sparkster24 Reviews

Lady in the Water (2006)

A typical M. Night Shyamalan film?

[8/10 · 24 August 2006]

Lady In The Water is a story about an oriental fable which comes to life for one man - Cleveland (played by Paul Giamatti). However, just to avoid any confusion, in reality this story is neither oriental nor mythical – it comes straight from the creative brain of M. Night Shyamalan – the director of Unbreakable, The Signs, Stuart Little and The Sixth Sense. The anecdote is about a Narf (which is a type of Sea Nymph,) who comes from 'the other side' to save our souls. However, despite the confusing summary of this film, the relationship between Cleveland and Young Soon (played by Cindy Cheung) helps the audience understand the mythological framework in which this film conducts itself. In this way, considering the complexity of the task in hand for Shyamalan, he has pulled of a stroke of genius. As the fable begins to develop the film follows.

So, the Narf, who is called Story (played by Bryce Dallas Howard), attempts to return home (according to IMDb.com although, I don't actually remember the film stating that -) and save humanity from its own vice. The idea of this story is clearly based on the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. Story is benevolent in her motive and, as per usual, humans are the bad guys. Story is waiting for an eagle to transport her back home crowning her the 'Madam Nark' (Queen Nark if you like), where she will put an end to our evil. Again, here we can see similarities between Jesus and Story. Even physically Story's pellucid complexion is angelically white – coincidence? I think not. Cleveland, who discovered Story in the swimming pool, takes it upon himself to care for her. As the story unwinds we discover Cleveland's family was murdered and that looking after Story gives him a purpose in life.

There is, of course, the enemy who are a group of mythological creatures that want to kill Story so the evil of man may continue. For protection against the slayers, Story has been divinely delegated a guardian, a healer, a guild and a symbolist - the only problem is she doesn't know who her 'protectors' are other than the fact they are human. Thus, on one side there is the 'nasty' human species who are trying to save her whilst, on the other, there are some fantasy beasts who are trying to kill her. There is no explanation as to why the fantasy beasts are trying to kill her – I guess the 'devil' doesn't really need an explanation for its intrinsic malevolence.

Moreover, as consistently indicated throughout this extract, I think there is a strong fundamental link between religion and this film which is what will AND does produce a very strong response – whether it's positive or negative. The film is brilliant in parts but at times I fear Shyamalan has got caught up in trying to give us a 'who is it?' as opposed to concentrating on the essential parts of the film. To make a fair judgement of this film, it is a case of weighing up the positives (e.g. the intertextual references to the Scream(1996)-type-comedy where the film parodies a novelist's basic narrative guidelines) against some the negatives (e.g. the weak narrative structure in places - I never felt any kind of attachment to any of the characters).

Overall Shyamalan tried to do too much in this film. Unfortunately for us, he had done the hard part and forgotten about the easier things such as that suggested above.

A Scanner Darkly (2006)

"It is midnight. The rain is beating on the windows. It was not midnight. It was not raining" – Samuel Beckett (Molloy).

[10/10 · 23 August 2006]

By this quotation Samuel Beckett was trying to show us the different realms of reality – a notion later developed and promulgated by Jean Baudrillard. The idea of different realities can be traced back to the beginning of the enlightenment with Rene Descartes famous aphorism 'cogito ergo sum', meaning 'I think, therefore, I am'.

This film is based upon P.K.Dick's novel which outlines a situation rather than following a hardcore narrative. A new hallucinogenic drug - substance D (which just so happens to take the initials of the film) - has got 20% of the population addicted and through the eyes of different addicts we follow different peoples' lives including dealers and policeman. Later on in the film, these roles will become more perplexing as the drugs taking over.

Set in the future, the audience views the characters in Japanese Animation in order to put them under the effect of the drug. Under the narcotics, the audience is always confused as to what is going on. The film centres on the paranoia (and unconscious creativity whether good or bad) that goes on as a result of the drugs. It is clear that both director and novelist have learnt a lot about hallucinogenics. In this warped world where reality is severely distorted, the film asks the audience many fundamental questions: what is reality (Baudrillard)? Are we under the influence of someone else (Descartes)? Does it matter (Satre)? It has been argued (for example, in Kant's epistemology,) that 'reality' is a subjective interpretation of an objective world. By contrast, Empiracists (such as David Hume,) may argue that we cannot ascertain anything. This debate is prefaced by 'The Matrix'.

