look? So the film had a budget i knew that- So the film was shot using the same one set, okay i'll buy that but WHY couldn't they add 5 extra minutes of dialogue to help explain what the hell the Cube is and how they go there? WHY couldn't they have added another 5 minutes of screen time for an actual ENDING? And WHY OH WHY did one of the characters absolutely lose my mind and mess the whole plot up? I guess the only answer i have for the "Cube" was that it was mainly designed to disappoint.Below Are my conclusive reviews.

ACTING: Terrible. The entire cast flunked. Even the retard was barely retarded. I dont even remember the characters name, yet the african/canadian man in the film was appaling. The Math Genius was really bad. Maybe if they were given better scripts....Oh no forget it! Thats just an excuse they cant act.

ACTORS: Sorry i don't know these bunch of so called "Actors". Not only did the film have BUDGET written all over it, so did the actors. I mean no character was likeable not absolutely one of them. Either they didnt play their characters right or their characters simply had nothing going for them. Bad choice. Sad fact even a BIG NAME actor wouldnt save this film.

SCRIPT: Oh gosh where can i begin on this? Decent for the first 30 pages of screenplay- THEN it just falls apart right there and it hits you like a speeding bullet. There is no beginning and no end to this movie so dont expect and introduction or conclusion becase there is none. Dont expect to have the faintest idea what the Cube is and how the characters got there. Dont think you might as well sit through the whole movie for the ending because there is no ending, the film basically laughs at you at the end. Dont expect interesting characters, expect yourself to smile at their deaths. If you think you can figure out the reason for the box yourself or if the writer did it purposely for us to figure it out, not even Einstein would know this. Sorry the script is just horrid.

CINEMA: Finally something DECENT about the film. I only mean decent, nothing revolutionary or special. Just thinking it was all the same set made me feel that they did put in some hard work for the sets. Yet parts of the cube and its special effects look very fake. Other times the Cube looks very eerie and almost puts you there. Yet to make it short decent Cinematography- nothing special.

HORROR: Thing about "The Cube" was that it made me think it was stealing something from the Hellraiser films i cant exactly pinpoint WHAT it was copying but i got the scent of "Unoriginal" for parts of the film. There is good gore in the first half of the flick then they just try to leave you in suspense leaving the characters in many caught up situations, though i dont have time for that wish-wash, i didn't learn anything- so they all might as well have died in the most gruesome way possible but it didnt happen.

MUSIC/SOUND: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm. I dont remember much music in the film, maybe it didnt need it. Only thing you will hear is annoying characters screaming at eachother, the contant sound "TSSSSSSSSH" of the doors opening and a guy acting retarted screaming "Aahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" that it makes you feel like punching the screen- no pun.

OVERALL: Basically there is nothing that gives this film firm structure, theres no backbone- there is nothing that keeps it standing on both of its feet and thats what sucks. After such a promising idea we are given a poorly executed film that only leaves me feeling angry. Looks like they are making a sequel too- how could there be a sequel to a film that had no ending? It's too late to explain it- theres no saving this film. Thats a fact.

* 1/2 Stars (Out Of 5)

A Man Apart (2003)

Weak Script, Poor Acting. Bad Results.

[21 June 2003]

I went to the movies not expecting much from this film. Now to get one point across i actually enjoyed XXX, so i'm not a "Vin Hater". The Story with "A Man Lost" was simply about a cop, sticking his nose in the wrong business and ultimately paying the price for that after his wife is killed by a bunch of mexican drug lords. After justice is not served Vin takes justice in his own hands, he basically loses his mind and his actual "revenge" is pitiful. I was very dissapointed to say the least. Though the way im explaining the script- is basic. The film is very complex with a lot of characters- too many for my liking.

In terms of "Action" it seemed to come in segments. Action- Sad Scene- Irrelevant Scene- Action (Stir,wash, rinse then repeat). I dont know maybe its just me but im getting tired of action films. They are so repetitive, its obvious they are running out of ideas. Why do almost all action films have to have "DRUGS" as a basis? Anyhow the script for this movie was pretty bad, the dialogue was lame at parts and it got really complicated after a while. Lots of people dying but its never the actual "Drug Lord". Supporting cast wasn't much "support" for the film. Vin Diesel is actually fairly good at playing his big "tough boy" act- he's done it before in all of his films. Though something that was almost laughable was "sensetive/depressed" Vin. It REALLY didn't work. You can see him REALLY trying to look upset, REALLY trying to cry but he didn't get the hang of it. Oh well blood factor was mediocore. It was fairly well shot and the movie was sad at times but i was totally dissapointed with waiting 110 minutes to see Vin get his revenge when the revenge is just NOT that. Here are my concluding ratings.

ACTING: Vin Diesel does acceptable playing his "don't mess with me" character.Same repetitive Vin. Though Vin can't act for any other roles unfortunately. Supporting actors were very bad and didn't help the film out in any way. Not good at all- Vin should either be bad boy or nothing else, he needs some time in acting school for his "emotional" scenes. Sorry Vin. I liked him in XXX though.

ACTORS: Poor. Poor selection and poor variety. I guess Vin could just pass in terms of suiting his character though everyone else really werent a good selection. Especially the "Drug lords", they didn't look dangerous what so ever. They could have done lots better with that.

SCRIPT: Again bad! The writer tried blending in a few genres for the film and it was a bad idea. Giving Vin some stupid lines, some pointless scenes. Too many characters as well! Way too many! The script needed to be re-read. I am a screen writer and i know a good script when i see one. "A man torn" isn't a good script. There was any barely build up and the ending was just horrible. The "Revenge" Vin gives is just insulting to our 110 minutes. Also "drugs" is a topic in this. Hello? This is VIN DIESEL he's dealt with "Drugs" in Fast and the Furious/ XXX and now This, get off the topic already.

CINEMA: Cinematography was average. I liked the beach scenes, lots of ariel views that got boring as they used the same images a few times. I particularly liked the sunset shots and silhouette of Vin and his Wife that was lovely. Otherwise nothing special in terms of Cinematography, infact it was too dark and fast moving i could barely keep up.

ACTION: Not so much action. It just came in "pockets" maybe 3 main action scenes in the film. Dont expect anything new. Gun shots, Explosions, Cops VS Drug lords. For the 15+ rating i was surely expecting more action on my plate but i didn't get it. Infact i was bored through some of the movie!

MUSIC/SOUND: The music wasn't good. The only good choice of music was in the closing credits with SEAL. Otherwise the music was too mixed up and had no substance. It was latin, rap, alternative then pop. I guess they music just blended in with the plot changes as well. Not good!

OVERALL: I dont have too many good things to say about "A Man Apart". Unfortunately 2 big factors in the film werent looked at well enough; The script and the acting. The script needed less 1D characters, more action and flow. The acting was really poor. Vin Diesel cant play "Mr.Sensetive" i'm sorry to say that but its true. You see if the script was changed and the soppy dialogue was out for Vin and there was more action this would have worked out. Though sad fact of the matter is even if they briefly changed the script and improve their acting the point is it will still ring the bells to XXX- Lets get more original Hollywood!

(**) - 2 Stars out of 5.

100 Girls (2000)

A Good Film- Contradictive Characters!

[23 February 2003]

100 Girls i found in my local DVD store for a good price. So i thought i would give it a shot and see what it had to offer. And i was surprised actually- When looking at the cover i thought it would be pretty lame, yet thats just bad advertising the film is very interesting. It consists of a young guy (Matthew) that is in a college filled with well..100 Girls. He goes to a lift with one girl- there is a blackout, they talk- then make love in the lift. Then next morning she's gone- now hes out to hunt the girl of his dreams. He is one of probably 5 guys, making the school consist of a 95% female population- So his job obviously isn't going to be easy.

