Reviews

For anyone who's seen that episode of 'Family Guy' where Peter is sent by Death to kill the cast members of 'Dawson's Creek' on an airliner and Karen Black lands the plane, this is the source of that reference!

Now, on to the film!

As a disaster movie, 'Airport 1975' is not that bad. It was made at a time when all of those clichéd "there's no one flying the plane" plot lines were still quite fresh. When television shows such as 'Charlie's Angels' and 'The A-Team' began to cash in on the gimmick with their own interpretations, you could tell that the plot device was getting stale!

Charlton Heston and George Kennedy reunite in another disaster movie after the also much-lambasted 'Earthquake' (1974) and both of them get quite good roles, with Kennedy reprising his role as Joe Patroni from 'Airport' (1969).

The plot is not as complex as that in 'Airport' and the characters are hardly as well-developed. However, this film still has a certain charm. Not only is it the source of that Karen Black joke, which has been much-parodied beyond the realms of 'Family Guy', but the flying scenes were conducted using an actual commercial airliner being piloted low around mountainous terrain! These kinds of films convinced modern luminary directors such as Christopher Nolan to film things for real, even though these films probably earned more in popcorn sales than for actual screen-worthiness.

If that is not exciting enough, there are plenty of perilous decisions, stunt work and high-octane situations to keep you busy. Plus, a pleasant combination of well-known and television actors appear in the film, such as Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. (long before lending his voice to Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred), Helen Reddy as a singing nun (it's not as bad as it sounds), Linda Blair (post-'Exorcist') and even screen icon Gloria Swanson in her final film role.

Certainly not the most complex of the 'Airport' films and certainly not the worst - if you're looking for something to thrill you and you're not taking a flight the next morning, then watch this!!

There is a tendency to over-think films like these.

Personally, this is my favourite of the 'Airport' franchise of films. It has perhaps the best cast of names of any disaster film, including Jack Lemmon (curiously cast as a pilot), Lee Grant and Robert Foxworth (who would both appear a year later in 'Damien: Omen II' (1978)), Christopher Lee, Brenda Vaccaro, George Kennedy, Olivia de Havilland, Joseph Cotten AND James Stewart, to mention just some of the biggest names.

Also, as the poster suggests, most of the action takes place underwater. This is also where audiences do most of the over-thinking. Don't worry about it being a plane - just buy into the possibility that James Stewart's character was so stinking rich and so concerned about his passengers and his art treasures that he bothered to make it the equivalent of a flying submarine (but a fragile one)!

This is an outrageous film - there are no two ways about it - but it certainly beats the cartoon-ish sequel featuring the Concorde, which stinks to high heaven in comparison!

It also possibly provided some vital training work for director Jerry Jameson before he went on to helm the doomed 'Raise The Titanic' (1980). What can be said for this film is that it certainly didn't sink as quickly as that film did! Universal Studios actually set up a ride where paying customers could be held hostage aboard a luxury airliner, before being (fictionally) rendered unconscious and then dunked in the drink. For such an audacious and exciting-sounding ride to even be dreamt up, this film had to have been a considerable success!! And, perhaps, Brenda Vaccaro was comforted for suffering pneumonia after filming this flick by the thought that all those innocent theme park tourists were suffering a similar fate!

Anyway, aside from the Concorde sequel, this is the most outrageous of the 'Airport' films - if any of them could actually be considered realistic viewing, then that's one on me!

Watching Lee Grant acting her co-stars in circles is a great pleasure to be gained from this entry into the franchise and the special effects, although dated now, of course, are still a lot of fun to watch!

And this is a fun film, blending the heist films of the 1960s and 1970s with the purely 1970s disaster craze. For the cast and the excitement, thrills and spills alone, give this film a watch if you're looking for something that will take your mind off of things and give you a good laugh as well! I had an exam the day after I watched this and it worked wonders just to unwind by watching this kind of inconsequential drama!

You certainly are 'Casino Royale'!!

A perfect reboot, the film takes the inadequacies of the original Bond series (fun though it was) and brings 007 into the Twenty-First Century!

Yes, for Fleming die-hards, it would have been great to see a vintage Bond adventure with old 1950s cars, styles, mannerisms and locations, but the production costs would have soared and the producers would still have been left with the question of how to repair the franchise after the frivolous excesses of 'Die Another Day' (2002).