The only criticism that can be made of this film is it lacks 'universal' appeal. Its target audience are those who can draw upon their own experiences (like any other film -) or those who can draw upon a wide range of academic knowledge on the subjects in question. Thus, this film has been made for someone with a level of understanding, experience and/or intelligence and will not appeal to the 'unthinking man/herd' (to quote Nietzsche). I would call this an artistic film because of the messages behind it and that in itself means it will cut out the 'uncultured'. However, like any other 'culture', to truly enjoy the film you need to give it your full attention otherwise you will not fully understand the sheer depth of the film. I'd also like point out that this is the ONLY film (so far) I have rated 10/10 and that's because I don't see how a film like this could have been improved upon. Everything in it has been through and well worked. No criticisms!

The Ant Bully (2006)

Ants bite back!

[6/10 · 7 August 2006]

Based upon the book by John Nickel 'The Ant Bully' is about a bullied 10-year-old boy called Lucas (voiced by Tyler Eisen) who assails anthills. The pacifist ants attempt to protect themselves by creating a potion to shrink Lucas (a.k.a. Peanut the destroyer) down to their size and make him stand trial for crimes against ant-ility (my malapropism of humanity).

As punishment for his crimes, the Queen Ant forces Lucas to be trained as an ant so he may empathise with what he is destroying (the idea of de-humanisation or de-ant-ization). Only the wizard (Zoc, voiced by Nicolas Cage) has a potion to reverse the shrinking which he originally did. During his punishment, Lucas is made to learn the value of teamwork and friendship. Eventually, the ants face their biggest threat – the local exterminator - and the dénouement begins.

This film had some very funny characters and is certainly worth watching. In general the ants are amusing but specific mention should be made of Fugax the scout - who is particularly funny and some other animals which Lucas and Zoc meet inside a frog's stomach.

However, although worth a viewing, it is flawed throughout and can annoy people.

Firstly, as you can tell from the paragraph above one of the funniest characters in this film was so peripheral to the narrative that they were hardly recognised.

Secondly, at the beginning of the film, the exterminator gets Lucas to sign a contract – I'm not sure how valid a contract with a 10-year-old would be and surely the frivolous old lady would have been a more valid option for the exterminator.

Thirdly, I think the frivolous old lady was too peripheral – she just seemed like an 'add-on' as with much of this film.

Fourthly, I think the fact that Lucas was being bullied was an attempt to justify his behaviour when it needed no justification. I remember in 'American Pie 2' the directors originally created Stiffler's Dad to try and show the audience why Stiffler was the way he was. Overwhelmingly for this reason, the film flopped in front of a provisional audience. As a result, all scenes involving Stiffler's Dad were cut out and they lost a lot of the film – justification to make us pity bullies just doesn't work! It is not funny enough and that was another pivotal flaw in this film.

I guess the real disappointment is they haven't expanded enough on the original book. The writers were been set an original position with a great basis and all that was required was the finishing details (i.e. the Hollywood know-how) which, frankly, looked like 'add-ons'. Compare this to the standard of 'Shrek 2' (which had no novel basis) and 'The Ant Bully' can be perceived as nothing but invention-less. Considering what this film provisionally had going for it the film has provided quite a lot of disappointment.

N.B. Counter criticism of the left wing 'hidden' messages.

I'm sure a lot of people have drawn upon the supposed 'hidden message' aspect of it. I agree - there is a large socialist element to it but many films have hidden messages. However, I don't agree this alone ruined the film but I do concede it would have been nice if the message weren't so inherent to the storyline. It could be argued this was a good film to write socialist propaganda as, ultimately, ants are rather socialist in the structure of their lives. Perhaps we should ask why people are so annoyed about ants being socialist instead of trying to 'dogma-tise' imperfect conceptions of capitalism.

Cars (2006)

A surprisingly good film which was well designed, well planned and well executed.

