siit Reviews

The Fifth Element (1997)

A Big-bada-boom of a movie -- Green?

[9/10 · 11 February 2013]

This movie is so funky on so many levels. I absolutely love Luc Besson's work. The setting is fabulous with the nuances taken for granted in that day and age and are a brilliant eclectic mix of past, present and future; The vehicles, fashion, McDonald's, Military, Opera etc etc Milla Jovovich was sublime, there is no superlatives that are adequate to describe her performance. She Brought the absolutely adorable character of Leeloo to life.

Similarly Bruce Willis was excellent with all his usual mannerisms and quirky attitudes. Gary Oldman just hit Zorg on the head and finally kudos to Chris Tucker, he was just hilariously brilliant - "Green?" With a funky industrial soundtrack the Fifth Element is a fast paced and genuinely good fun movie.

Oh.... and he we go for the fans; Leeloominaï Lekatariba Lamina-Tchaï Ekbat De Sebat :)

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Star Trek :Perfection

[9/10 · 8 February 2013]

The quintessential example of how a Star Trek movie should be done;

(1) TNG cast are awesome (as usual), (2) The Enterprise has a new make over, (3) Beverley Crusher looking hotter than ever, (4) Great battle scenes, (5) Awesome new weapon with a cool name - Quantum torpedo, (6) The Borg - the best ST protagonist ever, (7) Witty dialogue and excellent character interactions (8) Troi was even decent !!! (9) The Borg Queen was fantastically portrayed (10) A truly awesome musical score....

.... what more is there to say? all but perfect!

(The review is so concise and succinct that I have to add this to meet the minimum line requirements :P)

Minority Report (2002)

In our not too distant future, most of this could be real...

[9/10 · 8 February 2013]

This would have to be one of the most under-rated movies around. I love the premise and execution. Love the spiders, sick-sticks, all the vehicles, the character interactions etc The setting looked actually all too real and a distinct possibility if technology was there. I know some people have issues with Tom Cruise, but I think he was awesome in this movie. Special Kudos to the doctor (quack quack).... can you imagine biting into that sandwich and drinking that milk? how many of you thought or shouted "Ewwww... no no!" Overall a fine and realistic Sc-fi that with a little push in modern technology, could be our future.

Avatar (2009)

The Benchmark of future Sci-Fi movies...

[10/10 · 6 February 2013]

This movie is stunning. Not into the Gaia type thing, but the clash of cultures highlighting the obvious pathetic human existence of money grabbing at the expense of all else.

Personally there is little in this movie that I find fault with. It draws you in so you want to be Jake in his avatar, you want to fly those beasts, and you cheer when the humans get their comeuppance :) I love the scenes of the females standing over the male in a protective stance.... something usually role-reversed. I found it natural, refreshing, and I whole-heartedly agreed with that equality.

I saw it at the movies a few times in both 3D and standard, and both were fantastic. It was the first Blu-ray movie I bought and is magnificently vibrant through the Oppo, Denon, and Plasma screen.

10/10 all the way, and I don't rate many movies that high!

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

AvP meets Friday the 13th

[6/10 · 25 December 2007]

It becomes so noticeable that the Strause Brothers took every most memorable aspect of both the Predator and Alien franchises, and melded them into AvP:R, Ergo, looks, sounds, music and atmosphere. And on a certain level it works very very well. It seemed a conglomeration of all the best aspects from all the movies, from the opening sound of the motion tracker...

Anyway... The setting is immediately after the first AvP. Sure there are massive plot holes for example how did the new Predator arrive so quickly? But thats OK. The scenes in the forest were very reminiscent of the original Predator and funnily enough, the Rambo:First Blood forest hunting feel.

The story overall was very interesting. Uncontrollable outbreak of an Alien infestation and the reaction of town, local police, National Guard and ultimately the Government. Problem is, it felt rushed. For 104mins, it could have been fleshed out more. The pace was frenetic for the most, but seemed 'too' fast in places. I felt that they could have taken at least one or two more shots to en capture the emotional state of the characters when the realisation of their final predicament was upon them, ergo the holed-up townsfolk, the escaping people, doctors at the hospital etc. I believe that the movie would have been far superior if they allowed certain characters to be fleshed out more and in general adjust the pacing. Movies nowadays tend to be over the 2 hour mark, AvP:R needed it.

The gore factor was definitely upped to near maximum, but I believe the Strause Brothers have upped the ante by showing the realism of horror impacting children, and dare I say babies! I was reminded of the Friday the 13th movies of the innovative ways in which to see victims eviscerated.

The resultant 'alien' from ending of AvP was interestingly nasty and there will be countless debates comparing the pure Queen in a Mano-DE-Mano (well the female equivalent) with the Pred Alien.