This way, rebooting the franchise allowed the film-makers some artistic licence over Fleming's original (and probably most celebrated) Bond novel. Events taken from the novel are ramped up a bit to appeal to modern audiences (i.e. changing Soviet agents into terrorist cells, switching from chemin de fer to Texas Hold 'Em Poker, the climax in Venice) and others are added in afresh, but the essence of the novel is there.

Even though this was sold as a more realistic Bond film, 007 still drives a sporty new Aston Martin DBS; travels to exotic locations such as Nassau, Miami and Montenegro; dresses suavely, and is a killer with most of the ladies.

One lady in particular, Dame Judi Dench, is the only obvious reminder of the previous twenty Bond films (or at least Pierce Brosnan's entries), but even she is altered from her previous form, making her more aggressive and giving her a personal life this time around. A new 'M' (in a way) for a new James Bond. She even starts to sympathise with the new and rebellious 007 towards the end of the film...

But, 007 is also more human here, despite being Fleming's cold government-sanctioned killer who dislikes his job, but is good at it.

Without a doubt, beautiful French actress, Eva Green is the belle of the ball. Just as the other elements of the novel have been updated, so has the bewitching Vesper Lynd. Whereas previous Bond Girls have claimed to be 'the female 007', Vesper is James Bond's intellectual equal, as accustomed to reading people as he is. Rather than being an MI6 operative, she is a Treasury official and highly sceptical of Bond's uncontrollable ways, pinning down his weaknesses in seconds. However, there is a deeply touching story here, magnified beyond Fleming's concept of Vesper by Green's perceptive and honest performance, by which she lights up the screen whenever she appears on it.

The villain, Le Chiffre has previously been portrayed by the great actors Peter Lorre and Orson Welles. However, for his performance as the disfigured, cold, ruthless and sometimes even a little humorous banker to the world's terrorists, Dutch actor, Mads Mikkelsen has become internationally renowned. He is supported (if that is possibly the word), by fellow Dutchman, Jesper Christensen, who plays an important role that hints back to the days of the shadowy SPECTRE organisation.

The locations, pacing, action, dialogue - all are great, not least because this is the second Bond outing of Martin 'GoldenEye' Campbell, who once again invigorates audiences by introducing the latest incarnation of James Bond. But, this time, it is a James Bond who is earning his stripes and is walking a perilous tightrope between falling victim to his dangerous adversaries and being eaten alive by a Select Committee of MPs investigating the actions of MI6. And only by winning the trust of Dench's 'M' can he prove that he deserves to be on her team.

'Casino Royale' also gradually reintroduces the elements that have always made Bond great from the beginning - from the action, the cars, the girls, the playboy lifestyle to the attitude, the shaken not stirred Vodka Martinis, the tuxedo and, of course, the James Bond Theme. This film strips it all back and then subtly reintroduces it all to show us what James Bond is really made of.

Another modern classic that effectively merges the cinematic James Bond with his literary counterpart!

The first time I watched 'Quantum of Solace', I was nonplussed.

The promise of a 007 adventure being a direct sequel to the previous instalment was, for this franchise, thrilling and unusual. The last time one adventure was something of a sequel to the last (i.e. Diamonds Are Forever (1971)), things went terribly wrong, even slipping into inexcusable tacky campiness.

Thankfully, 'Quantum of Solace' does not get things quite that wrong, but it is hardly a credit to the film that gave birth to it, 'Casino Royale' (2006).

The teaser trailers were full of the promise of a tense semi-political action film, unlike anything seen in the Bond canon before. It seemed that the best thing about the film was, indeed, the vagueness of the trailers, which created such an intensity and anticipation that made this a must-see film. But, running at a shorter length than 'Dr. No' (1962), this film left a lot to be desired.

Daniel Craig, however, was again on form with a dark, edgy and human portrayal of Bond - the Bond of the novels, devoid of his dependence on Q-Branch and cheesy one-liners, even though Craig does have some briefly (and oddly) humorous, if not hysterical, lines dotted around the place.

The film, as said, should have been the successful second chapter to 'Casino Royale', but ended up detracting from that film. Scenes in which the writers clearly intended Bond to be bitter about his tragically lost love, Vesper Lynd, instead convey denial and ignorance on Bond's part - almost as if the writers had forgotten the subtle intricacies of the previous adventure, which they had also scripted!

