Fred Claus

Normally I despise Christmas films, with only a few notable exceptions. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is one of those exceptions. The first time I saw that, I had to pause the video because I was laughing so hard that I was missing the jokes.

Normally I find the Christmas genre contrite, overly sentimental and just plain slushy. However, I was persuaded to this by the casting of Paul Giamatti. I tend to like the movies that he's in, as he seems to pick his roles carefully (well, more carefully than most, let's say). Plus, it seemed to be a twist on the standard Santa Claus story from the trailer.

I'm actually glad I saw this. It was genuinely funny in places, a little sad and uplifting without the crowbarring of emotion that you'd expect from a Christmas movie.

Paul Giamatti plays Santa in a reined in fashion (if you'd forgive the dreadful pun), and the low level family hostility between Miranda Richardson's Mrs Claus and Kathy Bates' Santa's mum was a brilliant addition. Trevor Peacock sleepwalks the role of Santa's dad, and I kept expecting him to say "No no no no no...that's right." Elizabeth Banks puts in an able performance as the sidekick's love interest but it's Kevin Spacey's sinister performance as the antagonist that really makes the movie. I really loved the way that his showdown scene worked, it was both moving and funny (and a dig-in-the-ribs joke) all at the same time. Vince Vaughn also has a good message about the naughty and nice list. Rachel Weisz's Wanda was almost a secondary character, and could have been left out with no trouble at all.
I liked the way that Santa is shown as being an insufferably goody-two-shoes child, and the quiet resentment the child actor playing Fred portrays is quite good.

There's a hilarious scene involving Stephen Baldwin, Frank Stallone and Roger Clinton (Bill's brother) playing themselves at a siblings anonymous meeting. And the Santa chase was inspired lunacy.

Score: C++, missing out on the B- only because the last few minutes are so saccharin laden that at one point I thought I was going to need an insulin injection. I suspect this is to make up for the fact that the rest of the movie is surprisingly (and pleasantly) saccharin-lite.

OQ: He's not Alec!

Beowulf. In 3D!

I'm not going to warn you about spoilers because if you don't know the story of Beowulf then you must be an invader from Mars. Seriously now, it's one of the classics.

Beowulf, the mythical poster boy for the phrase "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it."*

Basic info: It's the story of Beowulf, which as I already mentioned you should know and if you don't then I'm coming to kick your alien ass off my planet. Unless you're here with a large army and deathrays, in which case: we surrender. The film is a CGI animation which is based on motion capture from the cast. Consequently the characters looks like the voice stars. Cineworld are offering two versions of Beowulf: The normal and the 3D version. The 3D version is definitely worth seeing as it does add the illusion of depth to the scenes (and unlike Superman Returns, most of the film is in 3D), but the odd thing is that in some scenes, the characters look flat and two-dimensional. It's just that you can see the depth of the scene behind them.

The film is wonderfully shot. Even without the 3D effect I saw, it looks stunning. The attention to detail is amazing. The characters don't have quite the realism factor that Final Fantasy managed to achieve, but it's pretty close. Some of the 3D effect was a little fuzzy, I'll admit (like the tentacle thingy), but overall it was excellent. The beast, only in CGI could it's horror be imagined, so it fits well into the film.

Also, not since Austin Powers and The Simpsons Movie have I seen so many SPWOs in one scene. SPWO of course standing for Strategically Placed Willy Obscurer.

One can only hope the DVD release also has a 3D disc version bundled with it.

Also saw the first trailer for I Am Legend, which looks good.

Score: B

OQ: Do you want me to go in with you?

OOQ: According Ray Winstone, he and his fellow cast spent days filming in blue skintight suit, "showing up all your lumps and bumps in all the wrong places. Which can be hard when you're standing in front of Angelina, who looks stunning in hers."

*Yes yes, I know he's also the poster boy for another well know phrase (one which is mentioned in the film) but that really would be a major spoiler, now wouldn't it?

Timestalkers

An oldie, but a goodie.

........is a phrase I used to say when I played the wrong track on my radio show. OK, usually it was because I was too busy pretending to be Scotty standing in front of the transporter controls, but hey; these things happen.

However, this little gem was on last night. It's by no means perfect (a flawed gem, if you will), but it is my personal yardstick against which I measure films of this genre. That genre is the time-travel film.

I have a soft spot for time travel films in my heart, like Millennium (the one about abducting people who are going to die in plane crashes to re-populate the future), and I think there's a film out there to be made by crossing that idea with Titanic. Some films in this genre are of course rubbish. Timecop to name one. And some make no sense at all, like Donnie Darko*. Not forgetting the all time "How to make a time travel trilogy" box set: Back to the Future.
So much do I enjoy time travel, that I even wrote an article about its use in fiction for the BBC Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy micro site.

But Timestalkers is deceptively brilliant. Starring the criminally under-used William Devane as a man with a mystery to solve. You see he's got an authentic tin plated photo dated from 1886, and there's a mysterious man in the background. A man sporting three fifty-seven (.357) Magnum in his holster. A gun that won't be invented until 1980.

And that's how the film hooks you. Clearly either he's mistaken about the gun, or the photo is a fraud. But every test says it's genuine. And he's a gun expert specialising in the old west.

For a film with such a simple premise, the story uses time travel very cleverly. One person needs access to a top secret base, so he travels back to 1926, before the base was constructed. He steps across the boundary and returns to the present.

The special effects do look very dated today. The time-travel effect reproducible on any decent vision mixing board and the opening credits of the time vortex, which probably cost a fortune to make at the time, could be re-created today using the visualisation system in Winamp.

A hackneyed ending sign posted several miles off does drop the score slightly. However it's still a great time travel detective story.

Score: C- Dated badly, I'm afraid but the core story is still very enjoyable.

OB: People recorded history through song. Not many folks could write back then.
Nope...chances were if you could write your name, you'd make judge.

*Please don't write in to complain. I've had Donnie Darko explained to me by a few people and I always tell them the same thing: if someone has to explain a film to me, then I'm probably not its intended audience.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

I was intending to see Lions for Lambs this weekend, however in a marked departure from form, I read a few reviews beforehand. It has been universally panned by critics and movie goers alike, which put me right off. Normally I judge a film on its own merits, neither reading reviews or letting friends dissuade me, but the sheer number of bad reviews put me right off.
I await with anticipation the first review of this in the teamroom.

A little historic fact, a little poetic licence, a shedload of bloody good costume drama and you've got yourself a damn good historical biopic.

