Reviews

INTRO: I first played this game on a friends PS2, 3 of us sat on the couch watching and taking part - deciding actions and movements, taking the challenges in turn depending upon who we felt was best suited (for some reason I ended up with the love and action sequences, it must be my good looks, charm and abundant athleticism). Despite the fact we took it in turns, not one of us left our seat when someone else took over. Indeed in 7 hours one night we left our seats only for bathroom and coffee breaks (and even then we shouted back and forth to each other the goings on).

Unfortunately I went on holiday so didn't get to play the final 'third' of the game. In response I purchased the game on Ebay in order to complete the game to my satisfaction. My only grumble? The final 'third' turned out to be 10 minutes game-play.

THE GAME: Fahrenheit follows on the heels of games such as the "Broken Sword" Trilogy, but incorporates elements of the "Blade Runner" VG (in particular the conversation routes, insertion of action sequences and more immersive sound and visuals) and also the detective/crime noir of Max Payne (from the setting, to the winter to the dark humour). Character depth is well founded, at least on par with those you would find in your average fugitive vs police TV show, and you feel you have a good grasp of your character very quickly through the use of some unintrusive monologues.

The action is dealt with well, or at least in a novel fashion. I hankered for a more open ended action sequence at times, but found it all challenging enough without. Criticism can (and should) be made that the action sequences are little more than 'obstacles' to prevent the progress of the story - but all (bar one) really add to the story without causing considerable delay. The controls are occasionally a bit fiddly (the ability to 'backpedal' slowly rather than 'turn around' would have been handy for the occasions you overran something - due to the models requiring a few feet either side of them to make a turn).

PC Users may find that the game, whilst playing flawlessly on the highest graphic setting, has 'timing' bugs with regards to these action sequences. Normally dropping the graphic settings down to minimum will aid in the completion of what may otherwise be a frustrating sequence. Sometimes the Simon Says colours can be harder to see on high graphic settings also due to the additional vibrancy of the background sequence.

Graphically the game is solid, if unspectacular. The skins and models are very well done, as are facial expressions, lip synch, and physical movements (thanks to motion capture). Everything else is simplistic, but effective (with occasional nice touches). Regardless it doesn't detract from the game in any way. Special effects are especially good, with emotive use of simple visual tricks.

Sound wise the game is also very solid, with good crisp voice acting from established voice actors and a steady score and licensed tracks from established artists.

STORY: The plot is excellent, until the final section. I'm sure I'm not the only person who felt that what was building up as an extremely interesting psychological thriller with supernatural edge was somewhat undercut by the final run in. But don't let that put you off from what is otherwise an extremely entertaining romp.

The game really warranted more time dedicating to it. I get the feeling the writer had more planned but couldn't include it all, it would be nice to see a Fahrenheit "Directors Cut" including the many sequences they didn't include due to time constraints.

OVERALL: I enjoyed this game, it installs fluidly, it plays extremely well, and it maintains a heady pace right the way through with some extremely satisfying action sequences. The story, the characters, the art and architecture through to the humour and adult orientated romance, all make this game unique in depth as it truly is the first playable movie since the haphazard attempts on the old Sega MegaCD. Try the game out and look how far we've come, and how much further a concept like this could go.

8/10

SIMILAR GAMES TO LOOK FOR: Blade Runner (Westwood Studios). Broken Sword 1, 2 and 3. Max Payne 1+2 (Action Shooter, but also crime noir rp)

I started my Thiefing back in the day, with a demo of "Thief: The Dark Project". I tried it a dozen times, I never 'liked' it. In fact it infuriated me. But then, I actually started to pay attention, and once through the training mission I fell in love with Baffords Mansion and the intrigue. Since then I've never looked back. It only slows you down when you're fleeing from guards screaming "Taffer!" in your direction.

Thief3 is, therefore, something of a leap. Thief1+2 were both firmly entrenched in FPSville, and the limitations (and advances) of the game engine. Thief3 goes more towards console gameplay and Splinter Cell. Unfortunately it neither truly achieves a satisfying result despite its good intentions.