[7/10 · 5 August 2006]

The narrative is a typical storyline of Disney's (- who brought out Pixar a while ago): Lighting McQueen (- voiced by Owen Wilson) is racing in the Piston cup competing against 42 other cars. It is possible to draw a comparison between the Piston cup in 'Cars' to the F1 Grand Prix in reality. Lightning is a novice with bourgeois capitalist ideals. He wishes to win the cup and gain a better sponsorship deal than he has with his current sponsor Rust-eze. Because Lightning is obsessed about winning he (possibly inadvertently) pushes his team's tolerance to the limit. He has no loyalty, no respect for others and is focused on nothing but winning the races. In the 'final' race, Lightning ties with three other cars – "The King" (Richard Petty), who is due to end his career after the race and "Chick Hicks" (Michael Keaton). As a result of the draw, all three are forced to race again (- this time only as a three -) in a final decisive race in California for the prestigious trophy.

The van that transports Lightning to California (Mack) is made to drive all night long so that Lightning can beat Chick to the race track. Mack falls asleep whilst driving and Lightning drifts out of the back of the van eventually ending up in Radiator Springs in police custody. Lightning is sentenced to rebuild the road he has 'inadvertently' damaged (when trying to get away from the police) before his final championship winning race in California. This story then becomes a comic tale of Lightning constantly trying to run away and, at the same time, his relationship with other town residents including Sally a 2002 Porsche, Doc Hudson a 1951 Hudson Hornet and a rusty old truck. Eventually Lightning learns loads of different skills for racing the biggest race of his life and builds up new friends from this redundant town.

The film is a gem for Disney even if a little too childish in my opinion. The narratives are well worked and executed to perfection and the scenery is very aesthetically pleasing. There are good interweaving story lines which all have hidden messages behind them and all of which are coherent and make sense.

However this film can be criticised. This genre has been exploited recently by other pictures such as Toy Story and Ice Age. In my opinion it becomes a little tedious to see the same thing developed in the same way with a slightly different setting over and over again. The fact it centered around cars also meant it neglected a large range of its perspective target audience. This is to say, in my view, the older generation who enjoy motor racing (- a major section of its target audience,) do not want to be moralised into choosing between benevolence and 'competitive racing' and thus would prefer a film like 'too fast too furious'.

Despite the above criticism it is actually very good film and thoroughly worth seeing. However, I'm sure ultimately it won't linger too long in the memory.

n.b. don't miss the end-credit outtakes which have loads of jokes.

The Break-Up (2006)

Unimaginative tripe!

[5/10 · 3 August 2006]

I wasn't expecting much when I walked into this film. Both Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn (in a serious relationship together in real life) are good when they work with the right people thus it was about whether the acting chemistry was right between the two. As actors, I don't feel either has performed to the exceptional standard they set themselves earlier in their acting careers. This was the main concern I had for this film.

The beginning outlines the setting: Jennifer (Brooke) and Vince (Gary) begin a relationship together and eventually get married. Vince is an active joker and a lot of fun whereas Jennifer is more conservative and interested in aesthetics (specifically art). Both are successful and they eventually split up because Jennifer doesn't like Vince's ungrateful attitude.

After the split, the narrative becomes a funny tale of how Vince and Jennifer try and irritate one another with their annoying little habits in order to get what they want. Vince provides the stereotypical 'masculine' point by simply gainsaying and competing against his wife for no other reason that 'phallic competition'. By contrast, Jennifer the stereotypical female, is doing everything she can to gain his attention and turn him into something he is not (i.e. someone who appreciates her). Put simply, Vince is a libertarian 'slobbish' male and Jennifer just wants to be recognised and appreciated.

It is meant to be a comedy but I think the narrative is too serious to be a comedy. Unfortunately, inter alia, I have too much experience of this actually happening! Thus it is my belief that the directors were really up against it when they attempted to make a comedy out of something rather serious and too real. However, it was at times rather amusing (even if it was just typical American humour and, frankly, nothing funnier than you would find socially down the pub). I'd like to complement the advertisers at this point who did a wonderful job advertising this programme picking out the best bits of the film and making it look like an extravaganza when, in retrospect, it clearly wasn't. The film left me in a state of torpor! I'm not sure of its target audience either – I think it was aimed at everyone but, paradoxically, the narrative became too diverse to appeal to anyone.

The ending also leaves a lot to be desired – it certainly is not what you expect. People go to a cinema expecting a genre to fulfil certain criteria. For example, if I go to see a horror I expect a lot of blood and a scary movie otherwise I feel particularly dissatisfied. This film certainly did not provide the type of ending you might otherwise expect thus not fulfilling the criteria and leaving a lot of romantic-genre-film fans very unhappy.