How good is it? Well put it this way, I don't normally enjoy period drama or historical biopic films, yet this film captivated me in a way that quite a few recent "blockbusters" have failed to do.

The story you can get from the trailer: Philip of Spain, leader of a Catholic country hates the English for being a Protestant country. This fact is not helped by a pope calling for holy war and calling the Protestants devil worshippers. However, the film shows a lot of the political aspects and verges into thriller territory at times. Whether the inferences are true or not are debatable, but it makes for a good story none the less. Samantha Morton plays Mary, Queen of Scots rather well, although the accent does sound a little forced.

There are also parallels drawn between Elizabeth I and our current monarch, for example; you never see either of them wearing the same dress twice. However, joking aside, there is a subtext that a person should be judged on their actions, not their faith, which was done with such subtlety that I barely noticed it. A pleasant change from the usual Hollywood message that's rammed down your neck, packed with gun powder, fused and then lit.

However the film does not shy away from awkward historical fact. It would be nice to think that our naval genius outwitted the Spanish armada, however the evidence all points to their grandiosity and over-engineering being their undoing. The Spanish ships were just so large that when a storm hit them, they could not manoeuvre. The English fleet took advantage, sent in fire ships and decimated the armada.

Personally I don't know why they didn't call it Elizabeth 2, because until it was pointed out to me that this is a sequel, I honestly didn't know. The argument that this would have confused Americans is touted as a kind of a joke, but that doesn't really hold water as, in my experience, confusing the average American is about as difficult as crossing the street and can be accomplished with such questions as "What is the capital of England?"* or sometimes even "Who is the president of the United States?" However it's nice that there's a reference to Raleigh's wish to establish a colony in the newly discovered America as a kindly reminder to our American cousins of their own country's origins.

OQ: Elizabeth is darkness, and I am the light.

Score: B Damn good film, highly enjoyable. Yes, some historical bunkum, but overall this is forgivable. *The answer is of course "E".

Stardust

I'm going to be completely honest with you here; I didn't want to see this. I wasn't really that fussed, to be perfectly frank with you. But my mum and my sister were staying with me for the weekend and they quite fancied going to see it, and I couldn't think of a persuasive argument to see The Kingdom instead.

I am so, so glad I saw this. It's excellent. In fact, it's really raised the bar for any future fairytale movies. IN FACT, I hereby declare all future fairytale movies obsolete as the genre has already achieved perfection. Literally this is the movie against which all other movies of this genre will be measured.

It's got romance and magic and sword fights and horses and quests and betrayals and derring-do and more magic and jokes and transformations and true love and enchanted items and candles and flying boats and explosions and pirates and fairytale makeovers and stuff about fate and chivalry and potatoes and some of the blackest humour I've ever seen in a fairytale and I'm not telling you any more about it.

Direction: Excellent.
Special effects: Superb, neither subtle nor over the top, but nicely balanced and very good looking.
Story: Compelling.
Humour: A strange mix of black humour, slapstick and witty banter, but it hangs together fantastically well.

Score: A+++++ (if not higher).

OQ: '...and then I was hit by a magical flying MORON!"

OOQ: I'm sorry Mr De Niro and Mr Gervais, but we do have a screenplay here and we paid rather a lot of money for it, and it'd be super if you could stick to it or at least stay in its general vicinity..... (That one's from the director)

Stardust

I'm going to be completely honest with you here; I didn't want to see this. I wasn't really that fussed, to be perfectly frank with you. But my mum and my sister were staying with me for the weekend and they quite fancied going to see it, and I couldn't think of a persuasive argument to see The Kingdom instead.

I am so, so glad I saw this. It's excellent. In fact, it's really raised the bar for any future fairytale movies. IN FACT, I hereby declare all future fairytale movies obsolete as the genre has already achieved perfection. Literally this is the movie against which all other movies of this genre will be measured.

It's got romance and magic and sword fights and horses and quests and betrayals and derring-do and more magic and jokes and transformations and true love and enchanted items and candles and flying boats and explosions and pirates and fairytale makeovers and stuff about fate and chivalry and potatoes and some of the blackest humour I've ever seen in a fairytale and I'm not telling you any more about it.

Direction: Excellent.
Special effects: Superb, neither subtle nor over the top, but nicely balanced and very good looking.
Story: Compelling.
Humour: A strange mix of black humour, slapstick and witty banter, but it hangs together fantastically well.

Score: A+++++ (if not higher).

OQ: '...and then I was hit by a magical flying MORON!"

OOQ: I'm sorry Mr De Niro and Mr Gervais, but we do have a screenplay here and we paid rather a lot of money for it, and it'd be super if you could stick to it or at least stay in its general vicinity..... (That one's from the director)

Rendition

For a film about so controversial a subject, I found this rather light. It skips over many aspects of the issue, and the narrative technique jumps about quite a lot more than it really needs to.

However, if it does get people talking about this then all the better. The film touches on the blind eye too many people turn to this, and deals with both courage and cowardice. There's an echo of the issues from 'Good Night and Good Luck', particularly the McCarthy attitude so many people in power have. They don't want to take a stand about this issue, because then the government/media will come after them.

Let's make no bones about it, this issue is about state sanctioned torture of suspected terrorists, and the luckily film doesn't shy away from this aspect. It also touches on the whole cycle of violence, but I felt it could have gone into this in more depth.

Rendition also uses a narrative technique that it uses to try to add a twist at the end. Unfortunately, I spotted the technique early on, so the twist was well signposted for me.

Score: C+ I was expecting something more dramatic, but the film shows too many easy answers and completely cops out at one point.

OQ: We have a saying. Beat your wife at least once a day. If you don't know why, then she does.

Rendition

For a film about so controversial a subject, I found this rather light. It skips over many aspects of the issue, and the narrative technique jumps about quite a lot more than it really needs to.

However, if it does get people talking about this then all the better. The film touches on the blind eye too many people turn to this, and deals with both courage and cowardice. There's an echo of the issues from 'Good Night and Good Luck', particularly the McCarthy attitude so many people in power have. They don't want to take a stand about this issue, because then the government/media will come after them.

Let's make no bones about it, this issue is about state sanctioned torture of suspected terrorists, and the luckily film doesn't shy away from this aspect. It also touches on the whole cycle of violence, but I felt it could have gone into this in more depth.

Rendition also uses a narrative technique that it uses to try to add a twist at the end. Unfortunately, I spotted the technique early on, so the twist was well signposted for me.

Score: C+ I was expecting something more dramatic, but the film shows too many easy answers and completely cops out at one point.

OQ: We have a saying. Beat your wife at least once a day. If you don't know why, then she does.