Okay- i will be honest. The film doesn't really have a realistic plot- but what do you expect from a "Sexy teen film". Did American Pie have such a great plot? Not really. Yet theres just one thing that annoyed me about the Characters- Mainly Matthews'. He defends himself, and claims that he hates racism and that it shouldn't exist- Yet a few scenes later he is shaving his legs saying "Did you know Muslim men shave there pubes? No wander they turn out to be terrorists". This line was really off-putting and made me wander what the writer was thinking, Characters that contradict themselves just doesn't seem right.

The acting was simple. Though Matthew (Jonathan Tucker) didn't do such an appealing job- He is a fresh face and had some comedic Value. His room-mate Rod is a very funny character, his presence is enjoyed in the film. All the girls do a good job, hell if they can't act, their just great to look at. Cinematography was basically right on the spot, especially where Matthew stands down from the dorm talking to all 100 girls- Great Job. Check the DVD version out, theres a lot of fancy work put into it.

ACTING: The acting was basically average.. Jonathon Tucker didn't do a great job as mentioned- His room mate (Jon Debello) did an adequate job and brang some laughs into it. The girls were all fine. In all it was fairly well acted out for a teen flick.

ACTORS: The main character/Actor (Jonathan Tucker) isn't famous. Though there are a few counter-parts. Mainly and most noticeable is Beautiful Roswell Star Katherine Heigl who plays Arlene, the Competitive Tomboy. A fairly good selection of stars you've seen in other teen movies.

SCRIPT: In General 100 Girls teaches you a lot. It's a film that is basically pointed out on facts. A lot of Comments on Sexism,Racism, Socialism the whole deal. It's very interesting and fun to watch. Yet it was dissapointing to see a line that was racist, in a film that was opposed to it.Especially since it dealt with the main character contradicting himself.

CINEMA: Cinematography was pretty good. You can't expect anything special since most of it was filmed indoors and the dorm. Yet still one of the best and greatest scenes to look at is when Matthew confesses to the girls.

COMEDY: It was fairly funny. Not gut busting funny. Yet it had its very good points and moments of laughter. Theres so many characters and they all hold their own piece of comedy. I especially liked Matthews Room-mate. Good comedic Value and definately worth a watch if you want to laugh some.

MUSIC: What would you expect from a film like this? Teen flicks= lots of loud noise. House/Grunge type of music. It had some fairly good music, though i enjoyed the soundtrack of American Pie 1 and 2 much better.

OVERALL: 100 Girls was an entertaining teen flick. It held a lot of things for it, that kept it strong. Good narratives by the main character pointing out alot of true facts. Though it is poorly written in many parts. It went too far on many counts, that took away some of the films flavour. Yet if you want a good laugh and try to ignore some of its contradiction this makes quiet a decent teen flick.

*** (3 stars)

In July (2000)

Das erste mal tat's noch weh...

[9/10 · 13 January 2003]

Wow. What a great film. It's very continental and the plot never seems to fade away or go "Off Topic". Im not a huge fan of German Films, but this ladies and Gentlemen is a masterpiece coming from Hamburg. If only more films like these were made and more exploited. It displays a range of scenic views such as Bavaria, Istanbul, Budapest & Romania. Great cinematopgrahy, acting and story line.

9 out of 10.

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

It Has Some GOLDEN Moments Baby!

[28 September 2002]

Austin Powers 3- Goldmember was a cool movie. Thats to sum it up in one line. Yet to be honest when i watched the Trailer for the movie i thought it would SUCK. Yet when watching the film, i was definately proved wrong. Austin Powers 3 circles around Goldmember (Least likeable of all characters), a man thats into GOLD (And has some weird hobbies to do with it to). There is a return to Dr.Evil/ Mini-Me and Scotty Evil & Fat Bastard not to mention the new female enterage FOXTY BROWN. Oh and did i mention AUSTIN POWERS IS BACK BABY - He must save his kidnapped father.

If you walked in to the cinema 10 minutes late, you would have missed out on one of the most classic film introductions in history. So get in EARLY to the movie, you dont want to miss the intro. The casting in this movie was the best of all 3, you have so MANY famous faces. From Britney Spears, Kevin Spacey, Stephen Spielberg, Gwyneth Paltrow, Dany Devito, Beyonce Knowles, Tom Cruise, Michael Kane, Seth Green, Fred Savage and not to mention MIKE MYERS.

The acting was fine. Cinematography was good but no great. The script though was A BIT iffy.First reason is Goldmember had the most amount of rude and crude humour in all 3. Sure some were funny, yet others fell flat and were quiet offensive. Also there was a lack of plot, i had to put the cards on the table, sure it was funny but the approach wasn't. Still This film is recommended if you want some good laughs. You WILL laugh through-out the movie, yet you will especially love the Intro, Shadow Scenes, Rap Cameo, Mini-Me scenes are always good.

ACTING: The acting was very good. Mike Myers is one my favourite comedic actors. He does a good job portraying all charactors. Beyonce Knowles did an acceptable role, yet she didn't have to do much, just laugh at Austin Powers Joke, walk around in sexy clothing and say "SHAZAAM" And "Sugar" way too much. Michael Caine fitted his character well. Everyone did well. EVEN BRITNEY SPEARS!!!

ACTORS: The best selection of actors in a film since TRUE ROMANCE(1993). So many famous faces, so many cameos. You almost feel like your watching a few movies, how could all these great actors come into a film in short notice? I was very pleased.

SCRIPT: Not as well written as part 1 or 2. I disliked some characters. Goldmember wasn't so good. Foxy Brown was just entirely pointless.Scotty Evil was annoying as ever. The plot was thin. It could hve been written a lot better. Yet still many scenes left you laughing so hard. It's probably forgivable.

CINEMA: Cinematography was fine, yet the atmosphere didn't fit in to its prequels. And travelling back in forth in time, they didn't set the scene so well for the 70's. Boogie Nights did a MUCH Better job. Yet still the costumes and clothing was funny and matching to its times. Acceptable cinematography, nice shots of Tokyo.

COMEDY: Very Good. It is GUARANTEED to make you laugh, so thats a start isn't it? Some Jokes are really funny and original. Others are repeatative and wear a bit thin (signs of lack of ideas). There werent many corny names, i used to love the Corny names, here theres a couple like Fook Mi and Fook Yu. It's funny, but not as funny as its prequels.

MUSIC/SOUND: Beyonce barely sang in this. Music was okay, the 70's tunes were well written and sung by beyonce. Not many sound effects, except farting, burping silly little things.

OVERALL: Goldmemeber in overall was my least favourite of all Austin Power Films, but dont fret. It is still a film with lots of laughs in chunks through-out the film. Sometimes its slap-stick, sometimes its offensive, but BABY! You will still like it. My only Question is..Will There Be Part 4? Will Scotty Take Over? If So. Im NOT watching.

*** 1/2 (3 1/2 stars out of 5)

xXx (2002)

Xtreme, Xciting, Xcellent.

[15 September 2002]

XXX Starring Vin Diesel was quiet suprising to my standards. For two reasons. I have lost faith in the action genre and haven't seen an action film on screen in a while. Secondly Vin Diesel doesn't really appeal to me as an actor. Yet more like a guy that attracts the girls to the cinemas, while the girls "Ooooh and Ahhhh" at his biceps, triceps and abs. The introduction starts off with action, thats a pretty good way to start an action film isn't it?? With some action.