Apart from the already mentioned collection of 'best of' bits from the two franchises, it will be apparent to the hard core fans that the Strause Brothers are real fans. You will notice clever references to the Aliens V Predator novels (Prey and Hunter's Planet) of 'Dachande' (Yeyinde) and the striking similarity of Noguchi. All that was missing was Ne'dtessei written on the outside of the Predator ship :) The Cinematic release was a decent offering. I am hoping that there is a Director's Cut version on the DVD release that addresses the pacing. Fans of the franchises will be pleased, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is the catalyst for a movement to create another Alien movie based on the 'fans wanted' Earth being taken over by Aliens.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

The Rocky Five and death knell of the Harry Potter Franchise

[2/10 · 5 December 2007]

I haven't read the books and maybe Order of the Phoenix (OOTP) is an accurate telling of the book. But for me, I have lost all affection for the Harry Potter franchise. OOTP is too dark, too complicated and has lost the magic that endeared me to the blockbusting phenomena that the first two Harry Potter's instilled.

I understand that the saga must advance and Harry and Ron et al must evolve as they age, but the look, feel and sound of OOTP bears little resemblance to the first two (and even the third). The story for me is so disjointed from the fourth and the glaring anomalies and pure stupid plot holes are unforgivable. There's nothing really new to delight, the pacing is slow and laborious and the characters become annoying and wooden.

I have said this before in previous Harry Potter reviews, but Gambon's portrayal is terrible, and I find myself constantly mourning Richard Harris' passing. I just do not like Gambon's work in the franchise. He has ruined all credibility of the all powerful but controlled Headmaster. But his performance aside, I feel all the actors seemed to be bored and no one stood out- with the exception of Imelda Staunton's portrayal of Dolores Umbridge. I seriously disliked Umbridge, and we are supposed to, but I felt no joy in her demise, no one stepped up to the plate. Ron Weasley and Granger were token appearances, Radcliffe's performance was wooden and amateurish, and Gary Oldman, and especially Maggie Smith and Emma Thomson, had little to do. Voldermort's appearance was nothing special and the supposed highlights of the movie was at best a yawn fest.

I do not like this movie and have no interest in further installments in the franchise. My eleven year old son (who has not read the books) was left scratching his head saying it was too complicated, he didn't understand parts, and it had lost it's magic... I couldn't agree more.

A Century of Living (1999 TV Movie)

A look at history through the eyes of those who were there.

[9/10 · 2 February 2007]

This documentary was too short. You will fall in love with the real people that blesses us by sharing their memories and experiences from the close of the 19th Century, to the dawning of the 21st Century. All interviewees were born in 1900 or earlier and they are magnificent! They willingly share their experiences that were touched by joy, sadness, loss, hope, struggle and happiness. Some with twinges of regret, but all with a passion for life.

They discuss their early childhood, schooling, teenage years, exploration with the opposite sex, war, social restrictions, depression, dawn of the automobile and aeroplane, advancement of technology, family life, and so much more... I was riveted to all they said. It underlined my own mortality and caused an introspection of what is important.

The only criticism was that the program was too short. I found myself wanting them to dedicate an entire hour to talking about one event of the early 1900's or their feelings and experiences just after World War II etc.

I would say that many of those interviewed would have passed on in the years since 'A Century of Living' was filmed, and after hearing and seeing them, I for one feel more enlightened, but also saddened by their passing. But the joy is that their wisdom and fragment of life that filled and made who we are now, is forever captured on film for us that live on to encompass, learn and enjoy.

Manticore (2005 TV Movie)

Perfection in the worst possible way !

[1/10 · 19 January 2007]

Manticore is woeful from the beginning to the end. There is so much wrong with it, that it belies belief.

A 'terrorist' brings back to life a 2000 yr old mythical creature in the middle of the Iraqi war! And the virtually indestructible Manticore goes on a rampage.

Horrendously poor acting; Robert Beltran is as woody and ineffectual, equalling his very worst performance on Star Trek: Voyager. Chase Masterson is sooo incredibly annoying I actually cheered when the monster presumably had its way with her! In fact only the occasional Jeff Fahey appearance was the acting saving grace.

The monster itself was a joke. The CGI looked like it was handled by pubescent first time computer users. I can fully understand why this production skipped the big screen and video/DVD sales and straight onto TV.

It is that bad, However I can say it has a twin in cheesy deplorable monster/horror genre; check out Bugs(2003) and yours truly's comments ;) They could release Bugs and Manticore as a 'Dastardly D-grade Duo'

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Would not be heard of if Samuel L Jackson wasn't the star !

[5/10 · 19 January 2007]

Seriously, if Samuel L Jackson was not connected to this project, Snakes on a Plane (SoaP) would not have received as much publicity, nor had the same marketing budget. In fact I bet it wouldn't have made 1/10th as much money. Come on... it really is a low B grade movie(just).