SiCKO

Yesterday I learnt one of the most horrible phrases ever invented by a civilised nation¹, and saw the most horrifying CCTV footage² I am ever likely to see, short of seeing someone die on television.

Michael Moore's latest documentary is yet again another "must see" film. Admittedly the issues at stake do not affect any of us directly, since it is solely about the state of the US medical system and the healthcare medical organisations (HMOs), but it is none the less shocking for that. Patients denied treatment that could have saved them, or had treatment delayed by red tape until it was too late. Patients left with huge medical bills, or had their insurance retroactively cancelled because they failed to mention they had a bad case of flu ten years ago. One twenty-five year old woman who was denied treatment for cervical cancer because, according to her HMO, she was too young to get cervical cancer. I wish that was a joke.

It's not just the medical professionals that come under fire. Politicians are targeted too, particularly because of a campaign to prevent socialised healthcare for all (ie like the NHS) by associating it with communism. Then came the prescription reform bill, which had a tagline from a prominent senator of "I love my momma. And I want her to have affordable healthcare." The bill, which passed in 2004, pretty much allowed pharmaceutical companies to charge whatever they wanted for prescriptions. That senator then quit and got a job at an HMO, by the way.

The film is very moving (you will need tissues) and some of the small details are almost as interesting as the big points he's making, like the woman he takes to Cuba for treatment. The doctor takes her off five of the eleven drugs she has been on (and paying for) for ten years because they don't do anything for her. Because her HMO wouldn't pay for a full set of diagnostic tests, she was taking drugs she didn't need.

And who do we have to blame for this situation?
Surprisingly (or not depending on your cynicism level), the answer is Richard Nixon.

Moore isn't proposing a solution to the problem. He's simply saying that the current system in America is broken and needs urgent reform, and that reform will probably need to dismantle and rebuild it from the ground up.

Possibly the worst thing I found out is that only the rescue workers paid to be at the world trade centre got government healthcare to take care of their respiratory problems. Volunteers got nothing. Even the government healthcare fund set up to help the volunteers was run like an HMO, designed to avoid paying for treatment. For example, people had to prove how much time they'd spent on the site and you only got the healthcare after so many hours. As one woman put it; how do you prove how long you spent as a volunteer?

Score: A

OQ: These people aren't falling through the cracks. These companies are making the cracks and sweeping these people towards them.

¹ The phrase is "Prudent Person Pre-Existing Condition Symptom Clause". Basically it means that if you had a symptom that would make a normal prudent person seek medical advice, and you failed to do so, it's the equivalent of not disclosing a medical condition to the HMO, regardless of whether that condition is related to your current condition that you're seeking medical help for. In essence, if you had a headache and didn't seek a doctor's opinion, then developed back problems, the HMO could claim that the headache was an early symptom of the back problem and deny you care for failing to mention you had a back problem when you applied for insurance.

² The footage is of a patient called Carol, dumped on the street by the hospital once she could no longer afford the hospital bills, wearing nothing but a hospital gown. The day before Michael Moore turned up to film the mission she was dumped next to, another woman was pushed out of a taxi there. She had a broken collar bone, three broken ribs and was hypertensive (which basically means the experience could have killed her). The district attorney was there collecting information to mount a criminal investigation into the matter.

Ratatouille

There's a certain appeal of the animated movie these days. We get far more of them, and no longer are they solely the domain of children and dragged along parents. Complex plots and multi-layered jokes are added to keep the adults entertained, such as in the Shrek films, and some animation is made exclusively for adults, such as South Park or Family Guy.

At least, that's my excuse for seeing Ratatouille, and I'm sticking to it.

This is the latest film made by Brad Bird, the man, the genius who brought us The Incredibles, a film which showed what every comic book fan already knew; that only animation can properly portray superpowers on the big screen. With Ratatouille, Bird has set himself a different challenge. Can an animated film convey the complete experience of good food?

Since the audience cannot experience the smells or tastes of the food, Bird has gone all out on the visuals and the sound. The water in the sewers is phenomenal in looks and sound. The kitchen scenes are filled with detail, which doesn't diminish once you get outside into Paris. There's far too much to take in, including the pizza truck from Toy Story, which I missed (it's in almost every Pixar film) and Bomb Voyage, a villain from The Incredibles, as a street mime. There's a great perspective change between the humans and the rats, which is echoed in the final scene.

The story is fairly basic fare, an almost off the shelf plot if I'm honest, but I don't think that I cared. The film is very good at drawing the audience in, and creating believable characters. The children in the audience were fidgeting about half way through this, and I'm not sure if that was simply the running time or the more complex parts of the plot, but it certainly put a crimper in my enjoyment and I wished that I'd brought by power yo-yo to sling at the kid on the end of my row, as he mashed his feet up and down making that horrible sticky noise that only a cinema floor can accomplish. Perhaps I should go easy on him, he may have been inspired by this film to experiment with sound effects. On the other hand, he was bloody annoying.

And as usual, there's a brilliant short film at the start of the movie. It's fantastic. I had forgotten to expect this in Pixar films, so it was a pleasant surprise.

Score: B-

Not as good as The Incredibles (which I didn't expect it to be), but an excellent film, well made and fun to watch.

OQ: Welcome to hell! Trivia: To find out how to animate the scene where the chef is wet, they actually dressed someone in a chef suit, and put him in a swimming pool to see which parts of the suit stuck to his body, and which parts you could see through.

Michael Clayton

Michael Clayton is Erin Brockovich with George Clooney instead of Julia Roberts. It has taken me from the time I watched this (12.10pm on Sunday) until now to figure that out. This either means the film is very good, or my brain has slipped a gear again.

I don't think I've sat through a slower film in my life. And yet, I didn't get bored or restless once. The film holds your attention the whole way through. It's good, and gets you to use your brain the whole way through. Nothing is handed to you on a plate, you need to work certain elements out for yourself. Not that it is a thinking film, it's just a film where you need to pay attention to the details. I'm not explaining this well, am I?

OK, let's start again. Clooney is described as giving the performance of his career in this film, which I can understand (although I preferred him in "Good Night, and Good Luck"). He's playing Michael Clayton, a sort of trouble shooter for a law firm who's fed up with his life that seems to be falling out of his control. Certain things happen that make him question if he's even in the right job, and then he spends most of the movie trying to solve his own problems at the same time as solving his company's problems, which often have mutually exclusive results.

It's got a great ending to the film, because you think it's going one way, then it goes another and when you leave, you realise it actually went a third way that you didn't see on screen.