One thing that i really DEMAND in a lot of films is realism. Most action films are MUCH MORE than a stone throw away from reality. XXX doesn't differ, infact this goes the extra mile in terms of UNrealism. The Art Of War (Wesley Snipes) was so unrealistic, that i dropped it automatically as an action film. XXX wasn't "Action packed", yet it was adequate. The acting was acceptable, I liked the female accomplice in the movie. The accents were a nice touch, as the film was shot in the lovely city of Prague. The soundtrack, although suiting to the film wasn't my style. Some great special effects were also used in the film, the Avalanche scene being one of the greatest.

Without giving too much away i would really reccomend you watch XXX, the film has such a great aura, although terribly unrealistic, there are many things which FORCE you to like the film. The Cinematography was magical, the writing was good, Sound effects were top notch. One must give in to the Extreme Excitement of XXX.

ACTING: Acceptable. Vin Diesel never really "Acted". He always seems to be the same character (Fast And the Furious). The other cast acted fairly enough, i liked Jelena. She was probably the best of all in the film, not to mention Samuel L. Jackson who adds a few laughs to the film. Nothing to go on about, i doubt any Oscars will be won.

ACTORS: An adequate selection of actors. The film was shot in Prague, Czech Republic. So we didn't exactly see a lot of famous faces. Yet most notably was Vin Diesel and Samuel L. Jackson who play their characters pretty well.

SCRIPT: The script was fine.The lines sometimes are Corny, yet they add to the whole fun of the movie. The plot though wasn't very well....interesting. I mean the characters were in depth, and interesting yet the whole idea of poisioning a medievil city with Deadly gas was way too "Batman" for me. Never the less the script was good, yet far from flawless.

CINEMA: Cinematography was excellent. Some of the best i have seen truly. From the sights and sounds of Prague, to the clubs, to alpine regions and villages. It's all beautifully shot, i couldn't have asked for any better, honestly some of the best cinematography, much better than any Bond film in terms of Cinema.

ACTION: As i said, the film wasn't "Action Packed". It was mediocore on levels of violence and blood. I wouldn't think of comparing this to other hardcore action films. It was quiet clean, yet still was loads of fun. The Intro was fine, and Vin Diesel had some intense situations. I really enjoyed the Sky Diving, Snow Boarding and Motorbike riding, lots of XXXtreme Sports.

MUSIC/SOUND: The music went well with the medieval atmosphere yet it wasn't my style. Very heavy metal. The sound and effects on the other hand were top notch, it really added to the suspense. The explosions were wild. Action films always SOUND Good, yet this sounded better than most. I was happy.

OVERALL: I would rather watch this than any 007 film. The movie is actually quiet addictive. It's fast paced, loads of fun and REALLY unrealstic. Yet dont let that get you down, it is still a very enjoying film to watch, it also has great replay value, im sure you can watch this a few times without getting immune. A great flick to watch with a larger ground.

*** 1/2 ( out of 5 stars )

Jason X (2001)

Why Did They Turn This To A Dark Comedy??

[23 August 2002]

Contains Spoilers

I Am ENORMOUS Friday The 13th Fan. I've watched all of them a few times, and now it's newest addition to the pathetic "JASON GOES TO HELL" hits the big screens here in Australia. Well in one word, all i can say is that i'm really DISAPPOINTED.There are numerous reasons as to why this film was a disappointing run in the series. Firstly, it is set in space. How can they damage the series so much by setting it 450 years into the future? Weren't they thinking? They have permanently scarred the Friday series- I think to a point, that it's too late for a "Come Back".There were many CONS in this film, that i will list first. (**MINOR SPOILERS**)

Second Con- This film isn't CAMPY, the series used to have this feeling to it, that not many films did. The creepy atmosphere of the lakes, cabins, woods. It was great. Now we are thrown into space - something that resembles Star Trek. There is no "Astmosphere", the film is REALLY Cheesy, but it's not Campy, and thats what i miss most about the series.

Third Con- the acting was DISMAL, by the Entire cast. Not one member of the cast proved themselves to be talented actors/actresses. Though i will admit that NO Friday film had much "Talent"- Yet this had to have the worst.

Fourth Con- why the HELL is this film funny? Why have they taken the "edge" off the Jason Films? They have plagued this script, with INSANE one liners, they have made the mistake of what happened to the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SERIES from part 4- It's comical. People want to be scared, this didn't serve up as a horror film to me. Im sure MILD humor is appreciated in a horror film, but they honestly stretched it here, it came to the point where EVERY CHARACTER in the film said some STUPID line before they were killed by Jason.

Fifth Con- The plot, in a way it is Original. Yet was THIS the only thing they could come up with?? Jason in Space? Original? Sure... ACCEPTABLE? HELL NO! Jason should be in the woods, thats where he belongs, all this "Body Freezing" - "Time Warping" and Star-ships were making me sick.

Sixth Con- The Ending.Most Jason films had a cool ending, which would leave you "Grasping" for the next sequel. the Ending to JASON X was really lame. It was a Conclusive ending, so there wasn't really an End. It was really dumb how Jason and the Space dude, flew down from space to earth and Landed EXACTLY at Crystal lake? Its funny how they didn't discintegrate on their way down. It's also funny how those two lovers at the end, point to Jason and that Space Dude flying down from the air and say "Look- it's a flying star"...Ohhh it's SUCH a fairy-tale ending.

Seventh Con- The Music. I REALLY Disliked the musical score of Jason X, it's the worst musical score since FRIDAY THE 13th PART 3. It was very repetative, and didn't have any build-up.

Eighth Con- Special Effects. Seeming this was shot in "Space"- Special Effects are a very vital form to this movie- and the Special Effects were cheap and corny. The "Space-ship Section" looked like a floating webcam- im serious. When the ship would get VERY damaged and crash into citys, landing bays, docks, and other Ships, it explodes from the outside, and inside all the people are just holding on as the camera shakes a little bit- like in the power rangers. If they HAD to make this film in space, they could have at least TRIED to make the Special Effects look good.

HERE ARE THE FEW PROS IN THE MOVIE.

First Pro- Jason "New look". For the fast hour, Jason is plain old Jason, with the hockey mask, and hey thats cool. After getting his head blown off, he re-transforms, and has a new "Metal" mask, and i think it looks cool. Jason looks pretty creepy, and his "Body-guard" looks VERY good.

Second Pro- Kane Hodder. The Man BEHIND Jasons mask. He plays his parts very well, although not his best, he does look like he usualy does, really big-stocky and strong. He is the BEST Jason, thats for sure.

Third Pro- The Death Scenes. Jason is quiet "Original" with his deaths, he kills with creativity, and thats what i like. A girl gets her face frozen, and he smashes her face on the wall. Also a man falling into a "Giant" screw, and a FUNNY death is when Jason is smashing one girl into another girl. Very well done in this part.

Fourth Pro- Attractive Cast. Wow the women were reallt stunning this film. This ALWAYS help a friday film by a few percent. Unfortunantley watching them die off aint so pretty.

Fitfth Pro- Good Flashbacks. For a Brief moment in JASON X you are sent "back" or JASON is Sent back to Crystal Lake. It looks so cool how they did it, one VERY funny thing is that Jason is asked by two attractive 80's girls, if he wants to smoke pot with them and have Pre-marital sex because "They love it". Jason teaches them a thing or two after that. It was nice to see that glimpse of Crystal Lake- Oh how it will be missed.