The editing is also awful, making the film almost un-watchable as Marc Forster takes a hand-held camera to most scenes and chops and changes between shots so much that it is confusing as to what is happening on screen. In fact, the pre-credits car chase is filled with so many references to previous Bond car chases (mostly those conducted in a Lotus Esprit or a Citroen 2CV) that it is blatantly clear how Forster had no experience directing an action flick - he simply drew on the inspiration of his predecessors to craft a half-decent Bond film. Dialogue scenes also suffer incredibly from this tendency to imitate the Bourne films and, whilst Bourne can carry it off by hosting quite understandable exposition scenes, 'Quantum' instead introduces plot points and discusses complicated-sounding (but actually quite straightforward) things simply, it seems, to confuse the audience.

Olga Kurylenko, in what has become one of her most mentioned roles, is an intriguing ally to 007 and, whilst it would be interesting to see her in future Bond entries, behaving as an even more capable ally to Bond, her involvement here is simply the result of an unnecessary sub-plot involving Bolivian water supplies, an assassination that happened too long ago to care about, and a villain that Bond isn't even really concerned with.

Said villain is played by Mathieu Amalric, who can be summed as being a creepy French sexual deviant. Talk about stereotyping!

And poor Gemma Arterton, whilst thankful for her role in the film, is only seen fleetingly before embarking on one of the worst homages to a previous Bond film seen in any 007 adventure.

Only Judi Dench really gets to sink her teeth into her role, having some incredible scenes alongside Craig and a certain Bill Tanner, now played by Rory Kinnear. Again, she's full of swearing and her trust in 007 is waning (again), but it's so much fun to watch!

In fact, the only weak point of 'M' in this film is that she has been transplanted from Peter Lamont's conservative MI6 HQ into Dennis Gassner's ultramodern typical Bond villain-style lair which, although an interesting twist, is never explained. How could MI6 completely redesign and relocate their London offices from Vauxhall Cross to the Barbican in the space of the few hours that separate this from the previous film?!

I'm not saying that this is a bad film, or even a bad sequel, but it was clear to me, after watching this that, after having led the field back through the Sixties and Seventies, 007 was slipping back into becoming an old man redundant in the modern world and that all the lessons learnt in making 'Casino Royale' had been forgotten. Back to the Pierce Brosnan days of tying together set pieces purely for the sake of doing so, whilst sacrificing interesting pieces of plot!

Still good for an occasional watch, though!

At the end of the day, liking 'Skyfall' depends on whether you are a Bond fan. If you like mindless mayhem and some interesting characters, like the good old days of 007, then this film is for you.

My own sister says that this is the first Bond film that she has really enjoyed since Roger Moore hung up his shoulder holster after 'A View To A Kill' (1985). Even this film's villain looks creepily like Christopher Walken's Max Zorin...

Those who knock 'Skyfall' (and I haven't found very many of them), surely can't deny that Adele provides one of the best Bond songs ever, closely recalling Shirley Bassey's 'Goldfinger' and Tina Turner's 'GoldenEye' with her powerful vocals that are so Bondian and right for the franchise's Golden Anniversary. The fact that it was being played in every shop, supermarket and on the radio shows that it must have been good!

Again, yes, the plot doesn't make tons of sense if you look at it practically, but this is James Bond - he's had fights in hollowed-out volcanoes and in outer-space in the past!! It's not John le Carre and the escapism of it is what has made Bond endurable for all these years. So just sit back and enjoy, rather than being lost in a convoluted plot!

Javier Bardem makes a superb villain, bringing back to the series the sense of Blofeld or Scaramanga alive and at play in the world of politics, business, culture and intrigue. He does some pretty incredible things, which you could either take as an outrageous shoe-horning in of plot elements, or actually the machinations of an incredible vindictive schemer. He's definitely not as lukewarm as Mathieu Amalric from the previous film!

Dame Judi Dench gives one of her best performances as 007's boss, 'M' and is, indeed, a central figure in the plot, thus repeating the excellent decision made at the outset of Daniel Craig's assumption of the Bond role to make 'M' more important. There is certainly no shortage of references to the mother-son-style relationship between the two characters. And, also, it is interesting to see Dench paired up with another stalwart British actor: Albert Finney.