If you want to know what the hell I'm talking about, click here. (Warning: Massive Plot Spoilers!)

It does resort to a rather sloppy, in my opinion, narrative technique of showing you events happening, and then fades to "Four Days Earlier", which I've never liked as a method of storytelling.

I'm not going to give you any of the plot, because even if I did, it still wouldn't spoil the film for you. There's more going on in the film than I could ever describe in a review of it.

Look, if you liked Erin Brocovich, you'll like this. Oh god, now Duncan is going to kill me for using a comparison.

Score: Ummm.....B-? really I don't know how to score it. I enjoyed watching it, but couldn't really recommend it to a friend as it's a very personal taste kind of thing.

OQ: I am Shiva, goddess of death!

Next

Seriously, no other reviews of this?

As far back as I can remember, Hollywood has long shunned the traditional Gregorian calendar, and used their own way of recording time based on the type of films they make. They seem to have based it on the Chinese calendar. We've had the year of the alien invasion, the year of the asteroid/comet, the year of Mars, the year of the magician and the year of CGI animation. We even had (a long time ago), the year of Robin Hood, if you recall. And now we have 2006/2007: otherwise known as the year of the mullet.

For yet again in an action film, the lead, in this case Nicholas Cage, joins a band of other well known actors including Colin Farrell and Tom Hanks to sport what must be the worst haircut since Og the caveman decided to rub his hair in some dinosaur dung because he'd decided that flies were cool. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you; the mullet. The one thing from the eighties that should have stayed there.

Basic plot (trailer): Nic Cage plays a man who can see two minutes into his own future. But observing the future changes it, because you know what's going to happen and can avoid it. So basically, he can see ALL his possible futures, and make the right choices to get to the desired outcome.

As a plot device, it works remarkably well. It shouldn't work, but it does. The film uses this to create some genius heist components, some brilliant future-foo fighting and a really impressive way to search a large area in a short time. All using the same plot device, and without it becoming samey.

Special effects are very impressive, ranging from very subtle to fairly obvious. A couple of scenes that are clearly CGI, such as the steam locomotive (not least because you can't help thinking out loud that there's no way in hell that the stunt director would let anyone do that stunt for real). But all in all, very well done.

The bad guys are rather poorly scripted, no explanation for motivation, and they seem to be French just to be different. However, this is more than made up by the final showdown sequence, which is spectacular. It's basically an evil overlord's worst nightmare.

It's out on DVD now, and its well worth a look.

Score: I'm giving this a B+ because I really enjoyed it. Inspite of the mullet.

OQ: That wasn't it.

Shoot 'Em Up

Oh dear. Symon comments that there all we review nowadays is films about guns and explosions, and here I am about to review a film that's nothing but guns and explosions.

There are many films that require the viewer to just put their brain in neutral and just enjoy the ride. Bad Boys 2, Hot Fuzz and pretty much anything starring Tom Cruise these days to name but a few (or in Cruise's case; too many). However you need a completely new mental gear in order to watch Shoot 'Em Up. It's rather akin to ripping out your gearbox and slashing the brake lines. OK, that's enough car metaphors from me.

It's a very odd film, in that it seems to have skipped the usual process of script writing of writing a plot and then fitting action pieces into the story, passed by the process of "action film making" of having a series of stunts and gun fights and fitting an off the shelf plot in between, and gone straight for option C; forgoing any plot whatsoever.

This might sound like I'm criticising it. But in fact, I really enjoyed it. It was a total hoot! There's never a dull moment, and a lot of the scenes, particularly the gun fights, are just hilarious. Clive Owen plays a character unlike any you've seen him play before. Monica Bellucci is hotter than ever, and Paul Giamatti is just hilarious as the villain.

There's no flat gags, or bad jokes or missed opportunities here, it's just gun fight, explosion, one-liner, bit of a laugh, and back to gun fight. And it really does work!

Now I did say there were spoilers, but really, I can't spoil the plot for you; because there isn't one, in the same sense as there's no plot in 300, in that yes of course there's a plot, but who cares; we just want to see some carnage. I didn't like 300 because there's no sets, whereas Shoot 'Em Up has the virtue of having real sets, which always scores highly with me.

Someone said this film was bubblegum for the brain, which I can't really argue with. It's got Monica Bellucci in it, and I'll watch anything with her in it.

OQ: 'Eat your vegetables...'

Score: This is impossible to score on the Saxon Film Scale. I enjoyed it and I'd watch it again, and I'll buy it on DVD.

In fact, I'll have to score it by comparing it to other films:

Grossness factor: 6/10 on the Reservoir Dogs scale
Bullet fest: 8/10 on the John Woo scale
Swearing: 7/10 on the Tarentino scale
Comedy: 9/10 on the Bad Boys 2 scale
Monica Bellucci: 10/10 on any scale

The Bourne Ultimatum

Well, as with most things these days we have to have a trilogy, and the Bourne series is no exception. Everything good comes in threes; Arthur C Clarke's Rama series, the number of Godfather films and the legs on a martian fighting machine from War of the Worlds.* However, trying to use that line with your girlfriend to get a threeway is a diplomatic nightmare and if you can manage it......well, my hat is cocked to you, sir.

All this preamble is to say that although I enjoyed the third instalment in the Bourne series, I could have lived without it. There's nothing exceptionally new that we haven't seen before, and since Bourne spends a lot of this movie on his own, there's not even much dialogue. Most of that comes from the CIA agents trying to chase Bourne down.

Some of the best scenes are criminally short, like the scene with Bourne in Noah Vosen's office. Where was the build up to it? I can accept Bourne is a brilliant infiltration agent, but for god's sake, where was the money shot of the infiltration?

Yes, by the end you understand more about Jason Bourne and his origins, but frankly, he's never really interested me much as a character. He was better as a mysterious agent with no memory, who can take out a dozen cops without killing any of them. It's why I loved the TV show John Doe. I like the mystery, and unlike most people (and by most people, I of course mean Americans), I don't necessarily have a compulsion that drives me need to know all the answers. I often prefer not to know what's going on, even at the end of a film/series.

And yet again....my arch-nemesis rears its ugly head. The best line in the film isn't in the film!

Pamela Landy: This is Jason Bourne, the toughest target that you have ever tracked. He is really good at staying alive, and trying to kill him and failing... just pisses him off.

Score: C+
I enjoyed it, I don't regret seeing it and I would recommend it to others. I just don't think it added much overall to the Bourne story.

OQ: Jesus Christ, it's Jason Bourne!
(A quote I heard at the time and thought; I am so going to quote that out of context.)