Thats my conclusion. I am a BIG Jason Fan, and i must admit JASON X has lowered my faith in the series. Yet this isn't the WORST of the series. It is better than parts (5,8 & 9) .So it's basically one of the worst Jason flicks, but i think its unfair to skip it. Especially if you are a fan, there are SOME redeeming qualities in the film. So i advise you check it out, dont expect anything great at all, and try to come with a "Comical" sense, instead of a Serious one. There were only TEN people in the Cinema watching this film and 3 people walked out, i find NO reason to walk out of this film. But i think its only "Normal" to leave the cinema with a feeling of "Disappointment"

** (2 stars) - out of 5.

Ginger Snaps (2000)

Gore-Fest that lacks originality.

[31 July 2002]

Ginger is 16, edgy, tough, and, has a close bond with her younger sister Brigitte.They've made a pact about dying together. In early October, on the night she has her first period, which is also the night of a full moon, a werewolf bites Ginger. Within a few days, some serious changes happen to her body and her temperament. Her sister Brigitte, 15, tries to find a cure with the help of Sam, a local doper. As Brigitte races against the clock, Halloween and another full moon approach, Ginger gets scarier, and it isn't just local dogs that begin to die.

Ginger snaps was a totally different approach i've seen in any movie. It has a few problems. Firstly the sisters, they are aged 16 and 15. Even though their ages appear at least 5 years apart from physical appearance. Secondly the Special effects and werewolf makeup are quiet laughable, infact you would have sworn to have seen the same makeup effects in the movie American Werewolf In London (1981). The acting on the other hand was quiet well done by two of the main actresses. I especially liked the way the sister changed. The script was definantley different, i havent seen a film like this before, and it does has its fair share of gore. One thing that put the movie down was the character development, i really didnt like their mother (played by Mimi Rogers). The character of Sam is very one-dimensional.

One thing that i didnt expect to do in this film was laugh, and i DID laugh more than i got "Shocked". The film is extremely bright and colorful- especially for a horror film. Also Ginger Snaps seems to have copied scenes from various other films like The Craft, Howling, Blair Witch Project & TV Show Buffy, for a second i would have thought it was a spoof. The fear factor isn't very high in this film, though when Ginger begins to transform to that vampire, the images are actually scary and disturbing. Threres a lot of blood and guts, thats nothing to complain about i guess.The cinematography was okay, definantley nothing special, i just didn't like the Town that the film was shot in, it was SO urbanised, and had no character. Camera work was very BLAIR WITCH. You will notice a few faces from older Films, the choice of actors in this film was adequate, though the character Ginger, did NOT look 16 years of age.The DVD has no special features and it appears cheap. I guess this is something worth the hire, if you take away its predictable plot & lack of originality, and it would come to quiet a fun gore flick.

ACTING: The acting was quiet well done, especially by the two Sisters. I found the parents (especially the mother) VERY annoying and perky. The other characters played their parts as they should, nothing to complain about i guess.

ACTORS: The choice of actors was fair, though Ginger looked at least 5 years older than she is in the film. I didn't like Mimi Rogers at all. Everyone else was fair enough and suited their characters well, Sam though was A BIT

out of place.

SCRIPT: The script was in a way well written- yet it was also quiet unoriginal, it seemed to burrow scenes from other films. If youre a true hardcore horror fan you will find this more funny than scary, some of the lines are really corny, yet i like the way the relationship between the sisters forms, and the dinner table scenes are funny. I especially enjoyed when after killing a character in the kitchen, with her blood all over the floor, they pretend to be doing their "Death experiment" -very clever.

CINEMA: Quiet bland, it appeared pretty budgeted, the town was so boring- it didnt fit the typical Vampire type cliched atmosphere. Also it was VERY colorful for a horror film, and the DVD Quality isnt all that great too. It was far from exceptional, and was amateur at times.

HORROR: The film wasn't very scary, there are only maybe two scenes which would raise a few arm hairs. Yet there are more than enough moments where the film is funny, even when its not intended to be. This was a very new-age horror approach to a teen werewolf movie, i wouldn't call it scary, though it had lots of blood and gore.

MUSIC/SOUND: Nothing special. The sound effects were fairly cheap and there wasn't much music, they could have added some music to make scenes seem more dramatic or scary.

OVERALL: Ginger Snaps isn't your typical werewolf movie, its totally different. Not to fret though, the movie was enjoyable to a certain extent, although not entirely scary and the running time was slightly long, some scenes were just memorable, and FUNNY..Intended or not. Despite how unoriginal it is with its scenes, i cant say this was a BAD film, but somewhat over-rated.

*** (3 stars)

out of 5.

American Pie 2 (2001)

This Pie Is As Sweet As The First!

[25 June 2002]

American pie 2 was a film i had been longing to see. I did get to see it in theatres, and i have bought it on DVD. That can only tell you that i thouroughly enjoyed this movie. I owe both part 1 and 2 on DVD. Many say that American Pie 2 basically had no plot, but did the first?? The whole group is back in this funny sequel. The 5 boys go to a camp at a lake and rent a property there to party in, the ENTIRE cast of the original is back, this time the boys make a pact to make this the best summer they would have together...That's a plot..I guess..Sorta!

Is it as good as the first? Maybe not. Yet the films are very similar, leaving Jim in his typical embaressing situations, you've got to love it.Of course there is the gross humour, this film isnt exactly titled for kids,just like the original. Yet that i was a little disappointed about was the fact that the cast was a little out of touch in this film.I mean this time the film is basically set upon the boys, the rest of the cast is "here and there", but their screen time is nowhere near as much as the first.

Some say the script sux. I beg to differ, remember this is a teen movie,it brain-feeds TEENS, it only works for TEENS.The script wasn't a masterpiece,yet it did match with a teens thoughts, i wasnt expecting anything more of the script. There are many funny moments, like Jim getting glued to himself,the embaresing Bandcamp situation, OZ & his Girlfriend having phone sex and being interrupted by Stifler, the lesbian situation, jims dad OF COURSE, the introduction and much more. I must add that Stifler is still really funny, i did not like his little brother one bit. I really reccomend the DVD, it has so many extra features, the OUT-TAKES are hilarious.

ACTING: It was good, Jim really knows how to react with his situations. The whole cast did a good job, not flawless but still they were totally intact with their characters, they did a good job remembering who they were in part one, Alyson Halligon was GREAT.

ACTORS: Everyone is back, so thats gotta be good. I loved all the actors in this movie.The selection was good, though the characters are beginning to show age, they dont really look 19 anymore, so they better hurry with that trilogy.

SCRIPT: The script was adequate not much more i can say. No-one can expect a top of the pop script, the screen-writer did a good job keeping the characters in line, and giving them slight changes so they weren't so boring. Even though the plot was thin, some things were really funny in the film, the screenwriter should be applauded for that.Yet the cast (besides the boys) needed more screen time.

CINEMA: Quiet good, the scenes- especially by the lake were great to look at,there was nothing really special with the camera work or technique, but theydid get the right effect, it was enjoying to watch, the film looked really colourful, sometimes the characters glowed with their fake tans.

COMEDY: Very good, i would say that it was on par with its original. They are very similar in the comedic kind of sense. Many scenes delivered alot of laughs, thats a good sign. If you are in a bad mood, and really needto brighten your day with some sillyness, you would love this! Or the original.

MUSIC/SOUND: The Soundtrack to American Pie 2 was FANTASTIC. One of the best things about the movie. Part one had a great soundtrack, but this was BETTER,the music really sets the mood, The music is college/grunge great choice in music.

OVERALL: American Pie 2 is definantley worth the buy, especially on DVD. I think that those that think this or the original sucked are a little too "old" for this. If you are a teen, or are young at heart, the laughs will come flowing to you, if you are old and grumpy, expect to finish the film with a BIGGER frown. I loved this film, although the original maybe a touch better with plot,i still think they did a great job with this film,and i would LOVE the whole cast to come back one more time, I cant get enough of them.