Naturally, as with 'Die Another Day' (2002) having celebrated the Fortieth Anniversary of the cinematic Bond, there are some classic Bond elements. The Aston Martin DB5 is a courageous warrior in itself once again here, there are some very beautiful women at points, the exotic locations and the ones closer to home are gorgeous, the villain has an incredible lair, and the classic 'Goldfinger'-esque sheen as showcased in 'Casino Royale' (2006) is back.

In fact, this film may be Bond's latest 'Goldfinger', just as 'GoldenEye' (1995) was to Pierce Brosnan.

The action and stunts here work to advance the plot rather than being mere spectacle. Although, of course, there is one stunt in particular that is an homage to the epic flipping of an 18-wheeler truck in 'The Dark Knight' (2008). A hint that the producers have been trying to lure Christopher Nolan into the franchise, or an affectionate affirmation that the producers are taking as much inspiration from him as he has from them, perhaps?

At the end of the day, this is the highest grossing Bond film - ever - and there is a reason why. The old sparkle is back, but with a few new elements sprinkled in here and there. And, who knows, with the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE now held by the official Bond movie-makers, 007 aficionados may be in store for a very interesting set of new adventures...

I picked this title up from play.com looking for a good horror film that I have never seen before, craving some thrills, excitement and horror, but also with a good story woven in.

What I got was a great horror film/psychological thriller that delivered on every level - and more!

George C. Scott was in some amazing films and, even though this is not as well-known as his earlier work, such as 'Dr. Strangelove' (1964), 'Patton' (1970) or 'The Hindenburg' (1975), I believe his role as heartbroken composer, John Russell to be both one of his warmest and his most unsettling performances out of those of his films that I have seen. He even works well with his real-life wife, Trish Van Devere, who I recognised from the final episode of the original 1970s run of 'Columbo'.

In supporting roles, Jean Marsh makes a key dramatic impact as John Russell's tragic wife, whilst John Colicos is in full creepy mode in the small, but important role of Police Captain DeWitt. If, like me, you admire and enjoy old Seventies television series like 'Columbo' and 'Kojak' (to mention the best), you may remember Colicos as a grieving, homicidal father seeking revenge in 'Charlie's Angels'.

With the benefit of not having even been born when this film was released, I can say that, for its premise, it sets the scene perfectly, Sure, at times you may feel a bit of deja vu for other, more modern horror films - but those more modern films clearly used their predecessors, such as this, as their templates.

The story soon gains depth on a brilliantly unexpected scale, so much so that in it's gripping finale, I felt truly horrified when certain things began to happen that, in other horror films, seem purely routine.

However, despite the beautiful blend of both expected and unexpected thrills and chills, what makes this film stand out, in my mind, is the fact that, alike so few other horror films of its time, it does not lose sight of the human side of the plot. Russell's tragedy is absolutely horrifying and instantly makes him a sympathetic character for the audience, which is central to driving his curiosity-turned-obsession about the grand, but lonely house that he has rented in the wake of a personal tragedy.

Well-made, very well directed and well acted. Should be on the watch list of every fan of horror and/or psychological thrillers!

Whether you're watching this as a lazy rainy day movie or a Raymond Chandler aficionado hoping to see a very decent adaptation of one of his best (most likely, the best) novels, you will not be disappointed!

Humphrey Bogart seemed born to play the role of Chandler's hard-boiled detective, Philip Marlowe in a performance that still holds weight with fans of Chandler's classic and enthralling private eye novelettes. In fact, I think that only the great Robert Mitchum seemed better cast as Marlowe, but Bogie surely gets away with doing what he does best: playing a wise-talking detective in a similar vein to his Sam Spade of 'The Maltese Falcon'(1941).

Within minutes, you can tell that this is a Warner Brothers film. The minute Marlowe walks into the Acme Book Shop! But it's all okay. It certainly adds to the charm to see Bogie sharing a drink with a knowledgeable young book seller who, when she removes her spectacles, becomes a seductive potential conquest.

Undoubtedly, this is also one of those films that served as a vehicle for both Bogart and Lauren Bacall, as they remain the most memorable characters, getting into several scrapes and several scenes that hold a lot of comic lure without sliding into slapstick.