*Except there are four Rama books, I've never seen all three Godfather movies, and despite what Hollywood says; tripods cannot walk.

Murder on the Orient Express (2001, TVM)

What fresh hell is this?

Is not the sort of phrase you want to use when watching a film starring Alfred Molina. And yet.....here we are.

I caught this TV movie on ITV at the weekend. Normally I enjoy Hercule Poirot stories. I was passionately keen on David Suchet's series, not so keen on Ustinov's but still found them enjoyable. So it is with some trepidation that I make the following claim.

This film is the worst piece of crap 'made for TV' dramatisation I have ever seen.

Right from the off, something was wrong. The cut of the suits was far too modern for the expected period, and I was fairly sure the locomotive pulling it was diesel. The honk of the horn just wasn't right. Then it happened. Someone pulled out their cellphone.

At this point, my brain went through what I later came to understand is called a paradigm shift, which let me tell you, is a hell of a thing to happen to a fellow.

"Ow!" Said my brain. "I think something just broke."

So while I sat there trying to re-assemble my brain's gearbox, the film (unlike the train) rolled on. The film makers here apparently using the unusual method of period acting, of giving up altogether being authentic and setting the film in contemporary times, presumably because it was cheaper. This motif would return later in the film.

The worst part is that after finally reassembling my mental gearbox, as with all DIY jobs, I still had a few extra parts left over.

The film continues to plod on, with acting courtesy of rent-a-cliché, and little if any surprises. The final ending was an insult to everyone's intelligence, see the really big whopping spoiler, below.

The continuity mistakes abound, the most annoying of which is: While Poirot is examining Ratchett's body for the second time, Ratchett is clearly still breathing. My god, even I spotted this one. Actually, I spotted most of these (courtesy of IMDB).

The diesel locomotive hauling the Orient Express out of Istanbul has the prominent markings of EWS: the English, Welsh & Scottish freight train operating company.

In the next exterior shot after departure from Istanbul, a differently coloured diesel locomotive is on the train. During the night scenes before the journey is interrupted, a steam locomotive is shown (presumably stock footage). Then when the train stops at the rockfall, the same EWS diesel is back on it, but now it's facing the other way (the EWS letters and the locomotive number 47744 have swapped places as seen from the same side of the train). Finally, when the journey resumes the next night, the steam locomotive is back.

On departure from Istanbul the first car of the train is named Perseus. When stopped at the rockfall, the first car is Lucille.

I think though, what annoyed me the most about this film, was not that Poirot let the killer go, nor that for probably the first time ever in a Poirot story that the victim really did deserve what they got. What really annoyed me was that when it's finally revealed who killed Ratchett, who did the deed. They all did! Seriously: What The Deuce, Man?!?

Score: E-
Oh god, yes it was that bad.

OQ: To give you a quote would imply that I cared enough to choose one.

Rush Hour 3

It's a sad day for the movie club folks. For the first time in...well ever actually, I'm going to disagree with Symon.

I didn't like this film, and that upset me because I was so looking forward to it.

There are a lot of funny scenes in the film, the Yu and Mi one in particular is inspired lunacy. The interrogation with the translating nun is funny, but I got the impression it had been filmed a lot of different ways and the producer then chose the one he liked best. And Tucker and Chan singing in the nightclub had be in stitches.

So if I found all that funny, why then did I not enjoy the film? I think the problem with the film is that it's not sure if it wants to be a comedy film, an action film, a buddy film, or something in between. There's plenty of scenes with all out pant wettingly-good comedy, and plenty with all out full throttle action. Yet rarely do the two meet. The car chase scene is one example, the only example that springs to mind.

In order to out-do the last film, the two heroes have to be pitted against a bigger and badder foe, in this case the Triads. Yet in order to ensure they don't get killed in the first ten minutes, the Triads they encounter are portrayed as the most inept bunch of gibbering morons who ever lived. These guys couldn't hit the broad side of a barn even if you held the gun for them and all they had to do was pull the trigger, and for a group who we're told in the opening minutes of the film are the most dangerous and ruthless criminal organisation in the world, this just gets on my nerves really quickly. The film also relies on the audience remembering certain elements from the last film, and since that film was made back in 2001, that's really stretching most people's memories. It's been six years since we last saw Detective Carter and Chief Inspector Lee. How about a freakin' flashback or two? Personally I think the franchise peaked with Rush Hour 2, and the fact it's taken this long to get a sequel kind of shows that. IMDB's trivia section is replete with examples of the dropped plots, actors, and re-writes necessary to get this film made.

I was dismayed to read yesterday on Yahoo Movies that Rush Hour 3 has knocked The Bourne Ultimatum off the top slot in the US. I remember thinking at the time: How? Rush Hour 3 has managed to break Rush Hour 2's record for an opening weekend takings, standing at a staggering $68 million. Bourne only took about $38 million. Why? Why would people chose to watch a mindless action-comedy sequel over a thought provoking, intelligent spy film? Why would Americans chose to watch a mindless actio-.... Ahh. Answered my own question there, I see.

Score: D+
I didn't like it, and only the occasional comedy moments saved it from a D-

OQ1: I don't know what you been feedin' that boy, but he is TOO DAMN BIG!

OQ2: Look at this licence! A hundred and twenty-five pounds? Girl you weigh more than the damn car!

The Hoax

Richard Gere, Alfred Molina and a bunch of people I didn't recognise in what the trailer assured me would be some sort of comedy/heist movie. I didn't know much about this prior to seeing it, other than it was the true story of the Clifford Irving, who wrote the completely fictitious Howard Hughes biography. The film is not what the trailer advertised. That's not to say I'm annoyed (you know how I get with misleading trailers...), because it's a very good story and it's well told, but just be warned. This is not a comedy caper. It's actually quite dark in places.

The story does try to elicit some sympathy for Irving, claiming that his publisher backed out of a book deal with him, but for the most part he comes across as pulling the fraud simply because he can. There's a bit about wanting revenge against Howard Hughes because of a ruined holiday, where Hughes threw everyone out of his hotel at three in the morning because he wanted the pool to himself, but even there Irving is still shown to admire Hughes. "Now that's power...," he muses at the silhouette of Hughes in the penthouse apartment.

Richard Gere plays Clifford Irving very well. Alfred Molina plays Irving's friend, Richard Susskind, who helped him research Hughes and co-wrote the biography. He's also struggling with a dilemma, which I won't spoil (but it's funny). There's no moment where one actor outshines the other, they compliment each other very well, stepping back from the lime light when the story needs it, shining when the plot calls for it.