****/ ***** (4 out of 5 stars)

Blood Surf (2000 Video)

Oh god, this is SO HORRID!

[21 June 2002]

Krocodylus (Boy what a stupid title) or in other words "BLOOD SURF" had to be one of the craziest films i have ever seen.The plot goes something like this. Around 5 people go to the South Pacific to go Blood Surfing- This is surfing of where the surfer makes himself bleed, so Sharks can come after him in the water.Instead of them dissing some sharks, they come across a monster...a "31 foot Crocodile"...Wow! Sound interesting? Trust me..It isn't.

The Crocodile does not appear in the film until half way, and BOY does that Crocodile look fake or WHAT, i havent seen such cheap CGI effects in my life. There is not ONE moment where the crocodile looks real, its legs dont move, at one scene the crocodile looked bigger than a mountain??The crocodile even looks like a cardboard cut out.Its so funny! The movie definantley is NOT original, its steals EXACT ideas from films like JAWS, INDIANA JONES and more.

But wait....Its a crocodile, and this film does have alot of deaths, so it must be Gory or scary right? Well i must tell you, the death scenes are ACTUALLY fun to look at, even though they are highly unoriginal. The script is so horrible and the ending is nuts, who the hell wrote this garbage? Who the hell bothered reading the script and actually MAKING IT?

The producers must have thought that adding ALMOST porn like sex in its film and gratautious nudity would make us forget...Well even though the sex scene was interesting, the acting was miserable. The lines in this movie are simply pathetic.Here are some of the lines used in this movie, its so funny.

Two sexy women flash their boobs at a Croc, and one of the girls say "We better stop this Croc-Teasing".

The death toll is numerous, but the more deaths, the less they seem to care, for example. A guy finds a surfboard out of nowhere and surfs his way to the crocodiles mouth, and the others say "Oh that must suck", i mean...ARENT THEY MEANT TO BE SCARED?? OR AT LEAST PRETEND TO BE? I think you should watch this film to simply laugh. A man is on board his ship which is at least 15 foot high, and this giant TOTALLY FAKE looking crocodile (that appears bigger than the mountain backdrop) jumps up, and grabs the guys head and jumps back into the water.Also where is this film met to be set in? I thought it was Australia, yet all of a sudden they are attacked by Mexican Guerrilas, and then they say that they are in the Phillipines, when there are many Chinese people around, and alot of the cast are American..WHAT???

This film simply relies on its good looking cast to go running around bouncing their flesh Baywatch style, this film lacks style.It starts off okay, and then it just gets HORRID, its actually SO funny.The characters in this film are so STUPID.A character jumps into the water where the crocodile is stuck in a noose, she swims near it with a camera, and then it lets itself loose. The crocodile looks like a cardboard cut-out in strings, its hilarious.

I give this movie 1 star out of 5, but i also want to give it a 5, no film has made me laugh so hard, when it had no intention to.PLEASE watch this movie, you will understand what i am talking about.

* - 1 STAR out of (5)

Showtime (2002)

A Chuckle Here....A Chuckle There.

[5 April 2002]

This Films Plot Reads: "A spoof of buddy cop movies where two very different cops are forced to team up on a new reality based T.V. cop show". Let me get one thing straight, a direct spoof kind of film would be AIRPLANE,NAKED GUN or SCARY MOVIE. Showtime is by no means a spoof.

A spoof is meant to deliver alot of laughs, and they should be clever too...Showtime provides you with stale laughs, and an extremelly poor plot, but it's a "Spoof" isnt it? Then the plot don't matter..Right?? WRONG!!! Showtime is no Spoof, has no plot. Though i would say there was a waste of talent here, and Eddie Murphy was making me pretty much sick, he is so "over".

Robert Deniro barely did a good job either, i liked him in "MEET THE PARENTS" but how could he accept such a poor script? A script that had absolutely no support? I mean honestly around 25% of the film has a few chuckles in there, the other 75% you would just be wandering what the hell this is all about! I personally dont reccomend you wastch this, the film is short, stale and terribly plotless.

ACTING: The acting was nothing more than annoying, Roberty Deniro would always have that same facial expression, note that him ageing hasn't helped his acting either. As for Eddie Murphy he stole most Chuckles, yet i found his presence very annoying too, i mean where has he been all this time?

ACTORS: Good talent is used in the film, even though they dont tend to take advantage of that. The cast is good, nothing overly special, Eddie Murphy and Robert Deniro..And???? No-one else.

SCRIPT: The script was poor, who ever thought this was a parody? It was barely even a comedy, and the "Action" scenes were lame too, this film seemed quiet budgeted and bodged up, it was so poorly written too, they could have lengthened the script with more character development and some funny stuff, that we were MEANT to revieve.

CINEMA: Cinematography was poor, there was nothing to it. The whole film was set in a city/dock sort of setting and it wasn't pretty at all. I found the camera work to be absolutely normal, they could have done something "different", but it was same old, same old.

COMEDY: The Comedy in Showtime is Thin. It is no Spoof, because spoofs are funny, enough said eh? I mean there are a few [I Quote "FEW"] funny scenes in the film, the rest of the film you aren't even smiling, its just that your brain is trying to realise what it is watching, a comedy or an action film? Bad chemistry i'd say.

MUSIC/SOUND: Again just plain boring and ordinary, theres not much i can say about this. There isn't alot of music in the film, sound was okay, not soundtrack worthy i would say.

OVERALL: Showtime was definantley dissapointing to watch, i don't know where these actors find the time to pull off, starring in such modern day rubbish, and for this film to call itself a Spoof is an insult to films like AIRPLANE! Nakend Gun and yes....EVEN Scary Movie! Miss it, i dont even think this deserved to be in the movies.

*1/2 STARS (OUT OF 5)

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

Sure It's Fast...& Furious, But Wheres The Story?

[7 March 2002]

The Fast & The Furious was a great film when it came to a limited extent. That was with cars, sure the film is basically based upon Cars, Violence & Women, the film still manages to get your adrenalin puping in your system whether you are a cars fan or not.

Yet Fast & The Furious in depth is deeply flawed, when you look at all of it's attributes the movie can become unpleasant because there is basically a lack of plot. Every film starts off with a plot, yet one can even tell they had a problem even working on a PLOT SUMMARY of the film, because there really isn't much more to talk about other than cars. I suppose the plot summary should have been "POINT BREAK: ON THE ROAD". The movie bascially copies Point Break (Keanu Reeves) and just places all the action and adrenalin on the road.

The cars in the film are fantastic to look at, and the cinematography is simply magical. When you look at the acting, it is on a half-half par, the scenes with Vin Diesel & Paul Walker just weren't dramatic enough, even though the two do seem to do a good job at other times. Sure the car has fantastic cars, sexy women & a great adrenelin rush, it simply cant go passed the BORDERLINE/GOOD barrier in my ratings barrier, although a stronger plot really would have placed this in the rankings of excellence.

ACTING: Acting was mediocore in total, nothing overwhelming by any of the cast, yet most of the cast do a good enough job playing their characters.Vin Deisel & Paul Walker should have intensified their scenes.

ACTORS: The variety of actors in the film are good, though there were thousands of extra's in the film too, thats to be appreciated. Vin Deisel is still going strong with his career so is Paul Walker, the female leads were a good choice for their teasing roles.

SCRIPT: Poor, i don't find how one can simply write a film based on cars, the plot line was very thin and quiet silly. The script wasn't well written, the cinematography did it all for the film, the script basically wasn't needed, dialogue wasn't good at all. Not a good attempt.

CINEMA: The cinematography in Fast & The Furious was quiet amazing, during many of the scenes you wander "How did they do that?" . The camera work is fantasic, the locations although not pretty, do set the atmosphere for the film, a great job that should be applauded.