You'll get more out of the game if you play it as an FPS (rather than 3rd Person). As an FPS you feel more immersed, rather than simply watching your 'character' move around. It also makes you consider your positioning with regards to shadows, walls, and doorways, you'll find yourself craning your neck to look around corners, utilising the lean buttons and similar. In 3rd Person this immersion is lost as you already have a somewhat superior angle of view (and with the 360 rotation you can achieve the impossible of walking in one direction whilst looking in another with the 'camera'). I made the mistake of playing the game as an FPS and not 'liking' it (the head wobble, the slowness of movement etc) after having played Splinter Cell. So I tried playing it in the 3rdP. I managed 2 chapters and lost interest.

2 years later, in FPS, I'm back into the game, back into the mood and enjoying every second. No it isn't as rounded or fun as the originals, and I don't think you have the same bunny hopping, object stacking, frobbing, and box jamming, freedom as you find in the truly fantastic Thief+Thief2 - but it makes up for it in other ways.

I just miss the mechanical edge of Thief2, and water....oo oo and Taffers! And Bear Pits! Yeah, yeah, I'm going to the Bear Pits tomorrow! And upside down mansions! If you wonder what I mean by the above, get your hands on Thief1 and Thief2.

Scorsese for me has always been one of those directors capable of bringing together actors of all different backgrounds and character and working them into a story effortlessly. His grasp of direction is usually flawless, artistic but always controlled. Yet he has never, again for me, produced a single piece of work I would call complete despite some fantastic performances from various actors.

This is yet another in the long list of 'so close'.

The film is good, great by many standards. But the story is weak, even if the central character is engrossing (and Di Caprio - who hasn't had a good role since Gilbert Grape - shows at last some of his talent by giving a great performance) and the supporting cast so strong. It just isn't carried anywhere (few biopics ever are though, "Chaplin" really is the only one that springs to mind).

I do recommend it, I rate it highly enough to give it a 7 and the closing half an hour is great - but there's no ending to speak of.

Plot, storyline, badguys you really really want to bash around the head with a spanner because they're so clearly evil? This game has it. Atmosphere in this game is second to none, only Thief (which uses the same engine and is by the same designers etc) comes close but Thief lacks all of the customisable skills etc that this game allows.

Weapons are around, but you'll have to balance your carry load with medic packs and necessary junk....or you can zap them with psychic powers. Puzzles are simple, but fraught with danger. The badguys menace and lurch....and an empty ship haunted by ghosts is all that remains.

Fantastic.

...i.e. something that tries not to sell itself on a purely historic basis, but for entertainments sake. I watched the film when it first came out at the pictures with a bunch of D&D type friends that I have. I loved it, others weren't so keen....but all agree it was 'entertaining'.

Watched it again a few nights ago with my Dad, and I guess it tempered my view a little as it wasn't LOL funny often enough - but enough for me to sit through it again and enjoy it again and be entertained again.

Anachronism - try having a clock tower ringing in the background of Julius Caeser, 1500 years before the clock is invented. Not arguing over what music was and wasn't present (when truthfully nobody has a clue due to aural traditions being much unrecorded).

Worth watching, but take it on face value.

...this film is spot on. For the sake of this film I sit on the British side of the line, for I've seen the terror and the immediate fall out even though I had nothing to do with the history leading up to it. Regardless, the acts of a mindless few doesn't ever justify the gross abuse of power seen and portrayed in this film.

The British who view it can't help but be appalled at the behaviour of their own because we do pride ourselves on having a fair and balanced legal system. The Irish who view it can't help but applaud the rare nature of a film making a stand from their side.

But one side shouldn't attack the other over opinions on a film such as this; neither the British for the inaccuracies or the Irish for the Brits apparent refusal to accept something very wrong was done in our name.

Instead it should just be appreciated as a film that makes a very valid point, in a very effective manner.