For a film about true events, it makes some silly errors, and I'm not just talking about the lever style door handles in the White House that should have been round knobs (thank IMDB for that one). For example, as the end credits roll there's the usual "what happened next" text explaining what happened to the people involved, the usual fare for a film based on real events. But the film claims that Clifford Irving is still trying to get the hoax biography published. It's been in print for two years. So either the film makers didn't check their facts, or this film has been sitting on a shelf in some studio vault for yonks and no-one bothered to update it.

Score: C++
I enjoyed it, it just wasn't the film I was expecting.

OQ: "It's the most important book of the twentieth century..."

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

This weekend I decided to treat myself to a WOF (Weekend of Films), and see all the films I've either missed or been putting off.

First up in my mammoth WOF was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Now I should have seen this last weekend, when I was down in Birmingham celebrating my sister's (third) graduation from university, but God had other ideas and tried his best to drown the cinema. I dunno, maybe he's unhappy with Morgan Freeman playing him again in Evan Almighty....

So up at an ungodly hour on a Saturday, I rose. Looking over at my alarm clock, I was appalled to discover that there's a ten o'clock in the morning on Saturdays now.

Now I've heard some people say that this is exactly the same plot as all the other Harry Potter movies, and I can sort of see their point to be honest, but it is a little like complaining that every James Bond film is the same as the previous one because they all follow the same formula. It begs the response; Yes of course, what where you expecting?

Order of the Phoenix is a very dark film, much so than the last one. Each film gets progressively darker, which doesn't bode well for the finale of the series - which I haven't read so don't spoil it for me LA LA LA LA LA, I'M NOT LISTENING.....

No spoilers from me, but I did like the way Harry's isolation was portrayed. As I've said previously, I enjoy films that get the character's emotions across to me subtly. I don't like characters who have to explain their feelings, saying "I'm happy with my life right now." I prefer the story and direction to make me feel as happy as they are.

As you'd expect, the film is wonderfully shot, with great special effects, and enough mystery to keep me happy. I hate being able to see what's coming (well, except at railway crossings). There's some good reveals of characters' pasts and backstory. There's a character in the movie who needs a ruddy good slap the whole way through, and surprisingly, it isn't Harry, Ron or Hermione.

Oh, and luckily Harry's hair doesn't look as stupid as the cover of the computer games would have you believe.

Score: B -

OQ: "I feel sorry for you..."

So in conclusion, I can heartily recommend a WOF to everyone. Mine left me feeling invigorated and refreshed and when I got to work this morning, for the first time I didn't feel like I'd wasted yet another weekend. However, this is probably indicative that I need to get a girlfriend.

The Simpsons Movie

Second up in my WOF (Weekend of Films), and the film topping my "most anticipated" list, The Simpsons Movie.

I knew this was going to be good. But I didn't know it was going to be this good. I'm sitting here still giggling at the jokes.

As you can imagine, not every character can turn up, and the story seems to have avoided cramming in cameos of the recurring characters, which was always my worry about the film. The story, while the usual level of Simpsons insanity, is well written and strikes deeper chords, if you're willing to listen to it. The jokes are good. They're very very good.

Sorry, just had another giggling fit there.

The visuals are stunning. It's like living all your life with black and white vision and suddenly seeing in colour. The characters are better defined, without losing their instantly recognisable nature, and the backgrounds and scenery are beautifully drawn. It's clear that everyone involved loved this film and put their best work into it.

While not wanting to give anything away, I will tell you the trailer is a wonderful piece of misdirection, both telling you bits of the plot and throwing you off the scent completely. I like this, it's exactly what Star Trek films used to do in their trailers.

A nice touch was in the closing credits, when each of the cast names come up, they also show you a list (with pictures, for the kids) of all the characters that person voices. Now, if you're anything like me, you'll probably look at the list and think "Wow, he's a busy bunny. Look at how many characters he does." Right up until a point when you will have to bite your tongue to avoid shouting "What?!? She only does ONE character?!?"

Stay during the credits, there's a few bits to see that are tacked into the credits and they're quite good.

Score: A Solid gold. It was fan-freaking-tastic.

OQ: Da da da da da da da da da da da da, da da da da da.

Transformers

Oh my freaking jebus!

Not the best way to review a film I'll grant you, but the only way to do it any justice. This film is brilliant.

I was a little worried about this, especially as the opening credits started:

Paramount Pictures
in association with
Hasbro

Uh-oh, I thought. A toy company in the credits. It's never a good sign.

Luckily, I was wrong. Transformers is a belter of a film. I really can't recommend this enough. It's the ultimate summer blockbuster. OK, the story's not Shakespeare (although some would argue with you on that), and some bits of the plot make no sense when you examine them, but dammit it's a hell of a good ride.

Enough humour to keep most people happy, enough giant ass robots beating the hell out of each other to keep the action fans happy, a bit of romance for the girls, Peter Cullen's voice for the boys and Megan Fox for me. Hands off, she's mine.

Mixing combat with humour, romance with science fiction, and action with giant battling robots, the film delivers in all the boxes I wanted it to check.

A few annoyances, like precious little dialogue from the Autobots, and the whole Megatron-Starscream thing was handled in a one line throwaway. Also, Megatron does come across as being a bit of a big bully. Which is a bit like saying Adolf Hitler was a very very naughty man. But there's a great reveal at the end (well, two actually assuming you don't sprint for the exit once the credits roll), and to see huge battling robots flying about the screen smashing each other up is beyond description.

Score: A+ Yes, that good.

OQ: "Left cheek! Left cheek! Left cheek!"

Die Hard 4.0

John McClane is back baby.

After the disappointment of the third film Die Hard with a Vengeance, I was looking forward to this return to form. I should take a slight detour here and explain that I hated Vengeance. Too many improbably stunts that should have killed him, weak premise for the bad guy and far too much use of the shakicam. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of films that used the shakicam to good effect. The problem with Vengeance was that I kept thinking "They must have spent a fortune on this special effect, setting up the stunt, choreographing it and set dressing and I can't see a bloody thing!"
I really did like both the first two movies, the action and humour seemed to be a perfect match for each other. So I was waiting with anticipation for this film. And its good!

How good is it? Well put it this way, normally I hate movies about hackers because I know the technology is totally guff. And it is here too, but the film is so much fun to watch that I didn't care. And that's saying something pretty special about the film.