Ultimately, this film never really captured the imagination and that's what really let this film down.

Over the Hedge (2006)

Recent upsurges of comedic cartoon-films over recent years have produced a mixed reaction - this is one of the better ones

[9/10 · 20 July 2006]

Recent upsurges of comedic cartoon-films over recent years have produced a mixed reaction; Shrek 2 is possibly the greatest cartoon film ever however, this has been followed up with Madagascar and The Wild ('inter alia') which haven't lived up to the standard set by Shrek 2. This movie certainly does! From the overview, the cast didn't look exceptional thus we could draw relationships with flops such as Madagascar. Bruce Willis was the only 'larger' name alongside William Schatner – neither of which stimulate me. This film also saw Avril Lavigne's debut as an actor (or as a voice-over to be more precise). Despite this rather uninspiring and experimental cast this film turned out to be exceptional.

The plot: RJ (a raccoon,) is a scavenger and tries to steal food of a bear (Vincent played by Nick Nolte). The bear catches RJ and threatens to eat him if he doesn't replace all of his food in a week. In order to do this, RJ has to make friends with some scavengers, namely a Turtle called Verne (played by Garry Shandling), an overexcited hamster called hammy (played by Steve Carell), a skunk with an attitude problem called Stella (played by Wanda Sykes), two possums called Ozzie and Heather (played by William Schatner and Avril Lavigne) and a few hedgehogs; Lou, Penny, Bucky, Spike and Quillo (played by Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Sami Kirkpatrick, Shane Baumel and Madison Davenport).

The scavengers have been in hibernation for a few months. They wake up and learn redevelopers have cut down their beloved forest and begin to worry about gathering food. Fortunately, RJ is on the scene and the scavengers learn how to steal food from humans (who are over the hedge). This is a comedic story is based on a concoction of how RJ tries cheating his newly found family into giving him all the collected food from over the hedge so he can save his own life from a hungry bear, the battle between an bigoted insane woman (who calls in the 'verminator') and the animals' interpersonal relationships within the 'family' with strong referencing to Verne's tingling tail and its relationship with RJ.

Throughout the plot, there are some fantastic displays from Hammy, Stella and Lou in particular. Watch out for Avril Lavigne's Heather who I think is also exceptional in her debut role. Despite the warning signs that this was going to be a particular poor film it has turned out to be completely the opposite – something which must go into the 'Shrek 2' class of films. I think the directors Karey Kirkpatrick and Tim Johnson have got the cast spot on and directed it so well! It is a laugh a minute from the start to the finish with fantastic characters, fantastic narratives and clever twists during essential comedic moments – it has something for everyone. Watch it or miss out, it really is that good!

Just My Luck (2006)

Films with music stars keep getting poorer

[4/10 · 19 July 2006]

Films have a poor reputation when they involve stars from the music industry (or should I say 'pop stars' as I categorically refuse to put Britney Spears and McFly in the same batch as the deity Bach and Wagner). Thus, I wasn't expecting much when I got up at a ridiculously early time so I could see the only showing Brighton Marina cinema had of Just My Luck with an audience consisting of 3 people (including me).

The storyline is predictably simple, Ashley (played by Lindsay Lohan) has good luck and Jake (played by Chris Pine) has bad luck. Ashley holds down a successful job although the audience is unaware of what job she is successful at. By contrast, Jake is head of a small-time band known as McFly. Ashley gets lucky (although what you mean by 'lucky' is key here, (see below,) by improvising for her company and landing a 'big-ball-date'. At this 'big ball', Ashley kisses Jake who has hijacked the ball as a professional dancer to try and get the prestigious Damon Phillips (played by Faizon Love) to look at his band. Via this kiss, Jake gains all of Ashley's luck and suddenly everything goes wrong for Ashley and everything goes right for Jake. McFly became famous and eventually are asked to play at a 'Hard Rock café'. After learning from a clairvoyant what has happened, Ashley tries looking for her luck doing random silly stuff including kissing all the professional dancers (which is probably why she took the role), eating someone's leftovers from an unhygienic cafe before, pivotally, falling for Jake. She eventually discovers Jake has 'stolen' (her words, not mine) her luck and she attempts to get it back from him. I shall stop at this point as I think to go any far would ruin the ending but, if the truth were told, it isn't anything to write home about.