Suspend belief at every turn, ignore the hokey CGI, ignore the unrealistic plot, killing time, etc etc....

However, if you want to experience the 'glory' days of the 1950's B-grademania ala 21st century style, then SoaP is for you! But don't let the kids see this.

On a more serious note, Im sure Steve Irwin will be turning in his grave and Austin Stevens will be moaning with despair at how Hollywood has re-stereotyped snakes... watch the kill rate get turned up.

Chaos (II) (2005)

Better than you will think, not quite as good as you hoped for.. but generally satisfying.

[7/10 · 19 January 2007]

Chaos was actually very different from the usual run of the mill *yawn yawn* action movies. Maybe because I like Jason Statham so much, but I enjoyed Chaos. Sure it was predictable, but it tried to be clever, different and have that twist. And its almost funny seeing Statham switch from London to American accent all the time, and Snipes wasn't the best.. but on the whole it was a better than your average movie.

So the quick synopsis; Statham is a much maligned suspended detective called in to be a negotiator in a bank robbery. The siege becomes complicated, and the audience has to understand the past and present to unravel the future and what is really going on.

OK down to the nitty-gritty. Chaos could have been a class act if it was done just a tad differently. Snipes needed to be as controlled as he was in the beginning, Statham should have stayed English accent, and the plot (punchline) should not have been delivered with a sledgehammer - or - not trust the audience to work things out without feeling the need to spell it out TOO clearly. I am reminded of another excellent and cognitive heist movie when seeing Chaos. I will not say it's name as that may be unwittingly revealing.

Statham is one of my favourites from Lock/Stock, Transporter etc and I like his presence in every performance I have seen him in thus far. Snipes I could take or leave yet I was happy he didn't try to encompass the entire screen! but the pleasant surprise I had was with Ryan Phillipe. I think he's becoming a class actor and I would love to see him land some plum roles that highlights his talent.

Overall, Chaos tries a philosophical and clever approach that is different from the average outing; regardless of what the DVD front cover may suggest, possessing a hypnotic funky score, in general good acting and a decent enough plot... overlook the obvious anomalies, and Chaos provides value.

11:14 (2003)

What a cracker of a movie !!

[9/10 · 6 September 2006]

I knew nothing at all about 11:14 when I saw it in the guide of what movie was on next. To be honest I was just going to keep 11:14 on in the background as I was supposed to be doing something more important. But I began to watch it.... and am I glad I did !! The credits haven't even finished rolling as I am writing this review because I thought it was that good.

The plot is supposed to be basic; an incident happens at 11:14pm and it is told from five different perspectives. But oh how it all progresses, ties together, and ends in a very satisfying manner. It reminded me of a cross between 'Memento' and 'Pulp Fiction' and to be honest, I found 11:14 comparable to those above mentioned excellent movies.

The actors themselves were so natural and played the roles so well that there was not one actor that was the 'star'. I can't say enough about this movie. It was clever, witty, funny when necessary, intelligent and excellently casted.

My only gripe was occasionally too many events 'seemed' to happen in the supposed allotted time which made me aware of the time frame more than I probably should. But so saying that it detracts very little and I enjoyed 11:14 immensely. See it, I am sure you will love it too.

Before the Fall (2004)

An introspection and warning... for past and present!

[8/10 · 15 July 2006]

Napola is a disturbingly intellectual movie. The more you think on the message; the more disturbing it becomes. It is actually very scary the normality of the 'education', and shows the ease to which the standard human being can be nurtured into whatever the government wishes to instill. Very poignant in todays current affairs!

The movie itself has a lot in common with 'Dead Poet's Society', ergo the journey of self-discovery and one's place amidst the strict paradigm of expectancy. Complete with tragedy and the strong hint of insidious cruelty, Napola is not a superficial standardised 'Hollywood' outing (thank goodness).

The facts at the end of the movie were amazing in their ability to encapsulate the futility and warn against brainwashing of a nation. May more people be aware of this practice so the 'real' terror be rightfully and publicly rebuked.

Lost Things (2003)

Very interesting, though there's just something.....

[5/10 · 22 May 2006]

Don't expect a clichéd stereotypical slasher-fest with Lost Things(LT). It is thought provoking and makes you think and ask questions long after the credits finish.

LT seems straight forward, the tale of 4 teenagers sneaking away for a weekend of supposed debauchery and unwholesome fun... well that's where the similarities end in comparison to the afore mentioned stereotypical slashers. LT makes you think. It is a cognitive tale that doesn't treat the audience as if they are all pubescent fools.

However there are some glaring anomalies that seriously detract the viewer. Firstly the two lead teenage male actors are too similar in appearance and mannerisms; it was difficult to distinguish them at times. The screenplay seemed to lose its way with continuity and dialogue in places that was actually frustrating. And the editing and cinematography seemed to be jumbled and 'roughly cut' with shots and scenes thrown together haphazardly even when the viewer has the benefit of hindsight at the end of the film.