The humour is back, and boy did I miss it. Kinda like returning home after a long spell away, you don't realise how much you missed the place until you're back there.
The action is fantastic. Totally over the top, action packed, impossible stunts which totally engross. Put it this way: Transformers has a lot to live up to now.
The dialogue is back to form. Witty one liners, but nothing that feels forced. It was a refreshing change given the current film climate.

Now we do have an annoying sidekick again, but he's nowhere near as whiny as Samuel L. Jackson was in Vengeance. Which, let's be honest, would be very difficult anyway.

I think the word that describes Die Hard 4.0 best is "stonking" as in "a stonking good ride from start to finish", which is a good phrase if someone is describing a film, but never a good phrase if someone is describing your sister.

Score: B+++

OQ: It's something we invented in the sixties, it's called jogging. Come on, you're going to love it...

There were even some bonus points for trailers for Rush Hour 3 (hilarious), Transformers (they do talk, I've checked) and The Simpsons Movie.

A Man Apart

I'm writing this as one of those "public advisory" notices. This film is terrible.

The opening story is as cliched as you could imagine. US drug enforcement agents raiding a Mexico club to capture a kingpin, who has evaded capture on countless occasions. Just when it looks like the kingpin will get away yet again, one cop goes above and beyond to bring him down. Kingpin swears his revenge.

Cut to cop back home with wife, and without so much as a gratuitous sex scene, they're in bed late at night when a prowler breaks in. Cop kills prowler but his wife is killed in the gun fight.

The cop suspects the kingpin, and goes out for revenge, but the kingpin says "It wern't me, guv'na." or he would have done if he'd been from London. Kingpin then persuades the cop that it was the new boy "Diablo" what done the deed. Diablo is currently taking over the kingpin's territories while kingpin's in jail, but the kingpin assures the cop that this fact is completely unrelated.

So far, so Steven Segal movie. But there's a twist. Can you guess what it is yet?

This film would have been great, if it were not for the man playing the lead, one Vincent Diesel. The role calls for great emotion, subtle wordplay, quiet menace as well as some action pieces. Unfortunately, Vincent seems only capable of either:

• All out action, ala "You ****ing killed my wife, you ****ing mother ****er!"
• The puppy dog eye thing he does.

To quote one of my lady friends on the matter: "As an actor, he has the emotional range of a wet sponge."

The ending sucks worse than Mission to Mars, which in itself makes this a bad film hall of fame nominee.

Score: D- Saved from an E score only by some of the action pieces, which are quite good.

OQ:
Sean: [referring to his wife's grave] Who picked the stone?
Demetrius Hicks: We all did.
Sean: She would've liked that.

KOQ: (The Kevin Obligatory Quote) Yeah, I think what she would've liked most is not to get shot...

300

There have been a few films in recent years where it's clear the director had too much control over the story and that the producer wasn't strong enough to tell him "Oi! Just film what's in the script! Alright?" The term "style over substance" was coined to cover such films, and we can all think of one or two examples. Films where you come out and can't remember what the plot was, only what the lead actor was wearing. At the risk of being expelled from the movie club for swearing, let us not forget one of the greatest crimes against humanity: Batman & Robin.

Oh, I hate myself, I hate myself for mentioning that. Bad taste in my mouth now. Ptooey!

I was worried about watching 300. This film has had so many different reviews. Some people loved it, some people hated it. Symon's quote was "Bad history to a pulsing rock soundtrack." Jackie's was "men are stupid, flaunt a couple of naked females snogging in front of them and they'll give you what you wish" which, let's face it, is as true today as it was back then.

I didn't think I'd enjoy this, but a bunch of friends sat me down and forced me to watch it. I rather enjoyed it. It's a sort of bloke's movie, in that you need men around you to say things like:

"Oh, ya bugger!"
"Ouch! Oh, I felt that one!"
"Now be honest, would you be in that first row of the assault?" All: "Hell no!"
"Holy crap! Did you see what he just did to that guy?"
"He's taking it tight!"*

and of course:
"Oh man! His whole arm just came off!"

There were a few scenes I didn't like because the CGI was really obvious in them and it kind of spoilt the whole premise of having a film shot entirely on green screen. I think we'll eventually look back in nostalgia, remembering the films of the end of the 20th century, and remember with fond memories a time when they used to make films with real sets.

Score:

C- if you start looking at the nitty gritty of it, like plot, dialogue or historical accuracy.
B+ for a bloke's film to watch with mates.

OQ: I hope you live forever.

This film is eminently quotable, check out IMDB for more.

* I have no idea what this phrase means.

Shrek The Third

Remembering this week to go to the cinema on Sunday, I toddled along to enjoy the latest Shrek film.

The trailers started, and I stretched out in the luxury of having no-one near me who could bother me. Yet another trailer for Surf's Up, that surfing penguin movie. Yawn. Looks terrible. Oh what's that? Yet another teen school movie. Oh look, she's the brainy one. Oh look, there's the arch-nemesis character.

Then the title of the film was revealed. And it chilled me . Chilled me to the bone. It was a film called Bratz. Yes, that's right; they've made a film out of those annoying dolls. It wasn't just the film based on merchandising that got me though, it was how crassly awful the film looked. Every high school film cliche in the entire book covered.

Anyway, on to Shrek. Bloody good film, nice premise, plenty of in jokes. Rather sad opening (but nowhere near as depressingly gloomy as Pirates 3's opening), but it even managed to squeeze a bit of humour into the scene.

As usual, the sidekicks and minor characters steal the show all over the place. The gingerbread man, Pinnochio and his desperate attempt not to lie, Sleeping Beauty's narcolepsy, one of the seven dwarves and of course Puss and Donkey. Wise cracks from them had me giggling all the way through.

Of the three, I still prefer the second film. I just think the gags were better and more flowing, and enjoyable from all ages (like the line "Nope....you got them..." after Donkey kicks Shrek between the legs). Still Shrek the Third does have a lot of merits, is highly enjoyable and a good laugh

Score: B-

OQ: Fuzzy navels for all my friends!

Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer

Preamble
Kicking yourself for your own stupidity is not a great mood to be in when watching a film. Toddling along on Satuday at 6.30, I handed my ticket to the usher only to discover to my horror that the three noisy kids in front of me were also waiting for the same screen to be cleaned. And only after I'd sat down did I realise I'd be missing the new episode of Doctor Who! (I did manage to get home in time to catch the confidential, which then spoilt the repeat for me!)

I kept repeating my personal mantra "Cinema is for Sunday." hoping it would calm me down.

Luckily this film kept them quiet the whole way through, which was a relief because, from an entire cinema of seats to have allocated to them, somehow they got stuck directly behind me.