First off the game uses the Lithtech engine which is a few years old now. What this means is that the engine isn't entirely capable of producing his resolution surface textures, but is perfect for light shading and other effects, big maps and reasonable performance on most computers. The engine was previously used to very good effect on the atmospheric Aliens Vs Predator 2. Improvements and enhancements for this game include far better models and animations and a genuine attempt at creating something that visually is very individual.

The music is reasonable; it has shades of that 80's Junk Yard techno interspersed with more new agey stuff. But really it's only there as background noise and is unobtrusive. The sound effects are excellent, if rather unspectacular. The voice overs are of a very high quality; both for the cutscenes and the NPC's ingame.

The graphics are very good...or at least achieve the required effect. Everything glows neon along the edges, but is otherwise a single tone black, purple or dark blue (or gold when you reach the old mainframe) and is both authentic to the film whilst also taking in and incorporating more modern and familiar computer concepts. Overall it's impressive if a little samey, though they try to vary the places you go to and show each in their own particular style so as to give some idea of the inner world not just being universal in appearance. Indeed great joy was found when on the old motherboard with its state of the art "286" power. Vrooooooooooooooom!

Gameplay is typical FPS through with a few novel weapons such as the disc (which is fun, if not something I ever used too much once into the game) but most are merely your bog standard sniper, shotgun, close combat and grenades - though with new skins and approach as to how they're shown. Badguys are stupid, very dumb. No attempt to dodge or avoid most attacks and their scripted appearances makes them very easy to predict. In order to make them a little more lethal in many situations you have to play in damage limitation mode because there's no way you can avoid being hit. This is good and means you're constantly on the look-out for fresh power sources.

The upgrading element is interesting but predictable in how it works, by the end you can have maxed out most of the upgrades anyway - the only difficulty is in recognising early on which aren't worth bothering with. Personally I amped up the energy resource skill meaning it didn't cost as much to fire my ranged weapons (such as the sniper), amped up the sniper (to make it more deadly) and boosted the largest and most obvious of the defensive protocols (torso). Logic states that a sniper in any computer game has the benefit of headshots and you can supercharge it making it probably the most lethal, accurate and easily wielded weapons.

There's occasional platformer bits - a return to the 80's there - some climbing and mountaineering through leaps and hops atop infinitely high moving blocks, the light cycles section is fun if somehow unfulfilling (and the computer is sometimes annoyingly good), and it's all a bit linear (even compared to most FPS) and the character development upgrading element doesn't ever seem to let you achieve something that you can't achieve in some other way (i.e. there's no perk for being having 'jump gold' in the first few levels such as being able to reach otherwise unreachable bonus) and some 'big boss' type badguys; something that had been frowned upon since the early 90's in most "realistic" FPS. Big baddies, whilst more just a matter of avoiding their obvious attacks, are novel. I haven't killed a giant purple fire spitting worm in many years.

I enjoyed it, very much so, and because of its fantasy elements it stands out from the likes of Medal of Honour and rightly so. If you want combat combat combat then don't bother with this, but for fun and games and for people who aren't entirely FPS savvy then it'll be a real challenge and an intermediate introduction to the field (and also has no gore, so is good for kids really....kinda).

Experienced FPS persons will blitz the game as it has the same exploits as most "lean around corner, headshot with sniper" games do.

...we've owned this film, 6th Sense and Signs as part of a triple DVD set, but it took until I caught a portion of it on TV to actually bother watching it on DVD properly.

Everything about it unfortunately lacks substance. You can never believe any of the characters (half expecting Samuel to turn around every 10 seconds and say "Do you know what they call a comic in France - 'Le big comique'." and Willis to do his "Yippie Ki Yay Mo.Fo's" never leads to any great suspense) and Spencer Treat Clark doing his best impression of the snivelling on trick pony Haley Joel Osment is just taking the biscuit.

It cuts and chases around with the camera in some faux CSI style, without any apparent understanding of the mechanics and what they achieve - often throwing the films pace.