ACTION: I don't really know what genre this film would be calssified as, it had abit of everything in it, that doesn't mean it passed each category. The action wasn't really intense, the comedy was low, the drama was low, it wasn't very thrilling either, yet a few scenes did leave your blood pumping for more.

MUSIC/SOUND: The soundtrack to Fast & Furious is great, i loved the trancey beats used during the drag scenes, excellent. The sound on the other hand was truely screeching to the ears, the cars didn't sound nice despite their looks, a good enough job though.

OVERALL: Fast & The Furious is a good movie, again only in a few terms, every other term is flawed, the script is thin and lame whie the Cinematography is beautiful. The acting is good, while it was low on action. I guess this movie is for hardcore car fans, although i would think they wouldn't even realise a plot is missing, i love cars...i love girls...i love things that are Fast & Furious, but i don't love this movie as much as others do, come on people, look passed the cars and the girls, there really is no story! Hence nothing to ride home about, even though it had great potential.

*** (3 STARS) out of 5.

Almost Famous (2000)

Great film deserving its high reputation

[4 February 2002]

Almost Famous to say the least was a great movie. The storyline is actually based on a true story of the life of Director Cameron Crowe, who claims it all happened.It was a good idea, because the film worked out so well especially since he Directed & Wrote it. The cast of this film were fantastic, especially by the lovely Kate Hudson, she performed miracles in this film, despite Williams (PATRICK FUGIT) character having an extremely annoying voice, it was still easy to flow on with the film. Although very likeable, the characters weren't discovered deep enough, the film was long anough, yet character development was a minor aspect of the film....Still it was very enjoying because of the realism of the characters, the great music, the feel good moments, the awfully realistic stereotypical characters, it's all in this film. The script was well written, and me also being a writer, the film only encouraged me to persue my career because i am only 18 years old. To me Almost famous lives up to its name, it is the "BEST ROCK AND ROLL" movie i have ever seen.Also the Cinematography in the film was fantastic, great camerawork, especially as the bus travels through the numerous scenery, not to mention the sets were really cool also.Although not a movie to continually watch, the 1st and 2nd viewing of the film are the most enjoying, sometimes you find yourself laughing,crying, and shouting with the characters. If i was asked which film was more realistically set in the 70's (Between ALMOST FAMOUS & BOOGEY NIGHTS) i would say Boogey Nights wins the award for that compartment, although well done, there were some floors in the film, sometimes you would feel the characters have gone through a time warp, thank goodness for subtitles.

ACTING: The acting was WAY above average, everyone played their roles right, i especially adored Kate Hudsons performance, the band members were pretty good also, Patrick Fugit was okay, yet his voice was a problem, he sounded different during the first and second half of the films because his voice cracked, i especially found him annoying second half around.

ACTORS: Actors were great, there were many famous faces in the film, also many familiar faces, that played their parts very well. The casting was great in the film, certainly a bunch of professionals.

SCRIPT: Very good, although a little more work and detail could have been placed on paper, in film they still managed to make most of the script, there were alot of well thought scenes, there wasn't really anything "pointless" in the movie.

CINEMA: Fantastic, especially during the tours with the bus, the scenery and sun sets were fantastic, i loved the park scene with PATRICK FUGIT & KATE HUDSON near the end, also the final few seconds of the film did justice for great cinematography.

DRAMA: The film is inbetween a Drama and a comedy, i like this style of Genre, although it sounds itneresting on its own, Almost famous places you well into the characters shoes, there is so much emotion in the film its hard to catch up, and i enjoy this, the film was Dramatic when it was meant to be a drama, and it was funny when it was meant to be a comedy.

MUSIC/FX: The music was great, i liked "Silverwaters" performance, great soundtrack also, one of the best of 2000, a great job with the music, which set up the films atmosphere perfectally.

OVERALL: When it comes down to the crunch, there will be alot of people disappointed with Almost Famous, i am an exclusion, personally this film was a delight to watch in all aspects, with flawless acting, great music and true essence of Rock & Roll, not one person can object to the cool Aura of this film, and its characters.

**** STARS (Out of *****)

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Promising Start Then....BANG!

[20 January 2002]

Jeepers Creepers is a review that i will put out in the open and be straight to the point about. First of all what is it with the title? It sounds as if a 5 year old made that one out. The film starts off quiet good, we are put into the two main characters shoes, beautiful country scenery, great cinemtography, and the first 30 minutes of the film really does give you that horror movie atmosphere, it was cool, i WAS enjoying it. The movie had alot of mystery for the first 30 minutes, it had great music and sound, the film basically was gripping and interesting, yet the biggest mistake the film had to offer was the "Creepers" themselves, or should i say the Creeper himself, after the first 30 minutes the movie turns to a Buffy episode gone wrong.The acting was mediocore, nothing fancy at all, the faces were quiet fresh too. The script was a huge downside of the movie, its so bad that it actually confuses you with whether the film is a HORROR or a COMEDY, it certainly starts off seeming like a horror movie, but the more characters that progress in the film, the movie gets more boring, predictable and plain silly. The actors themselves seemed to want to laugh with its atrocious plot. Jeepers Creepers is a bad Horror movie...No wait, I meant Jeepers Creepers is a bad comedy....Or whatever the genre is! You figure it out.

ACTING: The acting by the main cast wasn't very good, especially the male lead, he didn't have the slightest clue with his character, yet i wouldn't blame him...They had to read one of the worst scripts, if not the worst they will come across.

ACTORS: There were alot of characters, yet no-one exactly First Class, theres nothing wrong with introducing new faces to Hollywood, but please...Dont let their first movie be one of the worst of the year, it obviously wont progress them very far.

CINEMA: Cinematography was good, yet it was especially noticeable during the first 30 minutes, a good enough job, some beautifully shot scenes in great,eerie environments.

SCRIPT: Wow, is there a word to sum it up? LAME? CRAP? RUBBISH? TRASHY? AMATEUR? LOW-BROW? Just every word that sums up Bad,

because it really was that bad, they place you in that great Horror Atmosphere,*SPOILER* and dissapoint you when you find out all the damn JEEPERS CREEPERS want to do is smell your socks and underwear,*END SPOILER* eeeeeeek! Now that IS Scary.

THRILLS: Pretty minimal, they use alot of Cliches, and i was pretty unimpressed, they got some of the atmosphere right, yet with a plot like that, who would care? The thrills came every now and then, yet definantley its a THRILL not worth the ride.

MUSIC/SOUND: Average, nothing astonishing, oh yes they do play the 60's Jeepers Creepers music, oh boy! That was really lame as well, otherwise there is barely any music, the sound was ok, but used mainly to work upon a Cliche.

OVERALL: Well i cant stress out enough to you all, if you are looking for horror film to watch with a girlfriend, and think that you will get lucky by being able to get closer to her, think again...This film is just such an insult to its genre, its films like these that stop producers from even thinking about making another horror movie, JEEPERS CREEPERS felt more like a spoof than a Horror, actually it reminded me of IDLE HANDS...Only that was actually WORTH watching.

*1/2 stars (OUT OF *****)

Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth (2000 Video)

Not As Bad As Its Made Out

[24 November 2001]

Let me firstly say that people who say that "SHRIEK" was the worst or one of the worst movies ever is truely lame.Havent they seen any REALLY BAD movies? Shriek is not one of them.

If you are comparing this to Scary movie, they are the same yet very different. Scary movie relied heavily on sexual gags while this film threw in everything at you, both things hold risk, too much sexual humor turns off alot of the audience, and everything thrown at you at once, means there would be many misses and there are many misses with Shriek, it has a few funny one liners, the characters are quiet likeable, the acting wasn't award winning and so wasnt the directing, yet overall a film that you should give a try if youre into the whole "parody" thing.