Amongst the supporting cast, Sonia Darrin as Agnes Lowzier, Louis Jean Heydt as Joe Brody and Martha Vickers as Carmen Sternwood really stand out. Even Elisha Cook Jr. returns from the 'The Maltese Falcon', albeit in a slightly different role. Vickers in particular, in the few small scenes that she has, really could have excelled as the literally Looney Tunes Carmen, but the role was scaled back in order to satisfy the Hayes production code of the time (and, according to Chandler himself, to prevent her from upstaging Bacall). Other areas of the plot are also scaled back for similar reasons (especially the Geiger pornography/blackmail plot)and, although Chandler purists may baulk at them, this is, after all, an adaptation and is, thus, open to interpretation.

On that note, John Ridgely is, sadly, underwhelming in the pivotal role of Eddie Mars and Charles Waldron is simply an old man sat in a wheelchair when compared with the dying and crippled General Guy Sternwood of the novel. However, Charles D. Brown is quite entertaining at times as the Sternwood butler, Norris, even if he is a bit wooden.

But the charm of the Bogie 'Big Sleep' is in its atmosphere. From the rain-soaked residential streets and high-rises of 1946 Los Angeles to Mars' jolly countryside gambling club and the honky-tonk bistro where Bogie's Marlowe meets Bacall's Vivian Rutledge, this really is a gem, despite Raymond Chandler's absence from script duties ((he was busy writing the screenplay to 'The Blue Dahlia (1946)).

In fact, it appeared that it was Bogie and Bacall that the audience paid to see, and the on-screen chemistry between the two is obvious, from their jokey arguments to the characters' whirlwind romance. So obvious, in fact, that several exposition scenes of dialogue explaining the plot of the film were deleted and scenes re-shot so as to focus on the future Mr. and Mrs Bogart!!

An awesome adaptation of an awesome and engaging novel, 'The Big Sleep', though focusing on Bogart and Bacall, and lacking a truly inspired supporting cast, has the distinction of being an adaptation set in Chandler's Los Angeles.

The 8/10 was awarded because, despite its flaws and the focus on the personal love affair of its stars, this really is an entertaining Chandler adaptation that is well worth a watch, both for crime buffs and Chandler die-hards alike!

There are very few people I've met who did not like 'The Dark Knight' (2008). They tend to dislike the fact that it is so rooted in reality but, for me, when compared with how outrageous the Batman mythos can get, this is a major plus that wins this film 10 out of 10 stars.

Let's start off with the best: Heath Ledger, whilst different as The Joker, incorporates so much from the Batman comics character into his performance that, even though he's punk-ish and diverse in the role, I totally bought him as being an updated version of The Clown Prince of Crime. His untimely death cheated the cinema of an up-and-coming name, but this is such a great legacy for him to leave behind.

This is not to say that I prefer him over Jack Nicholson, or vice versa. What Nicholson did in 'Batman' (1989) was loyal and apt, for that film. But this film charts dangerous characters in a dangerous world that has clearly changed since Tim Burton's first 'Batman' opus and Nolan proves that, whilst the 'old' Batman films may have been made for sheer entertainment value, he is trying to convey a message to his audience. Whether you buy that message or not is all a matter of interpretation.

The return to Chicago as the main spread of Gotham City was a fantastic idea and, even though I miss some of the landmarks of the previous film (particularly Wayne Tower), I accept why Nolan changed pace with this sequel and, hey, at least the monorail makes a discreet return in some scenes here!

The use of locations is absolutely stunning. I am not sure if it was Nolan's filming style or the fact that this film did things that seemed so new in an age where everything seems to have already been done, but there are plenty of memorable stunts and dialogue sequences here.

Unlike many, I also enjoyed the character of Rachel Dawes and, whilst I accept that Katie Holmes was a little inexperienced in 'Batman Begins' (2005) her character wasn't used to being confronted by crooks quite as freaky as The Scarecrow, was she? Holmes' replacement here by Maggie Gyllenhaal, albeit complicating the continuity between the two films slightly, seems quite appropriate. Gyllenhaal is more convincing in her work with both Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger, but I agree that she is heartless and ungrateful to Christian Bale's Batman/Bruce Wayne. But, in many ways, that adds to the poignancy of both this film and its sequel.