But if you ignore that you get a reasonable attempt at infusing the comic world with the real world (not the other way around though) leaving Willis as something of a bemused passenger discovering the truth behind the universe.

Not that you ever really know the truth or anything.....s'all relevant.

Problem with LOTR films is that they are always going to be compared to the books and peoples imaginations - and those of us with better imaginations than others often think of cooler things they'd rather have seen in the movie than others, or shown in different ways.

Getting away from that what you have isn't worth a film. It's a slice of a slice of a slice of a greater whole that was never going to be perfectly encapsulated into 12 movies - let alone 3 and let alone 3 with sum total of 3 years planning taking place prior to making the first film and then a continuous sequence of production. That doesn't lend kindly to perfection by any stretch of the imagination - and it shows. Because it's only a slice if you watch it and haven't got the background to fill in the gaps then all you have is a mediocre story, mediocre emotional value and very little that you can actually get your teeth into. You never get any kind of attachment to the characters - Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are getting on my nerves already and I was banking on Jackson straying completely from the book and bumping those two off - meanwhile Frodo and Sam look destined to lead a clandestine homosexual arrangement, because that's what it is - a big boys book of camping in woods and fending off mystical beasties.

Maybe if you watch all 3 films end to end it'd make sense - but right now the first film stands alone as an excellent piece of work, almost worthy of Tolkiens words whilst the second film goes back on the principle of 'enlightenment' and filling in background gaps by throwing everything in quickly and with little or no care for the people who haven't read the book. It sooooooo desperately needed a voice over, a few more historical flashbacks, a little more time introducing and attention paid to rather important characters such as Boromirs brother etc.

Anyway. CGI scenery is 'good' so long as you ignore the glaring wobbly bits (such as the Big Gate scene closing on the ranks of filed evil men) dodgy editing and inability (Still!) to get shadows and depth right. Sometimes matte paintings are the way to go if you can't realistically do it using a computer. I know that doesn't allow for big panning motions across mighty castles on hilltops etc but quite frankly I don't care much for this scenic extravaganza, I'd rather them cut the wasteful 15 or so minutes of watching people run, or horses slowly ride etc and have some background info - or at least give us a voice over with some pointers in the meantime. CGI creatures are on the whole well done, but again look like plastecine (or is plastacine?). Gollum stands apart in this respect as he is actually surprisingly well done. However, the artists could have done with actually "looking" at the effects the lighting in the scene had on the actors. Too often you'd see Sam or Frodo with their face half in shadow, then Gollum sticking out like a sore thumb because his 'shadow' doesn't come from any source within the scene.

Oh - and with all this CGI going on, nobody thought of fixing Legolas eyes. If we're going to see them so often in the film as he stares off into the middle distance and makes some profoundly obvious statement - then the least they can do is make them the same colour throughout.

Despite all this - it ranks as probably the greatest Sword+Fantasy type film. Unfortunately considering it's only up against B-Movie Conan and the hit'n'miss Legend and the lacklustre Dungeons&Dragons this isn't much to brag about. However, it does go an awful long way towards making Sword+Fantasy movies respectable. Hopefully someone will now be brave enough to take on the far more movie friendly "Dragonlance Chronicles" (Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Winter Night, Spring Dawning etc) and do them proper justice.

It's an 8. But only because I have an odd taste in movies admittedly, which would put Spaceballs as a 10. I apologise in advance for this travesty of judgement.

....for kids it was great, every movie released in some way seemed to pander to the childlike fascination with gizmo's and toys and exploring all those weird things we'd only read about in Famous Five books and their ilk.

Along with Mannequin http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093493 Big http://us.imdb.com/Title?0094737 The Goonies http://us.imdb.com/Title?0089218 and of course Gremlins http://us.imdb.com/Title?0087363 Vice Versa is one of those movies that practically every kid has seen (and before I forget - "Drop Dead Fred" too) and enjoyed, they might not stand up to intense scrutiny but for sitting in front of and watching without a care in the world - you can't beat them. Formulaic but fun and I don't think the 90's produced a single film on par (if you discount animated stories like Toy Story) to match up (90's spawned seemingly endless 'tongue in cheek' cynical versions that had 'adult' appeal also sacrificing a little of the out and out entertainment value for kids).