ACTING: The acting wasn't very good, they simply seemed artifical with their characters, they obviously didn't know their characters well enough to play them.

ACTORS: Fairly good, there are many famous faces in this film, many of which are still going on with their careers, it was nice to see so many comical actors.

SCRIPT: Average, some of the jokes hit the funny bone, i especially liked the "Batman" parody and the Mentals ad, if stupid comedy is what you like, Shriek should be the one for you. If youre a horny teen with alot of time on his "hands" Scary Movie is the one for you.

CINEMA: Again not good enough, the whole atmosphere of the film was quiet amateur, it wasnt exactly BAD, yet it could have been done alot better, the sets looked obvious making it all look very one dimensional- just like that characters.

COMEDY: Good, not great but if you do not at least chuckle a few times at the film, you obviously werent a very happy child, i found myself laughing quiet alot at the film, some scenes were just really good while others were just really bad.

MUSIC/FX: Very "Porkys", yet the music was quiet good, better than Scary Movie, sound effects were funny.Quiet good.

OVERALL: Here is what it all comes down to.

If you enjoyed Scary Movie - "You will most likely find this a rip-off and not funny (even though this was written first)

If you love sexual humor- This is not for you, its a very clean comedy yet it doesnt mean its not fresh , Scary Movie is for you if your into all that sexual gag.

If you liked Naked Gun- You would find this funnier than Scary Movie.

This movie should be viewed its quiet underrated and underappreciated, it isn't great, but please AVOID those that claim this movie is the worst movie ever, im quiet sure "Exaggeration" is a word most used in their vocabulary.

** 1/2 (2 and a half stars)

The Others (2001)

One Of The Best Films In '01

[8/10 · 10 November 2001]

In terms of Movies, the year 2001 has had a shocker, yet one film named "The Others" finally worked the so far- bad year out. The Others was a film based in the 1940's during the war, the house is haunted by "Intruders", the mother (Nicole Kidman) resides with her son and daughter, the daughter often complains of seeing "Ghosts" in the house. The chill factor in this film is pretty low, yet one with patience must watch this film.

The Others is a ghost film after all, so dont expect blood and gore, if thats what your looking for...Jason, Freddy & Michael are all waiting at your local video store, this movie was scary, not frightening but the eerie camerawork and environment was enough for me. In terms of the plot, it was very well thought of, the script was fabulously written and the acting was flawless, what more could i say? This film deserves to be in the top 5 movies of this year, infact...Number ONE is a good number!

ACTING: The acting was fabulous in "The Others", infact it was Flawless, especially by Nicole Kidman, such beauty portrayed on film, also the kids did a good job, especially the young girl, delightful to watch!

ACTORS: Good, a few new faces in this film, but definantley not to waste, Nicole Kidman doesen't chose the best movies, but this time around she made the RIGHT choice, good range of actors, and good new-comers.

SCRIPT: Terrific, this movie couldn't live without its great script, everything flowed in very well with the movie, the film had a dramatic twist at the end, could be predictable, but worth the wait.

CINEMA: Brilliant, the use of the fog effects was breathtaking, the mansion was fantastic, the use of lights was brilliant, the camera-work was top notch material! Awards must be won.

SUSPENSE: Quiet low unfortunantley, yet it is a ghost movie, it did have a couple of jumps, yet most of the film could be said to be "Slow Paced", yet the thrills actually make you jump they are very effective the moment they approach.

MUSIC/FX: Nice, especially during the scenes where Nicole Kidman gets tormented by the ghosts, the music was used well and the music did add to the suspence, very enjoying.

OVERALL: "The Others" is definantley better than "Sixth Sense", infact the Sixth Sense was way over-rated, this film is much better. It developed a better plot and much better twist at the end, the only complaint some would have was the pacing of the film, a slow start, yet viewers are rewarded with the MANY upsides of this gret film.

**** (4 STARS)

Scary Movie 2 (2001)

Lacks In Structure..Had Some Potential.

[5/10 · 21 September 2001]

Scary Movie 2....Boy wasn't this film made in a hurry? Its pretty obvious, just watch the movie, and you will think they did the whole film in one take. The film is VERY short....Thats what makes it feel very cheap, you would expect alot more, the original was GREAT this sequel had potential but it was far from great.

The movie starts off with an Exorcist spoof...Wow.! Well done, that was a good job and left me laughing alot...After that though, many of the jokes just aren't funny or are simply irellevant. Many of the jokes fall flat some examples would be (The clown scene,Nike Ad, Weakest Link,Hannibal,The Haunting) they obviously weren't thinking, after seeing these scenes you would think to yourself "How long did this really take to make"?. The acting was mediocore, the film barely had any dialogue, and it doesent have that precious relationship from the original.....Cindy is with Buddy, thy barely communicate and they're not funny together. Tori Spelling is there for nothing..I mean who is she? And the "I LOVE DEAD PEOPLE" chick...Who is she? Sure the whole movie is a spoof, but there must be SOMTHING, the movie had no plot and it lacked in structure, it was all messed up.

On the other hand there are a few jokes that were great to watch (Charlies angels,Exorcist,VITAMIN C,Guy with weird hand) they were good...Yet they dont save the film from its many downfalls. Scary Movie 2 was very sexually crude, i dont reccomend this to anyone under 15 at all....Gross Humor is good in American Pie...Gross Humor in Scary Movie 2...Well..It doesnt quite work.

ACTING: The acting wasn't good at all...Acting was barely required in the whole film, it is SO short and there is barely any dialogue, and this is what furthers the gap between this and its worthy original.

ACTORS: Most of the original cast is back (Even though half of them died) a few good names...Excluding Tori Spelling, i guess the casting was ok..I wasnt expecting any better.

SCRIPT: Very poor, this is what made the film sink....If they spent abit more time on the script, closing pot-holes, making the movie make sense etc. etc. Infact if they re-wrote the whole thing it would have been better...Seriously, they must have written this with their eyes closed.

CINEMA: Very poor, lack of locations, its like the movie was made in a few days, i wouldnt be suprised if it wasnt.The lighting was good for the Exorcist but other than that, poor Cinematography.

COMEDY: Had alot of potential, didnt really reach its goal. I did expect better, sure you will laugh in the movie, but dont expect many laughs...Just a few official laughs...Not artificial laughs where you are just laughing WITH the audience even though it aint funny to you.

MUSIC: Hmmm music? all i really remember is GRADUATION DAY by VITAMIN C...Oh there was "LET ME BLOW YA MIND" by EVE and Gwen Stefani, also the music during Charlies angels was ok..Not bad!

OVERALL: Scary movie 2 i recommend you watch ONLY if you liked part one, and i am not promising that you will love this film, you might end up hating it.... Yet i personally think the film had lots of potential, it tried...But not hard enough.

** (2 stars)

Hollow Man (2000)

Gee Whiz This Sucked..!

[26 August 2001]

A am not a fan of Kevin Bacon, and after seeing this, have no feelings towards Elisabeth Shue, they both do poorly in this film, but it doesnt only evolve around them, the writing in this film was hideous, and they took advantage of what seemed to be a good idea, and turned Hollow Man into one Hollow film.

The plot is basically about a bunch of scientists that can make animals invisible, but the creator (Bacon) wants to test the product on himself, and after this the film drops down quicker than a rollercoaster, Bacon turns into an invisible pervert, groping breasts, raping women, lifting skirts and turning into a psycho, its all so dumb!