Overall though LT is a clever little outing. It would score higher but for the technical downfalls. I for one though do appreciate a good cognitive thriller ... and Lost Things tried.

Bugs (2003 TV Movie)

Bugs is an Alien franchise wannabe - so bad its almost comical; in a teeth-pulling satirical way

[1/10 · 17 February 2006]

Seriously folks, if this movie was touted and marketed as a tongue in cheek satire of the 'Alien' franchise and they amended the movie so ever slightly - it would be hilarious. However, the producers; God love 'em, tried in vain for a serious horror sci-fi and failed in monumental proportions.

Where do we start?? Nasty supposedly dormant 65 million year old bugs come to life in a subway. A terrible explanation of why the construction crew did not get attacked ... well leave that alone and utterly suspend disbelief... and not for the first time!!

It is so obvious that the this movie was influenced extremely heavy by the 'Alien' franchise, and throw in a bit of 'Mimic' for good measure.. so the similarities??

(1) Aliens had the colonial Marines, Bugs have the S.W.A.T. (2) The S.W.A.T. mirror the Marines counterparts as well- Hudson, Hicks, Vasquez, Drake et al (3) Virtual copy of dialogue, death scenes - but VERY poorly done. (4) Alien; drones and Queen... yep same for Bugs. (5) Same corporate bad guy putting spanner in works... meets same demise!! (6) Ripley wannabee in the shape of C.D.C lady. (7) Poor attempt at copying the cinematography from 'Alien3' for Bugs sight. (8) Bug sounds, death knells, disintegration shots VERY similar to 'Aliens' (9) 'Can't afford to let even one of those...'

and... the pièce de résistance .. and I wish I was joking

(10) 'Aliens'; Ripley takes on the Queen with that way cool Loader... 'Bugs'; Takes on the Queen with, I kid you not, a fork lift!!

Seriously, 'IF' for some extraordinarily torturous reason you wish to actively seek this movie out to view it, approach it as a violent satirical comedy/parody of 'Alien'. Even though I could safely disclose the ending of Bugs due to 'Contains Spoilers'... I can't. Let's just say that the writers/producers/director have no idea what constitutes a proved and successful ending to a horror movie.

You have been warned... *grins*

Batman Begins (2005)

Why is this Batman Production so popular?!?!

[5/10 · 26 January 2006]

After so much publicity I finally got around to watching Batman Begins (BB) and I am in two minds how to rate it. I am still not totally clear on final judgment, though I have seen it 4 times in my overly decadent digital home cinema so judgment is not for want of viewing.

BB is definitely different to other projects bearing its name, but better? Well different. I can understand the franchise wishing to change their tact from the total trash of 'Batman and Robin', and the throes of embarrassing pathetic-ness it had become. They have re-packaged the franchise into a story that had previously not been told. It is obvious they have worked hard to try and bring Batman into the 21st century along with credibility of big budget and big names. But there is something gnawing at me that it is not very successful.

The main problem I have is with the marketing machine. As was 'Hulk', BB is marketed to late teens and above with concepts of deeper emotional concepts and adult themes... yet, the retail stores shamelessly promoted the hype of all things Batman for children - and young ones to boot with BB pajamas, school stationery etc. I find it inherently dishonest for what is essentially adult based movies to manipulate the public using children. It is not so far fetched to envisage say 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre (TSM)' being promoted obviously with adults in mind but selling TSM toy chainsaws, pajamas and school gear to manipulate the public to make dollars.

I understand that BB is supposed to be Gothic and dark, but at times its too dark. The fight scenes whilst having promise are edited so poorly, and coupled with the darkness, its a mess. Its alright, but I personally can not see how BB garnered the support and rating it has.

Credibility for the project seems to be due to the impressive established actors that were roped in; Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Rutger Hauer... and to a lesser extent Ken Watanabe off the back of 'The Last Samurai' and Katie Holmes thanks to Tom Cruise's syrupy public exaltations. But I didn't like Christian Bale's performance. He seemed to be dull and struggle in the company of the 'established actors'. Then again the screenplay wasn't the greatest ever and not strong enough to effectively utilise the talent. Michael Caine seemed miscast; Gary Oldman was bland and Gordon was portrayed too weak at times; Morgan Freeman was excellent but had little to do; Rutger Hauer along with Liam Neeson were cast in what seemed weird roles...