Moving along to Harvey Dent, you may be a Billy Dee Williams fan or a Tommy Lee Jones person, but you cannot deny that Aaron Eckhart gives equal consideration to both Dent and his twisted alter-ego, Harvey 'Two- Face'. In fact, I think that Harvey and Two-Face have rarely been adapted in a better way, with one of the other great interpretations being 'Two-Face Parts I & II' from 'Batman: The Animated Series'. But this is the first live-action depiction of the character/s to really come through in showing both of them, although I would have liked Two- Face to be carried over into another sequel.

But we must not sideline Batman/Bruce Wayne, must we? Christian Bale continues to be one of the better performers to play Batman, but I know that his gravelly Batman voice has irritated many. Sure, Bale's Batman voice is sometimes difficult to understand on a first viewing and is certainly hilarious when taken in isolation or imitated on youtube but, if Bruce Wayne didn't disguise his voice, it would be even more obvious that he was Batman, wouldn't it?

Michael Caine again lends warmth and even more depth to his depiction of Alfred Pennyworth, whilst Morgan Freeman remains charming and refreshing as Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman is given quite a wedge of the plot himself and it is interesting to see that, whilst other actors to portray Jim Gordon were restricted in what the character could do, he undertakes almost as much as the Dark Knight himself!

One other character from the previous film makes a playful (and often overlooked) return just after The Joker's opening bank robbery, but it is awesome to see that Nolan didn't just shoot the scene using a stuntman.

And the Batmobile and its successor remain the stars of the gadgetry rolled out for this instalment, especially in a chase scene that will literally knock your socks off. In the gadgets section, however, there is a new sonar toy that can be disorienting to audiences on the first few viewings of the film but, as you get used to it, it's not a lot of trouble at all.

Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard deliver a tense and exciting score that showcases The Joker's chaotic new theme, whilst developing the themes for Batman and Bruce Wayne's personal life as introduced in the previous film.

On that note, even though viewing 'Batman Begins' isn't essential viewing for this instalment, it has surprised me how many people were unaware of it before seeing this film. It's okay to miss out 'Batman Begins' here but, if you're intending to watch 'The Dark Knight' and 'The Dark Knight Rises' (2012), you had best watch 'Batman Begins' first, as you will be very lost when it comes to understanding the final instalment!

Anyway, now that we've got all of that sorted, sit back and enjoy a film that undoubtedly is a modern classic that raised the bar not only for comic book films, but continues to serve as a massive inspiration in many other areas (i.e. 'Sherlock', 'The Avengers', 'Skyfall', etc.)!

'Batman: Arkham City' is a great follow-up to 'Batman: Arkham Asylum', not least because it takes quite an overstuffed idea and continues stuffing more elements in -- AND gets away with it!

Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill - in 'Arkham Asylum' it was great to hear them reprise their respective roles of Batman/Bruce Wayne and The Joker from 'Batman: The Animated Series' and the subsequent entries into the DC Animated Universe. But here, they are truly epic, with The Joker's attempted (what should I say?) courtship of the Dark Knight exposing the deliciously odd relationship between these two icons of the comic book genre. It is just a shame that Hamill announced that this would be his last time voicing the character. However, don't fret too much: sources suggest that Hamill would be keen to return to the role for an adaptation of Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's 'Batman: The Killing Joke'...

Tara Strong is okay, I guess, at voicing Harley Quinn, but constantly dives into a range of what seem to be annoying impersonations. This is a shame as Strong, a former Batgirl herself, is a very good voice actress (and more than capably lends grace and vulnerability to a 'sane' Harleen Quinzel in other media). Some fans of Batman or other comic characters and even casual players may consider Harley annoying anyway, but Arleen Sorkin not only helped to create and establish the character way back in 1992 -- she was, quite literally, Harley Quinn and her absence is quite stinging at times.

Troy Baker, Nolan North and Grey DeLisle are excellently cast in their respective roles of Two-Face, The Penguin and Catwoman. And those who do return from 'Arkham Asylum' continue to be great, as are those who join them, such as Stana Katic and Dee Bradley Baker as Talia and Ra's al Ghul respectively. Corey Burton's Hugo Strange is both creepy and well-developed, but doesn't outstay his welcome too much. It's just a shame that characters such as Killer Croc and particularly The Scarecrow don't put in an appearance here. For those who enjoyed Scarecrow's nightmare sequences in 'Arkham Asylum', however, other characters pick up the torch in new and satisfactory ways, whilst developing their own identities using this technique. And Wally Wingert's Riddler significantly steps up his ongoing rivalry with the Darkknight Detective.