Elisabeth Shue to me, is now a bad actresses and grabs any script thats thrown at her, im dissapointed with that, and the movies ending, brace yourself.....Pull your hair out.....Smash the TV, do whatever you want...Because i know it would get an angry response. DO NOT WATCH HOLLOW MAN! This movie sucked the big one!

ACTING: Awful, by all the cast, no exceptions....I was especially dissapointed with Shue, as i didnt expect any better from Bacon, very bad acting indeed.

ACTORS: Not good, Kevin Bacon i simply have no faze with him or his career, Shue i did like..But not after this, and a few other people you may recognize, i guess they all deserved each other for this film.

SCRIPT: Extremelly lame, they turned a good idea, into a perverted one...Im a male, and even seeing all that rape and groping made me feel all weird, cause it seemed wrong..The screenwriters must have been drunk or felt frisky!

CINEMA: Good, the special effects were nice and there was some good camera-work in the film, but this was the only high point of this lame excuse of a movie.

THRILLS: Low.....it was all pretty predictable, and the film was even boring at times, and during the "Thrilling" moments, expect nothing, maybe a small jump, but that jump is from the angry adrenalin in your body! Plain boring.

MUSIC: Fair at most, there wasnt much music used in the film, and the music wasnt composed too well wither, they didnt seem to put them in the right moments, making the film more sluggish.

OVERALL: If your'e a Kevin Bacon/ Elisabeth Shue fan, you might watch this, but you will HATE this! Its such a perverted dirty sily little film, jam packed with bad acting and a lame bottomed script...Avoid this like a speeding train!

1/2 (half a star out of 5)

Teaching Mrs. Tingle (1999)

A Very Stupid Film..Avoid This!

[18 August 2001]

Killing Mrs. Tingle, what a pathetic excuse for a Horror/Thriller movie,i wasnt expecting any better of Katie Holmes, as watching her is as dull as watching a stiff board. What really drawed me away from the film was the very stupid plot and immature acting, by the WHOLE cast.This film implements bad things especially for students and graduates (to be), i dont know what the writer was thinking,thats IF he WAS thinking,i also dont understand how over-rated the film is, it got a 5/10....Thats 2 and a half out of 5.

The whole aspect of the film is MRS. TINGLE wanted Katie Holme's character to FAIL for graduation, thats it....Then they take over her home, while she's upstairs tied up on a bed, theyre cooking downstairs...WHAT? I think that the script for Teaching Mrs Tingle should have been written again, the whole thing was un-interesting and the entire cast was simply pathetic, i laughed at how bad the movie was...really, it was bad, this movie is a disgrace to its genre.

ACTING: Very bad, Katie Holmes wasnt very idealistic for her role, she should stick to Dawsons Creek and the dude should stick with 7th Heaven, but i guess they both deserved this lame script.

ACTORS: Sure there was Katie Holmes, dont hold your breath to find a good performance by her, you wont see it, the casting was fairly familiar,but definantley not A+ grade performers.

SCRIPT: Lame,lame,lame. It only gets worse and worse, especially the final 20 minutes, laughable....The Script was possibly what made the movie what it was....A COLD TURKEY!

CINEMA: Boring, nothing visually stunning, lack of effort in the Cinematography department, i couldnt point one good point from the whole 90 minutes of wasted time.

THRILLS: Kept at a minimal, and the so called "Thrilling" segments of the film, were so predictable, especially once you hear "IS SHE DEAD"? Bad effort.

MUSIC: Not much, i cant comment on this aspect as their barely was any, and i suppose it was fair, but nowhere near "GOOD."

OVERALL: Teaching Mrs. Tingle has multiple things missing, in its script,dialogue,techniques character development and its basic plot, this leads to one thing, Teaching Mrs. Tingle is a waste of monumental time and money, do yourself a favour...Skip it!

* (One Star)

Devil's Prey (2001)

Nothing Too Special, Ok For Its Genre.

[6/10 · 14 August 2001]

Devils Prey was a movie i picked out for no apparent reason, even the cover looked too "I know what you did last summer", but i still gave it a go....and to my suprise it wasnt too bad. The cast wasnt top Hollywood actors/actresses but im sure youve seen at least one of them before. The story isnt too complicated, A bunch of teens, after having a party in a country town, drive back home, but on their way there they run over a girl, her injuries arent severe, then they are followed around by some devil worshipers wearing scary masks,**SPOILER**one of them gets caught, and theres no sign of him through-out the movie, so that was a big no-no...What happened to him? Why didnt they show it? **END SPOILER**

The acting was acceptable, except that of the Blonde girl, though she shows her fears well, the movie wasnt written to well, it had its good points (Barn scene) but others, were just copy-cats of other movies like (I Know What You Did Last Summer) just check the ending out, absolutely un-neccesary.

The film also had familiar scenes to the likings of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Know What You Did.... & Hannibal/Silence Of The Lambs. Im sure it could have been done better, but it was still an acceptable movie, not very scary, but some of the scenes were appealing, especially for its type of Genre.

ACTING: The acting was acceptable, there was alot in the cast, and they all did OK, nothing overwhelming at all, but they did their jobs satisfactorally.

ACTORS: Not really a familiar cast, no-one really all that famous, and if you recognise them, they are from TV Shows, not the best chosen cast, but i guess they suited their roles ok.

SCRIPT: Again it did copy alot of movies, and the ending was quiet dissapointing, there were many potholes in the movie, giving the impression of a bumpy ride, and well..A Bumpy script, not too good.

CINEMA: Fair enough, i didnt find any exceptional cinematography, a few nice country settings, the town looked ok, though you wouldnt brag on about any of it.

THRILLS: Quiet a few, it almost starts out as a good thriller/horror film, you might get a few trembles, because the movie deals with Devil Worshipers and Evil, not many films go that far, especially of its Genre.

MUSIC: The music was good, not sound-track worthy, but whenever music was played, it was played appropriately with the scene it goes with, so the music was nice.

OVERALL: A Satisfactory horror film, of course it would have been done better as it did have its flaws, but like most of its Genre, their never classics, and Devils Prety definantley wasnt a classic, but it was an OK movie for its genre.

*** (3 Stars)

The Cider House Rules (1999)

Nicely Made Film, Predictable At Times.

[12 August 2001]

The Cider House Rules was a very well made film, the settings and camera work was quiet remarkable, the movie was sad, and everybody did a great job with the acting although Toby McGuire smiled too much. Charlize Theron did a great role, and she suited her character very well, the film at times was very predictable thus making the film a little less interesting than intened, but still Cider House Rules is a film that you should enjoy.

ACTING: Very good, i didnt notice any flunkers in the film, everybody was suited into their roles nicely, and each cast member had good acting performances.

ACTORS: A great choice with the actors, a great choice, and its evident that they spent alot of time wondering who to cast in the film, and they made a very good choice, this was pleasing.

SCRIPT: Quiet good, it did flaw in a few points, like the story didnt really kick off anywhere, it really needed a boost up, and the writers shouldnt have made it so predictable, this could have been better.

CINEMA: Fantastic camera work and angles, lovely paronamic views, lovely farms and great scenes in the snow, make Cider House Rules a lovely film to look at.

DRAMA: There were some dramatic scenes in the film, but the film in general was sad, yet there was something that kept you smiling at the end, find out what it was by watching it.

MUSIC: Music was fairly good, and used appropriately especially during the tense or "sad" scenes, it set the mood on very well.

OVERALL: The Cider House Rules by no means was a 5 star movie, yet everything evolves right in the movie, in all it ends up being a lovely Drama film, which may require a few tissues, a very good film, yet far from perfect.

***1/2 (3 and a half stars)