Reviews

I must say before I start that I saw this movie at about 35,000 feet in a US Airways jet heading to Philadelphia. So we are not talking Dolby Stereo, but I did have a good view after the kids and the frequent toilet users got out of the way.

The movie was entertainment personified. Whilst the cast probably played more to the females in the audience - Mortensen for my age group and Omar Sharif for my Mum - the real driver in this movie was the horses. Frankly they were the star of the show. As someone who is just coming to terms with liking horses after about 30 odd years of being afraid of them, this was a one way ticket to Pony Heaven.

The sequences of the race, the wild horses and particularly the closing moments of the race had me in tears (which blew my chances with the cute girl I was sitting next to) and I wanted to get up and shout that horses ROCK!

The last moments of the film and the release of the wild horses would have seen me ripping up my seat and running up and down the aisle but the way was blocked by serial toilet goers.

Go see the movie, enjoy it, don't think about it. Then go pat a horse.

8 out of 10

I live in a french-speaking part of Switzerland, a country stifled by a growing sense of it's own irrelevance, coupled with a small-town fear of anything from outside it's own borders. Twenty years ago Switzerland was Utopia, now it's just a washed-up backwater railing against the European Union and foreigners, increasingly fueled by sub-Nazi nationalist hysteria - just today the main headline in the regional tabloid centered on gypsy camps causing chaos.

So for a Swiss theater to be moved to the point of spontaneous applause by a foreign film, especially an American one (American money is fine, but Americans can only come here if they respect the Swiss and pick their litter up), is a matter to be recorded.

The film itself, well, I will keep it straight. This non-documentary, political commentary has a lot going for it. Moore is on good form, the story he has to tell is grippingly delivered in a supermarket tabloid kind of way and the facts that he has to report are damning indeed. Nobody can walk away from this without thinking about where the once mighty Empire is going. Somebody else in one of the reviews drew a parallel with Rome, I quite agree. The streets are not burning yet but it is on it's way.

The story to me hit home in that particular area - namely the the "haves, and the have mores" as George W. Bush put it himself, and the rest of the population who are dangerously cut off from so many things, school, jobs, college, a future. One day they will rise.

The rest of the movie, the amusing montages, the often overdone sentimental sequences, lack focus because they lack counterpoints. Moore is never one to let journalistic balance get in the way of a good story and here it is a drawback. Happily enough he does pull off one excellent sequence, the 9/11 playback against a black screen. Just the noises of pain, horror and shock.

But the film does deserve to be piped into every American home and force fed to every last citizen, preferably through the network of Fox News.

7 out of 10

Being a fan of the original film has little to do with my rather poor impression of this one. It just simply was not up to scratch. The Coen brothers have, in this movie, produced a tired, unfunny and altogether unnecessary film.

Tom Hanks is in "amusing" mode here, but he has not really got what it takes to pull off such an interesting character, in fact he is rather too flaccid. He is better off playing rather stolid roles, which is why things like The Terminal will suit him better, a blank canvas on which to dollop his blankness.

The remainder of the cast are plainly sub William.H.Macy style losers drafted in to try and round out the cast, I was particularly disappointed with Wayans who seemed not to realise he was not playing in Scary Movie IV.

I cannot think of one thing positive about this movie. Even the set-piece comedy (Irritable bowel syndrome, farts, the severed finger) failed to register on any device other than the boredometer. Frankly the cat was the best actor on show. 3 out of 10.

I went to see this film shortly before parting to Texas for some work, and I came out knowing rather more about local eating habits than I expected. I must admit to now reserving a hotel room with a kitchen so I can do my own cooking and avoid the LardFest that seemingly awaits me.

The documentary itself has a lot of things going for it - the form of the piece is very straightforward, and our host and his girlfriend are likeable and easy going. I particularly enjoyed the interaction with the team of doctors and experts who over the course of the film were seem gawping in horror, warning sternly to stop, and finally shaking their heads in disbelief as the rollercoaster ride of saturated fat consumption continued.

Also effective are the sequences of statistics (all performed with cute graphics and suitably twisted soundtrack) and the sections where our man visits the schools and colleges that churn out the next generation of belt-busting heart attack victims. Looking at the school restaurant manager who convinced herself that the children who just bought fries were really sharing them and had brought their own brown bag lunch, or the face of the "cook" who no longer had to do much except open boxes and reheat gunk, you couldn't help but feel the decline of the United States was already well under way.