Review
I noticed there's no Fantastic in the official title of the film. The BBFC certificate lists it simply as "4 - Rise of the Silver Surfer", almost like there's no room for "fantastic." There's always room for fantastic! I'm a fantastic Star Trek geek, Symon's a fantastic source of movie trivia and Jackie has fantastic plans for when she gets her hands on James Spader. See? There's always room!

Other people have said this is a family film, which I sort of agree with. Unlike the Spiderman movies, there's no "recap" on the last movie, it just drops you right into the film. I actually liked this better than the way Spiderman does it.

Even with it being aimed at the family market, there's a few bits for the grown ups. Jessica Alba gets her kit off again (rowr) and there's a joke about Ben's bedroom lovelife.

Stan Lee's cameo was a bit tired though. He's turning up in too many of the films. It used to be the odd treat in a few, but what with his horrible appearance in Spiderman, this one was just one too many for me.

Missing lines from the trailer: 1, but the replacement line is much better.

OQ: There’s always a choice.

Score: B

Ocean's 13

I remember a time when only exceptional films were allowed to screw around with the distributor's logo at the start of the film. Everytime you saw the logo being altered at the start of the opening titles, you know you were in for a great film. It was a rarity, a sign of quality and a stamp of approval from the studio.

Then something changed and it seemed anyone could screw around with the logos, as long as there was a big name star attached and regardless of how much of a turkey the film was.

So when the opening titles started for Ocean's 13, I was a little concerned. I thought I was setting myself up for a fall.

Luckily, I was dead wrong. This film is so much better than the previous one. Everything I loved from the first one is back, the witty banter, the jokes, the camaraderie between the gang. The whole film has a Mission Impossible (TV) feel to it, which I love, the final heist is brilliant in the way they get around the problems they've had. Al Pacino is a bit wasted in the role, underused in so much as his presence is used more than his acting ability. Still, he was good though. All of his scenes were filmed in three weeks.

And thank god the trailer gave nothing away. There's no major spoilers in the UK trailer.

This film is funny, sharp and well paced. I loved it.

Score: A
This film has the Saxon Good Film Guarantee, a prestigious award given out only once every blue moon.

OQ: You shook Sinatra's hand....

OOQ: Yeah, um, I just bit into a red pepper...

Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds (Live on Stage!)

Longest title I've ever reviewed. By some margin. If I were to list all the elements in this film, like the huge orchestra, the laser show, a huge tripod descending from the rafters and Richard Burton's giant head, you might be forgiven for thinking this was some sort of bad acid trip. What it is, is a fantastic recording of the live show version of Jeff Wayne's.... well, you get the point. As soon as the main theme started up, the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I immediately turned the volume all the way up to just below rattling the wall level. Part orchestral ballad, part CGI movie, part live action stage musical and part Richard Burton's giant head, this is a strange mix of elements but it really seems to work. THIS is how you should make a movie of HG Wells' book: exactly as it's written (yeah, OK the musical changes a few things too, but it's mostly faithful to the source). Set at the turn of the century and from one man's perspective of the martian invaders and their unstoppable conquest across south east England, it's the original sci-fi horror story. Extras include how to make a giant tripod martian fighting machine (MFM for short), interviews with Jeff Wayne and how they brought Richard Burton back from the dead (figuratively speaking). It was quite clever actually. Score: A OQ: "No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that our world was being watched by intelligences greater than our own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns, they observed and studied, the way a man with a microscope might scrutinize the creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency, men went to and fro about the globe, confident of our empire over this world. Yet across the gulf of space, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes and slowly, and surely, drew their plans against us."

Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds (Live on Stage!)

Longest title I've ever reviewed. By some margin. If I were to list all the elements in this film, like the huge orchestra, the laser show, a huge tripod descending from the rafters and Richard Burton's giant head, you might be forgiven for thinking this was some sort of bad acid trip. What it is, is a fantastic recording of the live show version of Jeff Wayne's.... well, you get the point. As soon as the main theme started up, the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I immediately turned the volume all the way up to just below rattling the wall level. Part orchestral ballad, part CGI movie, part live action stage musical and part Richard Burton's giant head, this is a strange mix of elements but it really seems to work. THIS is how you should make a movie of HG Wells' book: exactly as it's written (yeah, OK the musical changes a few things too, but it's mostly faithful to the source). Set at the turn of the century and from one man's perspective of the martian invaders and their unstoppable conquest across south east England, it's the original sci-fi horror story. Extras include how to make a giant tripod martian fighting machine (MFM for short), interviews with Jeff Wayne and how they brought Richard Burton back from the dead (figuratively speaking). It was quite clever actually. Score: A OQ: "No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that our world was being watched by intelligences greater than our own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns, they observed and studied, the way a man with a microscope might scrutinize the creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency, men went to and fro about the globe, confident of our empire over this world. Yet across the gulf of space, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes and slowly, and surely, drew their plans against us."

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

It's long, it's so long... How long have I been here? When does it end? complained my backside while I watched this.

Sshhh, said I, concentrating on Keira Knightly. God, I can't take you anywhere, can I?

Short review: Did I enjoy it? Yes. It's fun, has lots of laughs, great action pieces and is a good ending to the series (if it is the end). I think I'd have enjoyed it more if I'd re-watched Dead Man's Chest before watching this, since there's a lot of continuity and carried forward plot points.

Longer review: You know me, I'm a nitpicker with films. I did enjoy this, but it gets hard to follow in parts and it did descend into Jason and the Argonauts territory near the end. You'll know what I mean when you see it. There's a lot of stuff that's great, there's a few things which aren't. It's one main weakness is the cross and double crosses going on makes it a little harder to follow that I would have preferred for a fantasy action film, and things change so fast it can be a bit of an effort to keep up at times.

The scene with Jack in a hellish Davy Jones' Locker is superb. I've never seen a better way to show hell, even though it technically isn't.

The naval battle was a big let down though, it seems that when the British lose their flagship, even though they still out number the enemy 3-1, they always retreat. Even more annoying was that Endeavour would have torn the Pearl and Dutchman a new one, since it still outguns both ships combined.

Even at 163 minutes, there are parts of this film that feel rushed. However, there's no part that drags, which is good. The problem is, with its length and adding in adverts and trailers, by the time you leave, you've spent three hours in the cinema. So trust me, go somewhere with comfortable seating.

Overall it's a good film that probably would have been better if Dead Man's Chest had been more memorable, so I could remember what happened in it.

Score: C. I know, I know, shocking score. But I still think the first one is the best of the three.

OQ: And so, we will go to war!