I believe commentators have gone a little too far in categorising it as one of the worst films ever made and may want to ask themselves for what reason they believe it to be so poor. It may not be a particularly a good film, but this it is difficult to see how it could have been any better. May be one criticism of this film is its target audience. The target audience is rather narrow, there is nothing that will stimulate you and the jokes are rather immature and 'teeny-poppy'. If you like that sort of thing, you might be happy seeing this film… it was rather predictable from the outset what it was going to be like, Lindsay Lohan has too small a range to play to play any other character-types! So, we must accept that most people are going to be outside of its 'target audience'.

I was disappointed with the characters, though, Ashley was, paradoxically not entirely an alpha female. I'm not sure who or what Ashley was supposed to be and I don't think the actor knew either. This was demonstrated in her mediocre acting. It doesn't seem realistic that Jake fell in love naturally with Ashley for any reason other than pity. Am I wrong in thinking that most girls don't want to be pitied? I think what annoyed me most the lack of basic coherent structure. As already alluded to in earlier statements, I don't think this film defines what luck actually is and, as a result, there is no clear distinction between what is 'luck' and what is 'intelligence'. For example, if someone works very hard to achieve a degree and gains a first, one wonders whether it was gained through pure luck or intellect? In contrast, Lindsay gets her position because she sits in on other people's discussions (according to the film) and based on what she has learnt decides the best way of organising a ball. Her offer is accepted and she does very well within her company, is this plain luck or is that because she deserved it? Later in the film, even when she knows that she has overdone the washing powder, she still switches it on even though she does not know where the 'off' switch… I'm not sure what that has to do with luck. Similarly, when she tries to replace a lightbulb. What has this got to do with luck? The main point is that there is no 'depth' to this film. Here is a film looking for a theme and a structure. If it purports to be a comedy, I fail to see the joke. While it isn't the worst film you'd ever see you will probably come out feeling as dissatisfied as I did.

District B13 (2004)

The secret of success - mission accomplished!

[8/10 · 18 July 2006]

The secret to success, it has been argued, is to display an ambidextrous plot that can be understood as both a simple narrative structure and a complex narrative structure. In this way District 13 fulfils its purpose. There is a story for those who are unable to grasp or understand complex narratives yet it also allows the 'thinking man' a topic of debate.

I read IMDb.com before watching this film and was under the impression it was a political film – something resembling Orwell's 1984 or H.G. Well's Things to Come. On one level it was but to generalise it as merely a 'political film' would be an understatement.

District 13 (or Banlieue 13 to give it its French title) is a political thriller. It's about a futuristic suburb in Paris which is simply a ghetto for violence, street crime and anarchism. This story explores the life of Leito, a home-grown youth who stands against the corruption going on around him but, much like Dirty Harry, Leito punishes all those who are unruly (including the police). Eventually, Leito is released from prison (after being wrongly convicted for the possession of drugs,) as he is needed by the police to penetrate the dominant ghetto B13 base and thus defuse a triggered stolen nuclear bomb that will destroy the whole area within 24 hours. The story unfolds as the two main protagonists, Leito and Damien, (a law-abiding policeman,) try to prevent a bomb from exploding and, at the same time, save Leito's sister from the mob.

This thriller is everything many American movies want to be. Both Damien and Leito are two highly trained athletes and both men pull off great stunts. Unlike many American thrillers though, the narratives make sense and we can understand them. Throughout the film there are many socialist undertones and the finale is also reformist socialism – and, retrospectively, possibly also an inherent criticism of the Soviet Union. One point for discussion concerns the notion of a 'worthwhile life'? It also encompasses other moral philosophies.

There are no stones left unturned but everything is concluded in the most unexpected ways. The plot is very good and asks questions which many films, particularly American ones, do not. There is a downside to this film though. The whole movie is spoken in French with English subtitles which means it is not exactly audience friendly! Also, it means you have to concentrate on the subtitles as well as the picture which means it is likely you will miss some of the action! Furthermore, in my (cynical) opinion, gangstas' tend to be very well practically trained, thus there is no way you can attack four or five of them whilst being attached to a steering wheel – a little too unrealistic. This shouldn't take too much away from the film. It is a very good film with great ideas and, if this was made by an American producer, it certainly would have gained a better reputation than the one it has. It's certainly a box office hit for me!