Tellingly, in a sequence with the lobby group for the grocery trade, a spokesman let slip 'that we are part of the problem'. The look on his face was worth a thousand pictures, as he realized what he had said was now captured on film. Unsurprisingly he is no longer employed there.

Finally, the whole thing slides along at a pleasant pace, there is no sense of 'I have a message and I am going to pound you with it for 2 hours' that I sometimes feel with a certain Mr Moore. All round a great piece and worthwhile watching just for the smug (in my case) feeling that a) I am from Europe b) I don't eat fast food c) I take exercise. Enjoy the thought as you shove another chocolate in your mouth at the cinema.

9 out of 10.

This film cam back into my hands recently as a brand new film in the budget range on a certain on line store. I took the opportunity to view it for the first time in 2 or more years.

The premise of this film (good and bad consciences coming down to earth to chastise their respective owners) via a ridiculous Hong Kong subplot, with Triads by the carload, is only really an excuse (a very good one) to exercise the talents of Christian Clavier and Gerard Depardieu. This film is most definitely one to watch in French only, I checked out the dubbed version and it is without any merit, almost as bad as the dub for Le Diner de Cons but that is another story.

Clavier is at full strength as the irritating Father Tarain ("a-i-n like Pain") and he brings his facial expressions and slightly precious voice to the character. The sequences in the ecumenical archives, in the plane and in the Chinese restaurant just make me cry with laughter. Depardieu is satisfyingly "un-Gérard-like" in this film, he seems content to have a good time and frankly this pays off in spades.

The action sequences are suitably hammy, the girls are suitable stunning (any film that packs in the entire Crazy Horse troupe, Eva Grimaldi, Eva Herzegovina and a dozen other gorgeous girls in various states of undress has obviously got a good grip on things!) and the whole package rolls along nicely. Well worth a viewing on a lazy Sunday afternoon, if only to hear "Bonjour Georges" and "Je vous présente le Père Pain" one more time. Undemanding fun, 8 out of 10.

This movie was part of my youth, it certainly was the most talked about film when I was studying French. As time went by I had almost forgotten most of the film but several pieces will always stay with me. The sequence near the start where Zorg is driving his truck home with the setting sun behind him, the famous shot of the beach house in the evening (I even happened one day to find myself on the same beach, complete with houses on stilts) and the piano duet.

The characters don't need much in the way of comment, Zorg the would-be writer who spends most of the first part of the movie just trying to come to terms with Betty, realising her to be mentally ill (of course, this must be difficult when the person in question is quite as hot as Betty, I am sure you have other things on your mind).

The longer version of the film, despite reports to the contrary, actually makes a more coherent movie, angled as it is from Zorg's point of view as he tries to keep his own world from falling apart while all the while doing everything he can to stop Bettys' own from collapsing. I particularly like the holdup sequence.

But most touching of all is the final sequence in the original movie with the cat at the window. (Personal Note)

The music deserves a special mention here too, rarely has a set of compositions fitted so well with a film. And on a final note, if you liked this film, dig out the other book, Maudits Manèges, that continues the Zorg story beyond the end of Bettys' life. It is a satisfying read and gives a little more of an upbeat end to the whole saga.

Difficult to watch at times, hilarious at others (Eddy and the olive salesman, the refuse collectors), but always gripping. If you are frightened you will never fall in love again and need a lesson in what the human heart will make you do, in the blink of an eye, for the right person, go get this movie. And go buy some Tequila.

I grew up with this movie. It forms part of my basic makeup. I have seen it so often I think I may actually have been in the movie in another life.

The most expensive movie of it's time, it makes its mark by squeezing as much derring-do out of the stirring book as possible, bringing in major stars (Eastwood, Burton, bundles of great British actors and actresses) and throwing all of it into a wonderfully ridiculous plot, involving triple-crosses and misinformation for everyone in sight.

Some great, great action sequences (the cable car, the bus escape), some wonderfully wooden dialogue down at ye friendly local hostelry "zum wilden Hirsch", and some great work by the stuntmen(seeing Burton was more than a little overweight by then, I still find it a long stretch to imagine him doing more than staying in the pub).

The plot itself is not really important, they just don't make movies like this any more! To believe it, get hold of the disc and watch the original "making-of". A more portentous piece of self important nonsense you are not likely to see, but that is what gives this whole thing such charm.