Great fun, worth seeing if it's on TV - but leave deep thinking behind.

...but fun nonetheless. Bit of a 'going through the motions' sort of film, many characters being taken almost flaw for flaw from many other films at the time, but it's fun. It might not make your jaw drop, or split your sides laughing but it's a 2 hour filler on a rainy day.

...You watch it and find yourself sucked into an otherwise story by numbers movie (hey, the old guy says "no sunlight, water or food after midnight" so you're warned what to expect already). Main criticism of course is its lack of focus on the hilarious antics of the evil Gremlins (something the sequel did a little better) who destroy a good portion of a town, but aren't seen nearly enough to make you detest them - instead they're little more than pests.

The level of gore is surprising, which is how you can tell that this isn't technically a "kids" movie, so care should be taken with young children (but saying that I'd have been 7 when I saw this and had no problem....but then Nightmare on Elm Street might have desensitised me a bit by that time) but it's essential viewing if only so that you can watch the sequel too.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0102797 out at the same time I think the Bergin version is a touch more believable for its lack of Hollywood treatment; though both films ultimately fall short of ever actually being worth the film they wasted making them.

Binding the two films together might have achieved a greater whole, certainly Rickman (master of baddies) is the superior evil guy - in general the Prince of Thieves cast is superior in every way apart from Costner - at which point Bergin at least lends a little authenticity to the role.

Worth watching because it's the superior spectacle, but is ultimately soulless which is where the other version comes in.

It's not a 1, because you can't help but laugh at its lethargic plot hilarious 'characters' and woeful acting. Its ability to successfully not explain anything at all is a miracle of its own right, nevermind the stupidity of the badguys (hard of hearing too).

Fight scenes are ineptly shot, the underwater combat is just plain confusing as you can't tell who you're looking at during any one sequence (plus lovely editing means you're never sure if it's 3 seconds or 3 hours later).

Ah, terrible, so very very terrible. If this ever received anything other than the "Straight to Video" treatment then I'd be very surprised.

I caught this late on Channel4 and apart from an obviously mediocre production (it looks marginally better than a TV Movie) I was interested to see just how it would all work out. No real surprises along the way - a very formula driven movie in that it plugs all the right heart strings and very little else.

Heche is good, but a pity I kept expecting her to 'squeak' (Ally McBeal has a lot to answer for) but Vince Vaughn and David Conrad both come over as a bit plastic (not helped by their roles) while Joaquin Phoenix treads on that fine line between truly looking haunted and horrifyingly melodramatic.

Anyhow, none of the 'problems' hold the story back and even though it's a rather ambivalent ending (almost cheery) you can't help feeling like the Director missed the whole point.

It's a 7, not something to watch repeatedly, but easy enough to get into and enjoy.

I'm one of the so far 3000+ people to give it a 10, why? Because of the misanthropic misers (500) who have given this film a 1/10. A score that should be retained for use against such evil creations as "Titanic" and the plethora of TV Movies smacking you upside the head with their blunt educational themes (if you're lucky). How, and I'm pointing fingers, a person could possibly detest this film to such an extent - to be filled with such revulsion - to grade it a 1 when all around the world a hundred thousand hours of TV is flooding through your little goggle boxes eating into your days and wasting your brains - hah, but you'll happily sit and watch that.

To me this was as finely crafted piece of work as you could wish for. It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, there are no flashy soft tone film effects or colour responsive film to make it all look glitzy and flash - the camera work does its job. Maybe it could have been different, maybe the camera could have been held steadier. Perhaps it could have stayed in one position and filmed everything from one spot - but it doesn't and that's the Directors privelege. So to criticise his choice is fair enough. I don't much mind if you batter his reputation to death with your hatred for his work, just don't twist the elements of the film to suit your purposes.