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

The fast and much too boring

[2/10 · 17 July 2006]

The fast and much too boring I'd like to rename this film. We've now seen it all before in the previous episodes, boy racers racing their cars against one another and someone winning. So, now having established the plot as repetitious we should possibly move onto the unrealistic details involved in the storyline.

A Boy racer (played by Lucas Black,) is deported to Tokoyo because he has been caught by the police for racing cars on multiple occasions. This in itself is unbelievable. Remember the football/soccer World Cup in 2002 which was held in Korea and Japan? Diego Maradona, one of the greatest football players ever, was banned from seeing it in the flesh because he had taken cocaine many years previous to the world cup and thus had a conviction against his name, well, the story is trying to tell us the boy racers' are deported from a libertarian country to a much more totalitarian country which don't (for the large part) take ex-convicts. Not really believable is it? Well, let's ignore that part and move onto the next unbelievable phase. I shall at this point quote onig-1 from Canada who also comments on IMDb.com: "As a Navy brat that lived in Japan when I was a kid, I for a fact know that Navy kids do not attend Japanese schools, they attend American schools. Navy officers do not live in shacks in Tokyo, they live on the base, because they get big houses for 25% of the price. In Tokyo drift they do neither of these things." So, now we know the bases of this film are just simply wrong we can move to the conclusion and find problems in this to. Lucas Black learns to drift in just days (seemingly) and is taken in and trained by someone who turns out to be a backstabbing snitch (Han). Fortunately for the young American boy racer, Han chooses to take advantage of DK's trust instead of Lucas's clear vulnerability. DK is the nephew of 'the godfather' and, because Han decided to rip of DK he eventually loses his life to him… sensible, logical? You decide. Furthermore, DK doesn't have bullet-proof glass on his car (as he is able to shoot through the front window when firing at Han) which is rather strange, it seems politic to assume that someone who holds such a prestigious and dangerous position in society would have thought to have prepared himself against anyone attacking him whilst he was in the confinement of his car. Toward the end of the show, DK has a gun placed to his head by a navy officer (Lucas's father) and there are many opportunities for the navy officer to shoot (unless you are now going to tell me DK can drive and has a better aim-of-shot than someone whose duty it is to train with a gun daily). However, despite this, the Navy officer chooses not to shoot! Why? I thought Blood was thicker than water, I wonder how many people could not envision themselves shooting in that precarious situation? Finally, and possibly worst of all, the dramatic character change at the end that only a slug (and the director's seemingly) could have missed. We know only one thing about Lucas Black's father - he is vehemently opposed to letting his son race. However, after an unexplained volt face in characterisation toward the end of this film he lets Black race for no reason whatsoever. In my experience of people in a position of power (such as a navy officer) they will want to be aware of all details before giving the go-ahead - especially if it happens to be a juvenile delinquent with a bad reputation for doing what he is suggesting. In this case, I think it would be fair to presume the go ahead would not be given - but not in this film. So, he lets his son race against DK and even helps fund him by supplying him with his own car. I also doubt that many fathers in the knowledge of the full facts would let their son race in that situation.

I note at this juncture that I have made no reference of Lucas's relationship with Nathalie. I'm avoiding this subject as it seemed to be a rather useless side-plot which had no meaning to the core of the show. So, now we have considered all the characters to be unrealistic, the narrative to be simply implausible and the whole film is not thought-out we should possibly move onto the positives.

There is one, and ONLY one positive in my view to credit this film with - if you miss a lot of the film you can still follow the story. It is so simple it might be worth turning to another channel to watch 15 minutes of it at a time and when you get bored of it turning it back over to something a lot more interesting. If your only interest is to watch boy racer's fantasies come true with a poor plot then this is your film. Unfortunately, like me, I think the majority of the world can do without it.

Superman Returns (2006)

'We Don't Need Another Hero' by Tina Turner

[6/10 · 16 July 2006]

'We Don't Need Another Hero' by Tina Turner summed by the beginning of this one. Lois Lane wins an award for writing a paper on 'Why the world doesn't need Superman' and from then on in it becomes typically cheesy and predictable.