Who was the true bad guy? Old formulas dictate that the climactic scenes pin the hero against the villain. Therefore, is Rutger Hauer; the corporate executive, the real bad dude, or is Liam Neeson? The League of Shadows which purportedly fights criminals... the essence of Batman's persona... are the bad guys ... rather ironic. It is so obvious that the 'Leagues' final actions are morally bad, but I felt that BB spent a lot of time in the final scenes ensuring that we see Rutger Hauer get his comeuppance when to be honest, I didn't really see they had established him as a credible villain. I mean we first see him when Bruce is young and he ensures the Wayne empire will flourish until Bruce's majority, which he does. Sure he acts condescending at times with 'too complicated for you' attitude, and his desire to progress the company's interests in areas which while far from illegal, were not to the original edicts of the founding Waynes. Yes he did fire Fox... but was it established that he was in bed with the League? And was he as bad or worse than the league? Liam Nelson did not portray the bad guy effectively, he was too good and not nearly nasty enough to warrant the leader of an ancient cruel judicial sect. The training of Bruce was established within a coven that fights for justice yet their brand of justice is highlighted beyond the bounds of morally right.. yet no one can see the blatant contradiction. The League itself seemed so small to be ineffectual for all the bragging of past deeds supposedly attributed to them.. it just didn't make a lot of logical sense.

Taking into consideration what I have stated above, I can not in good conscience rate this movie anywhere near the trend of 8/10. I am rationalising my multiple viewings down to morbid curiosity and willingness to find answers that gnawed at me from in previous viewings. I felt BB was incomplete, half-baked and rushed to be released. It just seemed to be missing that final polish you come to expect from a large budget, star filled movie. I rate BB 5/10.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

A darker offering but still as magical

[7/10 · 21 January 2006]

I have to admit that when I first saw the PoA, I didn't receive it as warmly as the previous two outings. However after viewing PoA again at the cinema and subsequently on DVD, I tend to believe it virtually as well done as Chamber of Secrets and hence slightly less than Philosopher's Stone. There are still the little tricks and quirks that make it 'Harry Potter' and all characters returning are great... except one. It was with great sorrow I heard the passing of Richard Harris and therefore I tried to look with respect and allow that Dumbledore is replaced by Michael Gambon and give him the benefit of the doubt. However the shoes of Richard Harris are too big for him to fill. The majesty of Dumbledore is not the same and regardless of good intentions, it detracts from the movie.

But the story is interesting and engaging, though sometimes had to be explained to a younger audience. The special effects are fantastic. The kids are growing up and a lot of the silliness is disappearing, but then again (apart from the constant Radcliffe cheesy smiles) was that silliness part of the magical innocence? PoA is another good solid episode for the Harry Potter empire. And I still find it refreshing to escape the Americanised offerings that is usually the norm.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

That bit of magic returns

[7/10 · 21 January 2006]

The second installment seems to carry on where the first left off. All previous characters return and then some!! The grandiose majesty of Harry Potter continues with new tricks, new delights and little treats that can be taken for granted. At times I find the Harry Potter world has so many wonderful things happening at the same time that you tend to overlook the smaller things (ergos the Weasley's residence and the great Hall) The Chamber of Secrets is a darker tail but is well within the tolerances of most children's ability to handle. The creatures are excellent, the overall story is easy enough to follow, though some aspects have to be explained to younger children.

What does get annoying is that constant overused Daniel Radcliffe cheesy smile. It wears on the sensibilities after a while like sharp finger nails scraping down a blackboard. Overall though, Chamber of Secrets is a solid good natured magical movie only slighter less pleasing than the first.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

A return to magical innocence???

[8/10 · 21 January 2006]

Harry Potter seems to highlight what today's society is missing; the age of magical innocence, the pure abandonment of that essence of childhood. In this day and age of computer games and quick fix takeaway electronic happiness and incessant CGI violence, it's brilliant to see the world excited by story telling and the simple things. It reminds me of years ago as a child reading volumes of Roald Dahl's compositions and hanging out to read the next chapter of 'Danny the Champion of the World'. Harry Potter has engaged the world back into that innocence, even if it is for a two hour movie.

The Philosopher's Stone is majestic, bold and outrageously expansive... and I want more. I took my son to a packed cinema and we were both entranced with the.. well.. magic of the package. The awesome Harry Potter theme and musical score, meeting of the main characters, hunting for school items, the train ride, the first look of Hogwarts... It is all magical. The casting of adults are perfect. Richard Harris typifies what a respected all powerful all knowing headmaster should encompass, all the professors are brilliant and Snape could be played by no one else except Alan Rickman.

The 'magic' of the surroundings, the little gadgets and seemingly insignificant details are lovely. To be honest, the whole production smacks of that professional quality that is European/British and it was refreshing to be free from the American drawl and plentiful explosions and swearing.

Make no mistake, this is a child's movie. But one that transcends through time and makes a cynical crestfallen adult smile and feel like a child again. Sure you have to ignore the sometime sugary scenes and I just looked at my son's beaming face... Harry Potter works.

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Better than most critics say, no where near as good as a fan's expectations!!