Realistic? I didn't realise it needed to be in order to explore emotions, nobility of thought and deed. Who are we to judge the desperation of a womans love for her child? To want her child to see the same musicals and love them as she did and continue to love them into old age without the fear of losing the ability to see their spectacle. Two deaths worth one persons eyesight.....that's called sacrifice, the Director could have let her live - nobody could have died and the boy have his eyesight saved "wahey!" now what? What would this film be worth? What would we learn or find in ourselves if it all turned out nice again? How many movies do you need to watch where the final credits scroll up over the image of a hugging mother and child before you'll let a single "miserable" ending pass before your eyes without instantly leaping out of your seat in outrage?

Selma needs to be destroyed, she ultimately is there to be sacrificed and I think I would be right in saying that enough parents swear they would sacrifice themselves for their child - well, here's your chance. You have the opportunity to give your child a life beyond compare in a world of opportunity; it may well be a world in which Selma herself can never adjust for her expectation of America is a purely Musical based one (and as such the Director provides you with a 'reality' - those streets aren't pathed with gold and the USA isn't the only land of opportunity and was the death of many, many hopeful immigrants), with your opportunity in hand would you not take it? Are we really that shallow as to say "yeah I'd do anything for you, except that, oh and that, and that, and that, and that, oh and that - and lets not forget that too" when it's your progeny on the line? I'm sure your ancestors are very happy to know that the sacrifices they made are being looked upon from afar with sanitised rose tinted spectacles.

Sometimes you have to fight for your principles, sometimes you have to die for them. Selma is a martyr, her songs are her hymns and the musicals are her religion and the stage her church - but in the real world she is isolated and her childlike 3rd innocence (how many tales do you need to read about the wonder of seeing the Statue of Liberty as the Immigrants sailed in?) is slowly compacted in by the reality, her only escape is her art. Her singing, her religion and her child. Her musicals are taken from her, she pines for them in the jail cell and she has already lost what little sight she had so the spectacle of them is gone also....all that is left for her is her child and affording him the best opportunity to have a full life.

Maybe the film isn't perfect, but it isn't a 1.

It's not a perfect movie by any measure and at times it struggles to keep a balance between its humour, art direction, historical accuracy and finally the plot. Considering just how many big names are in it it still remains one of the less seen movies and whenever the Musketeers are discussed these are usually the last movies to be brought up as the more recent "Man in the Iron Mask" and "The Three Musketeers" of Kiefer Sutherland/Charlie Sheen fame - both barely hold a candle to the originals in terms of costumes, backdrops and setpiece duels.

At times the film wanders, but mostly it does the job of showing just how chaotic, grotty and ultimately hideous France (and therefore the rest of the world) really was - neatly contrasting the opulence of Royalty to the grim struggle of the peasants.

All the actors produce decent turns, if at times a little bit too much like "Acting by numbers". I don't think you could have found 4 more suitable, or suited, actors for the key roles and are ably supported by Kinnear, Heston, Lee, Dunaway and co.

It's the only way to watch the film, almost like you were flicking through some trash comic. The script is hammed and Russell (in a role akin to Snake in "Escape From New York" also directed by Mr.Carpenter) happily plays along with what is really a mock homeage to the Hong Kong movies of ghosts and demons featuring wire acrobatics of a strictly substandard quality - this isn't 'Crouching Tiger' by any stretch of the imagination and overall falls short on trying to be tongue in cheek schlock horror/or a comedy.

Burton does come up with some great lines and is as atypical a hero as you could want. He just wants his truck back!

After starting out a bit formulaic as a kind of 'Lost In Space' vs 'Star Trek' type show, it quickly developed a loyal fanbase because it was, quite simply, an imperfect universe filled with imperfect characters and stuffed with the most vivid galaxy of aliens ever seen.