Now maybe we should start on a negative note so I may end on a high. This film goes on for much too long; if you have an opportunity to miss the first hour take it! How the director thought he would entertain an audience after putting them in such a bad mood is beyond me?! Some of the actors aren't up to the requirements of their part either, Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane) looks completely out of place, her character is awkward and I don't think she has learnt how to make the balance between an alpha female and a female who is passionately in love trying to run from her feelings - she looks like a fish out of water to me. Sam Huntington (Jimmy) is also rather poor, again I would like to see someone who tries and means well but just can't make it (like the original Jimmy) but this new version seems to fit in line with egalitarian issues surrounding the workplace. To put it frankly, he looks like someone who is not up to the job but has been recruited to represent minority groups – not what I expect from Jimmy.

Onto a more positive note though, after taking some aspirin to get over the first hour of the film it does begin to pick up. The tradition of superman has been well carried by the director (Bryan Singer) and some characters more than make up for others. Brandon Routh is a brilliant actor and well worthy of the superman part he plays and Kevin Spacey proves to us once again that he truly is one of the greatest living actors in this day-and-age. Despite a reasonably predictable ending the film isn't too bad and the idea is very good. The storyline is Lex Luthor takes crystals from one a superman's layers' and uses it to create land, however, in doing so he is going to send the rest of the world under sea and kill millions/billions of people in doing so. It's a clever idea and definitely believable, again something typical of the old superman films. Predictably you get the old cliché of good versus evil etc. In all honesty if this film was better casted and they cut the first hour out it would have been a much better film. After giving the first third of the film 0/3 and taking a mark of for the poor casting we are left with a pretty average 6/10 for a film that was billed to be the greatest film this year. Certainly, not as good as The Pirates of Caribbean 2!

The Lake House (2006)

Simplicity itself

[7/10 · 16 July 2006]

The main confusion about this film arises from the fact that that it is over simplistic. It isn't an intrinsically 'bad' film and the director has clearly understood what it takes to make a 'Rom' film using the device of time travel. Alejandro has also understood that if something is complex, people will not understand it. The opposite has happened here - paradoxically, things are so simple that no one understands it. I suppose if you want to see a 'romance' then one should expect to get a 'romance'and this is exactly what people got here.

Actually, the story of film is very basic and it could be summarised in a few lines - Keanu is in 2004, Sandra in 2006. They can communicate through a time-travelling letter box and, of course, what Keanu does in 2004 can affect what Sandra does in 2006 (given two years wear and tear.) And that's about it, folks! Not hard to understand is it? Unfortunately, I believe this over-simplification is the film's downfall in that it makes no attempt to state why there is a time-travelling letterbox and, more importantly to me, what the point of the dog was. Moreover, if you are trying to look for an clever ending then you wont find one here.

This film sees two excellent protagonists - do not believe any reports which tell you otherwise. Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves seem to work very naturally together (which is possibly why they were selected to star in the film). The scenery is also brilliant and a certain mood is well created by the director.

Ultimately though, this film is just uninspiring. My girlfriend and I walked out of the picture as soon it had finished and went straight into another film so to not let the dirty taste of 'The Lake House' linger. If you're not into romantic films do not see it! Because of some good acting I'd rate it a measly 7 (which is actually being rather generous).

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Sea thriller - with so many other narratives in the background

[9/10 · 15 July 2006]

I went to see this film wondering whether this was going to be yet another cheap Hollywood rip-off movie, fortunately, this was not the case. Johnny Depp, in my opinion, will soon be considered the greatest actor to have ever lived and in his greatest role as the camp Captain Jack Sparrow he didn't let us down. The narrative was brilliant, the graphics were fantastic and I would advise that everyone sees it – the film seems to appeal to all ages. The only disappointment was the inclusion of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom whose soporific acting continued, something which seems to coincide with the whole tradition of being Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. I heard it said that Keira Knightley demanded that she was in a fight scene; I'm surprised the director gave way to her - it seemed rather out of character.

Apart from the minor hic-up of two very poor actors, the film was brilliant and the cold Bill Nighy, starring as Davey Jones, was a sensation in his own right. It has many story lines overlapping and I'm sure everyone can at least relate or enjoy one of them. So far this year, for me, this is the must-see movie! n.b. There are quite a lot of references to the original film so for maximum pleasure refer to the previous episodic before watching this one. However, this film is still very good if you haven't seen the first one.