[8/10 · 21 January 2006]

Contrary to public opinion, I rather enjoyed AvP. Sure I believe it could have been better if it stuck closer to the book AvP:Prey, but it wasn't that bad.

I must admit having yet again a female as the all conquering hero and survivor is getting rather tedious. Don't get me wrong, I think Sanaa Lathan does a great and credible job of a person in her position and I love Ripley and especially the equality displayed in Aliens, it's just getting old hat.

I believe the history of four past Alien movies, two Predator movies, books, comics and the mouthwatering potential AvP stirred, it was hard for any movie to live up to that hype. Yet some of the action scenes in AvP is some of the greatest, liveliest, and most rewound and repeated scenes of ANY of the above bulk of the Alien and/or Predator franchise. I actually loved seeing the clash of these two titans, I loved how they re-established the way an alien is supposed to be; how perfectly ruthless, destructive and powerful they are. I thought it was terrific how they showed the trainee Predators on the hunt and their inexperience. And I believe the fights captured all this.

I was disappointed in Bishop's role. He did seem in it for the pay cheque and AvP never firmly and concretely stated the link of Bishop, his company (Weyland Industries) and the preceding four movies.

Overall I was happy to see the alien drone returned to its nasty and true H.R. Giger adaptation, and the Alien Queen is magnificent and accurately depicts her near unlimited power, strength and terror instilling awe. The predator whilst not Kevin Hall was fine for the most part. No other Alien/Predator franchise movie captures the raw power of these titans and in a brilliant manner than what AvP does... hence I fail to agree with other critics.

Yes I believe AvP could have been better. The script could have had more depth, the characters more involved and fleshed out. But overall AvP, while not as good as the first three Alien movies and the first Predator movie, is a very good and worthy addition to the franchise.

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Oh dear... what a mess !!!

[6/10 · 21 January 2006]

Budget constraints were a major issue at the beginning, throughout and in post-production- and it shows. As an avid admirer of the Alien saga, I am thoroughly disappointed with Alien4. And there are two major reasons; one they did a very poor effort in explaining Ripley's presence and Sigourney Weaver struggled to promote credibility to the resurrection. And two, and most importantly, the image, the sound and presence of the 'alien' was so removed from the past three movies it was atrocious.

The general idea of how hosts for the queen were obtained were interesting as was the 'biological weapon' angle. Apart from that I could almost weep when comparing this trash to the first three. 6/10 in hindsight is extremely generous and is more to do with the love of the franchise than any true indication of this movie's worth.

The last half of this movie is so bad I am embarrassed for the producers. The new alien is terrible and diminishes the power and chill of the alien. The supposed claustrophobic feel they were looking for was not realised, the aliens seemed pathetic in their tenacity to destroy human life and was opposite to what was established.

The producers tried to be too clever and ended up not being clever enough.

Alien 3 (1992)

Can't state this emphatically enough... see the Special Edition

[9/10 · 21 January 2006]

The producers of Alien3 should be ashamed of themselves and they owe David Fincher a serious apology and compensation. They caused so much hassle and stuck their noses in places they didn't belong that the theatrical release(TR) of Alien3 was watered down compared to the masterpiece David Fincher produced in the Special Edition(SE). The theatrical version deserves the lowish rating it has received, but the Director's cut is outstanding and in my opinion is the best of all the Alien movies in the franchise to date!!! In this day and age of much longer movies, it doesn't make sense to see in hindsight the editorial debauchery David Fincher's Alien3 was witness too. The TR was bad. Large sections of the plot were stripped, they replaced the pivotal alien host, and in general the sections that set the scene were all missing. One Simple and essential must... SEE THE SPECIAL EDITION !!!!

The characters are disturbingly great and portray a very credible motley band of backwater planet prisoners. Charles Dance is brilliant but unfortunately isn't on screen for as long as I wished. Maybe that in itself is a testament to the brilliance and another reason why some people scored Alien3 lowly- their sensibilities were hurt with a fantastic character killed quickly!!. Charles Dutton is a mean and believable 'top dog' and the contribution of the reliable Pete Postlethwaite was a treat. The interaction between prisoners, authorities and visitors was always evident and very well handled. Alien3 further highlighted the expendability of human life for corporate greed.

The Alien is one nasty critter. Different to the other Alien movies, the camera angles of the alien's sight and movement are well executed. It is clear the creators wished to return to that claustrophobic and technological defunct world of the first Alien movie, and while it is very different, I believe it worked extremely well.

Alien3 has an incredibly beautiful and stirring musical score. It is haunting in parts and from all the 'Alien' movies, I believe most people would have this tune in their head. In the scheme of the Alien saga, I believe Alien3 -Special Edition to be the best. Without giving away serious spoilers, the SE reinstates massive sections that transcend Alien3 from a lowly rated movie to a thoroughly deserved masterpiece. It is a pity David Fincher wasn't more experienced and time under his belt to tell and force the producers to 'My way or the highway'.