Okay most follow the old "two-legged two-armed brightly coloured skin" of Star Trek days, but they actually have an interactive culture that impacts on each show like no other. Where Star Trek was happy to introduce and drop entire nations at a whim based on its 'Explore' theme; Farscape seats itself deep inside the cultures warts'n'all.

Okay so Chiana acts like she's got some kind of posture problem, Crichton is a little gung-ho, Ka D'Ago is the token aggressive loonie, Aeryn is 'power dressing woman' gone mad and Rygel is just fishbait - but that's what makes it fun.

When Crichton goes off on one of his 'humanity episodes' it's hilarious; you get an actual feel for what Crichton has experienced during his life and how his humour and general behaviour is influenced by it all. All too often it's his retreating to the safety net of being himself that saves the universe, but he's the hero and he's meant to do that. Within the first few episodes he's given petnames to everybody he's met (it's a human characteristic and a peculiar habit at that) and treats everything with a realistic human cultural disrespect (alien authority, customs, behaviour and systems of belief) - it's this equal disrespect for everything that ultimately is the uniting bond between the various (and wildly varying personalities) of the crew. Without the 'Us vs Them' attitude of Crichton the group would have splintered at the first opportunity and every one since.

The scripts meander wonderfully with constant aside moments between characters. There's a feel for a real humour and kinship having developed. They poke fun and wind each other up like in no other show - when you watch 'friends' and they start getting 'bitchy' and have your polite pre-programmed and canned laughter re-affirmed belly laughs you should try watching Farscape. There's no hints as to when you should laugh, no 'comedic pauses', no funny glances and gestures (okay, a few) - it's all just genuine conversational and believable (occasionally toilet) humour (When the body swapping starts in one of the episodes of season2 I think, any person that can keep a straight face either needs a labotomy or has already had one).

The CGI effects, sounds, lighting etc are all passable and often understated. But that's the charm. Just like Red Dwarf was rubbish plastic models and the original Star Wars was just a series of stop motion shots and foil covered plastic tubes - it wan't important so long as you can 'get into it'.

If you like Terry Pratchett humour, Farscape is for you. It's building galaxies and the universe from the bottom up. You can only truly experience the enlightenment and understanding of the whole picture by piecing it together from the aluvial trail at the bottom. Sure, you get your hands dirty and you feel soiled whilst doing it, but in the end you can sit back when the show is finished and remember that Star Trek repeats are on forever and likely you'll never have to watch this show again. But try it once, from the bottom up.

Yes.

"We can't stop, we've got to slow down first."

We (that's I and my Dad) rented the video about 15 years back or so (maybe a little more) and basically rented it out regularly for the next year or so until eventually we got our hands on a copy ourselves.

"Excellent stunt my friends, but all for not."

The jokes are cheap, the gags are naff and they're alllllllllll painfully obvious - but that's part of the charm. Ignoring the fact that it's all rather formulaic (it's a spoof of a Sci-Fi genre filled with billions of formulaic twists - so it fits), that it's obviously focused on Star Wars (but what other franchise offers itself up for such micket taking) with very few references to 'other' films of the genre it's a good, honest piece of entertainment.

"No sir, I didn't see you playing with your dolls again."

Brooks is great, Moranis is great, Pullman (long underrated actor) is also great - Candy provides aimiable backup along with some other well known faces. They all keep it tripping along quite happily from one setpiece to the next and you can't really say that there is a lax period.

"Foooooooooooooooooled You." to quote the best character by far.

I'll be getting it on DVD as our video is quite worn out now (and we have two, one off the TV with the 3 total swearwords bleeped - even though it was aired at 10 at night) and then I'll be making myself some sounds for my desktop.

"Hopefully we'll all meet again in the sequel, "Spaceballs: The Search for More Money"."

And may the Swartz be with youwowowoeoroeyeueiiaiuouwotaworldwhataworld.