Throw in a by now quasi-anthemic soundtrack (whoever has seen this film can never forget the opening sequence as the Junkers come puttering towards the camera) and you have boys' heaven.

8 out of 10!

The equation runs like this:-

Does Dodgy CGI - Wooden Acting / Stereotypes * Big Message in this case equal Godzilla or does it raise (?) it's game to Independence Day?

We, lest people turn away at the mention of the rubber lizard be reassured, this movie does not in any way plunge to the depths of Godzilla. But it doesn't have the feeling of a runaway blockbuster like ID4 either. However lets look at the points compared to ID4 and Godzilla:-

1) Random Euro-references; this time (gasp) Scotland gets a minor role! Frozen haggis! And my home country gets a split-second mention on the local radio!

2) Painted backdrops; more of the same. Cunning mixture of wildly expensive CGI and hand painted stuff. Looks a bit odd sometimes ("look, the sky doesn't move")

3) Cute dog (ID4); This one wins hands down!

4) Oh-good-grief acting; Some people have been revising their soap opera acting skills - Hold that pose until I tell you to move again - wait- wait - wait - wait - wait - NOW move on, to the sound of creaking wood.

5) CGI helicopters; beats Godzilla hands down. Now they are neither believable or threatening, just plain silly.

So that just about covers it from a mechanics point of view. What is pleasant to see (as a Eurobod) is that the flag waving has been toned down and even a little touch of humility has crept into the scenario.

Of course, dealing with Nature not even the USA could claim they invented it. But the overall view of the picture from a "random guy in the front row with the big box of pop-corn" standpoint is much less cloyingly American. And judging by the other review posted here, it is a state of mind that is sadly not as widespread as the rest of us would like.

Let's get this straight. I don't care about who said what or who did what, who invented this or that, I go to the cinema expecting this film to be baseline entertainment, not a political battleground. And I review it as such. 6.5 out of 10 especially for NOT being Godzilla.

I speak as a relatively lukewarm fan of Tarantino, but this is one film that he has had a hand in , that I really think deserves a place in the all-time top 200 films.

With hilarious characters :

Christian Slater, in possibly his most entertaining, and well acted [rare, I know] role. Clarence is the core that holds the movie together and I enjoyed watching his slide from comic book nerd to full scale gun-wielding hero. Although we are witness to the descent into Hell, it never has a Straw Dogs kind of push-the-nerd-to-the-limit feel. It comes across that he is just living out his comic book fantasies for real.

Patricia Arquette, full on drop your popcorn screen bomb, the scene in the phonebox has to be one of the sweetest and sexiest couple of minutes a guy could ever dream of. Ah, sweet Alabama.

Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper play what to them must be light entertainment roles. But the heart is in it (unlike many so-called cameos in movies these days) and they bring the whole thing a lovely feeling of an ensemble piece.

Not forgetting the rest of the crowd, and some incredibly funny set pieces (witness the cocaine in the car, and the 'who the f**k is Dick?' sequence). This is a movie for a lonely or sad Saturday afternoon. Slap it in the DVD and sit back.

The plot follows along at a very snappy pace and the conclusion, complete with the ultimate hommage to shiny guns and cigarettes (Freud, would you please like to comment? :-), leaves us content and satisfied, Heavens it almost has a touch of skewed Disney movie about it. And the catchiest theme to go with it.

Great stuff.

I came to this movie, as I often do with Tarantino movies, somewhat exasperated with his last movie. The first volume left me in a difficult position. I liked the movie as a whole, but couldn't help but get bogged down in the interminable "look at this, and this, AND THIS" sequence of bravura set pieces. OK, so he is clever. But the montage of tableaux makes you just want to have a story, a plot, a coherent set of images, anything to follow in a linear fashion. Maybe I am just too linear a guy.

So the second volume was a nice surprise. Less pirouttes and showy "look Mom I can do this" pieces, more character development and some great character acting. The story moves along at a nice pace, the dialog is wonderfully poignant in places (check out the arrival of Bill at the wedding rehearsal) and the main effort of the director seems to be in the right place, that is to say getting the story from a to b (or b to c I guess since this is part two). I loved the sequences with BB and David Carradine (and he is totally cool by the way). I loved the Mexican pimp. I loved Mother and the wedding chapel. The weaknesses are however glaring. Bill's brother and Daryl Hannah frankly added nothing to plot dynamics.