SPECIAL EDITION ONLY TO BE SEEN!!!!!!

Aliens (1986)

How a follow up movie should be done !!

[9/10 · 21 January 2006]

Aliens highlights and perfectly illustrates the arrogance of man's (and especially the American) attitude and supposition of superiority over all things. It also highlights the despicable lengths that corporations will stoop too to generate money. Maybe thats a cynical view but none the less it is true.

The movie itself is fabulous. Gone is the rackety bucket of the Nostromo and in its place is the next evolutionary step what is expected 50 plus years later. However the technology is not overbearing and is entirely plausible for soldiers. The ships look fantastic, the weapons are awesome and I am still waiting for the 'Loader' as a Christmas present.

The cast is excellent. Ever since Terminator, I have been a massive Michael Biehn fan and he didn't fail to deliver. Bill Paxton's Hudson is an instant classic and he is responsible for some of the most truly memorable lines in the movie. The human villain in Aliens plays his role so well, I was actually guilty of not liking the actor for years because I couldn't overcome his absolute credible portrayal of a man consumed with loyalty to his corporations avarice.

Of all the Alien franchise movies, Sigourney Weaver puts in her best performance. You feel her xenophobia and believe the outright terror she feels. The solo preparation of her ride down the elevator is some of the best acting I have ever witnessed. The interaction between characters is surprisingly in-depth and varied to say Aliens is primarily a sci-fi action movie; true camaraderie, distrust, blossom of love, deep respect, intense dislike and more are examined in and unfolded in a totally believable and well executed manner. I also loved the mix of male and female in equal risk taking/responsibility roles and I love the fact the 'true' equality is not rammed down the audience's throat.

We get to see more of the 'alien' in this outing but realistically it's more quick edited shots. However the mother of all aliens makes her appearance and she is phenomenal. If you haven't seen Aliens, the first time you see her, you will be awestruck.

The major difference between Alien and Aliens is the way the horror and thrill is extracted from the audience. Alien is very claustrophobic in its suspense and setting and is so successful. Aliens on the other hand has some elements of that claustrophobia, however the pace is higher and the audience is swept along with multiple jumps, startles, and action scenes all to a brilliant and most befitting musical score.

Aliens is a must see cult classic, and like all the movies in the Alien saga, the Director's cut is the version that is essential to view. A large majority of Alien saga fans rate this movie the best, it is certainly close.

Alien (1979)

The benchmark of not only a sci-fi horror, but any movie... period.

[9/10 · 21 January 2006]

Even after 25 years plus of other movies of this genre being made, Alien does not feel dated. That in itself for sci-fi is an amazing achievement. There are many examples of aliens in movies, and many more of horror and sci-fi. However very few, if any, have amalgamated all successfully and I doubt any would stand the test of time the way Alien has.

The cast is phenomenal and there is no weak link. Each giving an optimal performance that leaves the audience believing them, feeling for them and relating to them. Obviously Sigourney Weaver shines as Ripley, but it would be unfair to single her out as all were impeccable.

The level of technology was believable for a deep-space cargo vessel. It is refreshing to see a piece of junk flying patched up with sticky tape and not let the technology star. It actually lent to character development and add to the overall atmosphere of commercial miners in way over their head, in a place they are not supposed to be, in a situation they are not trained or prepared for. It was all very human and so credible.

The storyline is so simple and Ridley Scott does not try to over complicate aspects of the plot. Instead he concentrates on wringing out atmosphere from every shot whether it is establishing character quirks or the suspense of terror. In my opinion Alien would have to be in the top two Scott's projects to date.

The evolution and cycle of the alien itself is so terrifying it caused me nightmares growing up. Its anatomy, birthing and invincibility coupled with its supreme efficiency in killing is terrifying. It truly is one of the (if not THE) most excellent monster/aliens ever to grace the screen. In this day and age 25 plus years later, the 'Alien' is still nastier than any vampire, werewolf, extra-terrestrial, monster or villain that has come after.

As part of the 'Alien' franchise, this first installment sets the scene perfectly better than any other saga. Alien is not the first of an never-ending straw grasping 'sequals' but the first part of an continuing story (ergo Lord of the Rings 1-3). Alien set the benchmark for sci-fi horror and in 25 years since its first release, it continues to be the example of how not only aliens, horror and sci-fi are to be depicted, but how a movie and story is to be produced.

Suspect Zero (2004)

Suspect Zero? scores close to it!!