ZULU steers away from making one side good and one side bad. Okay, we identify with the British troops in the face of insurmountable odds and all that - but you have to admire the ZULU warriors all the more for going up against them unfalteringly and the 'pan' across their fallen bodies isn't so much a moment of joy for the Brits saying "Ha, look how many we've killed of you lot" as opposed to clearly showing what an awful waste of life it all actually was.

The film clearly marks out why the British Army was as good as it was. Organisation. Okay, we got butchered a couple of times, but when placed in a position with time to ready ourselves the British forces where pretty unbeatable. One of the huge advantages being the fact that often we were going up against quite primitive 'warriors' with even more primitive weapons. The whole staying smart, obeying orders and keeping in line, firing in order helped to saved all those mens lives and is a neatly condensed show of arms to everybody out there. Each setpiece of British organisation re-inforces just how good they were, just how well they were drilled and just how murderous they could be with their efforts.

The film clearly marks out why the ZULU forces wasn't quite so good. It wasn't a lack of courage or absence of valour, it was simply down to the fact that they were outclassed weapon and organisation wise. Okay, they made pretty well organised charges and all that, but against rifles that's just cannon fodder. But as is pointed out by the Dutch guy, they're merely counting your guns. The ZULU's in the film aren't daft guys in furry underpants, they're the bravest warriors ever seen (or ever likely to be seen). Well organised forces wilted in the face of British troops during that period, they didn't. The fact they salute the British and walk away merely adds to their nobility and patheticises the British efforts - eventually they would have crumbled, the British would have lost against such odds if the Zulus had pressed all at once. They didn't. They walked away saluting the British effort. That moment alone, with Caine blazing about how they're being taunted and the Dutch guy chuckling to himself struggling to believe what is actually taking place is the icing on the cake of the gradually increasing tension.

For a moment of absolute spine tingling tension you can't beat the ZULU singing being countered by the Welsh Choir of voices. It's an equaliser as such, a moment of contrast and compare between the rigid red suited Brits and the tribal shield clapping chanting.

John Barry's music is a constant presence and always perfectly suited to the moment, I'd be interested to know the content of the ZULU chants though, whether they are authentic (which I figure they are) or simply picked out by the director for looking the most intimidating.

Top film, no insult to anybody.

Historically about as accurate as any American War movie involving submarines and cracking codes, so whilst some people are busy beasting it for not being terribly authentic I really do hope they've made the effort to beast every other minor inaccuracy (and plain as your face lie through the back teeth) I could list in every other film ever existing.

It is an unusual film as films go, it's directed by Jake Scott and as such you get the idea he's trying to carve himself a seperate 'image'. Just to prove he doesn't need to copy his dad entirely - I must say that unfortunately the film reeks of Ridley Scott'ish type touches -though that's in no way detracting from it - it's simply a bit odd.

Musically you can't flaw it and swearing is ten a penny in any modern film, not everybody spoke perfect English until the 1970's and Punk you know. There are some complaints at the 'anachronistic' ballroom music (Track 7 on the Soundtrack - simply called "Ball") but the fact is it's in the background and hardly important. The main crux of the entire tune is the simple violin arrangement with a bit of drum and bass behind it and they're talking over pretty much 99% of what you hear anyhow. What it does succeed in doing is highlighting the fact that society in the 1700's was no less debauched or less crude than the 1990's or at any other time in history. You can basically just imagine the film in one of two ways - as a period piece incorporating the present, or a modern film in period dress.

Surprisingly - the soundtrack is still used to this day in innumerable commercials on TV (it was actually being played in the background at todays 6 Nations match between England + France). So if it's so bloody horrendous, then it's a minority who think so.

It's ropey, it's naff and the dialogue is pants. But it's funny if you watch it as it is and stop being pretentious overbearing snobs for a few moments to let its rather coarse working class humour work its way into you.

The acting is nothing special, but I didn't pay to watch Olivier, and dodgy acting has never held back some of the better names (and films) of the last 50 years.

Oh and they're all insufferably richer than us, so I doubt they much care.

It's fun, worth renting if only to prove one side or the other right/wrong.