And to put it clearly, this was not enough to warrant a second movie. It must be annoying to realise that you have made a movie and a half. But between the two of them I reckon there is a three hour opus waiting to get out. Long live the director's cut (yeah, never, never ever have I seen a Directors cut that gives a smaller movie).

Better than the first, and nearly the best movie of the month.

This movie does not live up either to the reputation of the director (well, think das Boot) or the frenzy of positive spin I have been seeing on the web in the last few weeks. For the record, I saw this in English in a Swiss cinema, which meant an intermission (very roughly cut too, I almost saw the scissors).

The film starts well; some cheeky humor and nods to the Harryhausen school of bad guys (cue 8 foot tall warrior). Brian Cox is pantomime-level bad guy number one. Brad P is lovingly shot in a variety of poses (running about) and we all settle back for a splendid night of entertainment. So far so good.

Bring on Helen! Bring on Paris! From here it goes awry. Rather than go through the (hours) of dialog and pick out the best of the cheese, suffice to say that a) there are enough moments when the cringe-o-meter flickers up to 10 to have warranted bursts of incredulous laughter in the cinema b) enough bizarre accents to sound like an acting lesson c) enough sweeping panoramas and beautiful people to make if feel like midweek in Cannes.

This movie proves a lot of things, namely -

that when he is not confined to a small space, the director seems lost.

that Peter O'Toole needs a better hairstylist (Siegfried! Roy!).

that Brad Pitt is not able to carry a movie.

that Legolas should have stayed in the woods (awful, awful, awful).

that quite a few English soap opera and movie actors were happy to have their day in the sun on this movie set.

that the time of sword and sandals movies is now passed.

In summary, a very disappointing movie, no coherence, no real feeling and just a huge amount of money thrown at a project that could have been a wonderful set of movies.

Chico, playing himself, got off better than most of the characters in this strange mishmash of a movie. He was the dog, by the way. And he was killed off fairly quickly.

King adaptations are always chancey things. They range from the sublime (Shawshank Redemption) to the awful (Dreamcatcher).

This movie definitely is in the lower portion of the graph! The story requires us to immediately latch on to Depp's character, and much of the ensuing "plot" is dependent on us siding with him. Unfortunately he comes across as a rather unpleasant and lazy individual and most of the cinema I was in was rooting for him to meet an untimely end as soon as possible. The addition of the heavily accented backwoods character (Turturro) merely added another stereotype to the already paint-by-numbers platform the film was built on. Slot in the house by the lake, the mist, the tight-lipped locals and you have a very rough outline for a novella, a short story or maybe even just a postcard. But you certainly don't have anything approaching a film script.

I went to see this film full of expectations. Vincent Cassel, gifted actor very popular here and abroad. Monica Belluci, his wife, a beautiful Italian. And here in this film they play a husband and wife secret agent couple, working for the French government in a variety of difficult missions. Well, by the time I had finished watching this film my illusions were well and truly shattered. From some very poor acting (André Dussolier in particular as the boss of our agents) to some dreadfully staged set pieces (Cassel disguised as a cycle dispatch rider killing a Spanish bartender / contract killer with a bicycle pump, anyone?) and some downright shabby makeup (one of the actor's hair got greyer as they film went on, to the point where you could distinguish the grey powder quite clearly stuck on his head), the film is without merit. It is possibly one of the least interesting movies of the year. There is absolutely no chemistry between our heroic couple, there is nothing to hook the spectator, and everyone looks thoroughly bored throughout. Even the ending is frankly dull.

I was extremely surprised to enjoy this movie. The combination of live action, computer graphics and Egyptian gods meant I feared the worst kind of sub-Besson science fiction mess. But the story, whilst strange (I have never read any of the cartoon albums), hangs together nicely. The sets and vision of New York in 2095 works nicely and avoids the usual Blade-Runner jet-black depressionism. I particularly liked the color schemes and the overall feel of the sets. The version I saw (french) was well dubbed, mostly by the cast members since they are largely francophone. The characters were well drawn, and the presence of Ms Hardy (ex Miss France) was both excellent from an acting point of view and pleasurable from a visual perspective. All in all a very entertaining film with some clever moments, nice touches of humour and some interesting questions that are raised.