[2/10 · 15 January 2006]

I saw the trailers to Suspect Zero (SZ) on cable and was seriously looking forward to this movie. The trailer showed the huge promise of a Seven/Silence of the Lambs type thriller. When it showed Ben Kingsley scarily extend his arm and you see the rubber glove snap up and he rises in the back of the car- I was hooked. Then the awesome so Hannibal Lector-esquire line of; 'Because I wouldn't want to do this at 70 miles an hour.' Then the tag of the genius hunter and killer of other serial killers... I couldn't wait!! Well I wished I had. SZ ended up being a torturous exercise in exquisite pointlessness and frustration. And the problem is that the above scene and line was by far the most engaging aspect of the movie. Except for Ben Kingsley and the 'promise' of excellence, SZ was terrible. I feel cheated, conned and ripped off that the producers lied in the preview and delivered tripe which was no where near the quality it implied.

Carrie-Anne Moss was a waste of space. It wasn't her fault as her character was given no depth and very little purpose. It was if the producers and casters said 'hey, Carrie-Anne Moss... Matrix, that will get people's interest.'... if I was in her position I would feel used, but then again she presumably choose the role after reading the screenplay. She was the token female.. thats it. The attempted plot of past relationship with Mackleway was never even remotely realised.

OK.. down to the plot or lack there of. It started with promise. Yet it progressively grew into a conglomerate of confused rubbish offering the audience many possibilities but resolution of none. The 'higher agency' sub plot was poorly done, it wasn't quite true when it says the story revolves around a killer killing serial killers... thats so liberal. Past lovers plot nearly made me vomit... the open hostility then next scene they are so lovy-dovy.. and all with no resolution. Whats with the whistling? a few do it - not explained. Are his supposedly insane room-mates part of the higher agency program? what happened to the program and him? Whats with the 'suspect zero? was he? whats the history? We didn't even get to see him - I understand the dynamics of not needing to see the antagonist if you set up an encapsulating emotional concept (ie the trucker from Spielberg's 'Duel') but it was not established and another reason to feel cheated. I guess the real reason I am so annoyed is that SZ held SO much promise but failed to deliver on even the basic level.

The one redeeming feature is Ben Kingsley. Without doubt one of the greatest actors, I was disappointed that he accepted such a terrible role. The potential he first displays, his introduction and the chill he brings is phenomenal. It is obvious he is the class act in this project, but even his brilliance is stunted as the screenplay progressively becomes infinitely shocking. His character becomes a watered down pathetic creep and as an audience, I was embarrassed for him... a world away from the fantastic material of Gandhi.

Overall SZ tried unsuccessfully to blend the Gothic quick edit shots of 'Seven' with a killer as cool, calm and brutally collected as Hannibal Lector... it's believable.... for about 15 minutes. Don't believe the trailer/preview for SZ, instead I recommend that you get your Ben Kingsley fix with 'Sneakers', 'Schindler's List', Death and the Maiden' etc. You will definitely save yourself disappointment and frustration.

Better Than Sex (2000)

Character driven perfection. I agree, nothing is Better than Sex

[10/10 · 7 January 2006]

To be honest I cant get enough of 'Better than Sex'(BtS). I was thoroughly disappointed when the end credits began to roll. Since I viewed it on cable TV, I flipped a channel and watched it all over again. I hold very few movies in such an esteem to rate them 10/10. But BtS is definitely one of those rare diamonds.

BtS is a very intellectual and honest look at the dynamics of the one night stand, the following passion, the possibilities of more. Seen from both the male and female perspective it's so engaging to see and feel the raw honesty. As a male I was constantly agreeing, laughing, nodding and completely understanding Josh's (David Wenham) position with his actions and thoughts. I so loved the balancing female - Cin's (Susie Porter) perspective. I felt this was how it really is. BtS is an optimal example of reality.

From the initial meetings to the scared first steps, the initial sex to the first words the next day, the progression of knowing nothing to seeing the unfolding of a relationship not yet defined and blossoming. The doubts, insecurities, the ensuing pointless fights, walking out then making up. The development of passion and the emotional content that creeps in uncontrollably is magnificent in its simplicity and handling.

As an audience I became so drawn to the characters. I felt in tune with David Wenham's Character and was left with a crush on Susie Porter. This movie is all about character, development and that proverbial 'human condition. So basic I would assume it was filmed on a shoe string budget, but you never know it. The cinematography, camera angles, accompanying music, the introspective and intermittent 'interview' style was perfect. The sex scenes are tasteful and never 'dirty', the chemistry was electric between Josh and Cin.

I am not usually a fan of pure Australian film. But BtS showcases how an intellectual, witty, and powerful character driven story tackling a very real plot should be done. A definite movie to get... a saucy, raunchy and potentially winner of a movie to see with a new partner. However be warned, BtS is clearly marketed for adults that demand that bit more depth in the intellectual and honesty stakes.

A challenge: Try not to fall in love with either one or both of David Wenham or Susie Porter and their characters. And I bet you will love the Taxi driver :D