It was hard to believe that Rocksteady and Warner Brothers could have developed a Batman game that was darker than 'Arkham Asylum', but they really do succeed here.

The cut scenes and cinematics are amazing, particularly the opening sequences, which send the player crashing headlong into the game play...happily so! The writing is, again, epic with it's many twists and turns, but it's such a shame that renowned Batman scribe, Paul Dini was ousted for the downloadable 'Harley Quinn's Revenge' which (yeah, Warner Brothers) happens to star a character that he co-created and knows everything about!! In other areas, the source of Batman's nightly war on crime - his parents' deaths - remains a present but not overly referenced piece to this game, just as it was in 'Arkham Asylum' and goes on to be in 'Batman: Arkham Origins'.

Although stunning and a massive improvement over the limp ending to 'Arkham Asylum', the finale to 'Arkham City' does strike you as being a little anticlimactic but, that said, nowhere near as much of an anticlimax as seen in the previous game. And it does give Conroy and Hamill an opportunity to showcase their great voice acting abilities.

The first game has been described as a beginner's course for this one and that seems apt. A knowledge of the fighting system from the first game is a plus, but the style isn't difficult to pick up, particularly as new elements are woven in. Those who hated having to deal with those Titan thugs in the first game can breathe something of a sigh of relief - they are easier and the boss battles are slightly better, with one icy-fingered foe coming to mind instantly!

An epic continuation of this interpretation of the Dark Knight's saga, this game is another major turning point in Batman's career in video games. Hopefully, you'll enjoy it, too!

Although I have given this the same rating as I did for 'Omen III: The Final Conflict' (1981), that is purely for two reasons: the use (or re- use, really) of Jerry Goldsmith's fine scores from both 'The Omen' (1976) and 'The Final Conflict', and one of the film's better death scenes, which closely recalls the runaway train of 'Damien: Omen II' (1978), reminding us that there is something left of the spirit of Damien Thorn.

And that is one of the problems here. Only one fleeting reference is made to the anti-hero of the previous 'Omen' films and the mother character, Karen York (played by Faye Grant) even dares to ask who he was! Wasn't Damien supposed to be a vital figure in both politics and business a mere ten years before? A man aiming for a seat in the Senate and, from there, the Presidency? A key captain of industry and, like his adoptive forefathers, a key adviser to the President of the United States? She is a lawyer, after all, and you'd think that a lawyer would do something like read a newspaper once in a while...

It is implied (although never confirmed) that the new Antichrist, a girl named Delia York (played quite well by Asia Vieira) is the daughter that Damien had with that pesky journalist, Kate Reynolds (Lisa Harrow) from the previous film, and it would, at least, have mildly improved things somewhat to have Harrow reappear or at least get something of a mention. It might even have been a bit of a fun turn-around for the actress to get a Joan Hart-style role here, even if she did ultimately bite the dust!

Dominique Othenin-Girard started work on this film, having recently directed the unoriginal, but still okay 'Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers' (1989). He left the film during production (again, probably because of artistic differences) and was hurriedly replaced by Jorge Montesi. Being a TV movie at a time when TV movies weren't really anything to shout about anyway, you can't really tell the difference between the work done by the directors. The action sequences (such as the aforementioned death scene) were directed by the so-called 'Devil's Godfather' and 'Omen' producer, Harvey Bernhard.

Basically, this is a remake of the original film, albeit with a few twists and turns along the way. Mainly, the major change is that, while the mother in the original film (Lee Remick) was treated like she would fall apart at any moment, Faye Grant is the investigator here. The idiotic husband, Gene York (Michael Woods), whilst constantly busy on Capitol Hill, has little to do other than give her and Delia the occasional hug and berate Karen for being neurotic. But, in places, Faye Grant's acting is very wooden and obvious, such as when she tells Delia that "That's just not true!" But Damien's lackeys demean her just as much as Damien himself mistreated Lisa Harrow in the previous film.

Well known TV actors Michael Lerner, Don S. Davis and Madison Mason get quite good roles, with Lerner holding the true charisma here as a former crooked cop turned shady private investigator who is hired by Karen York to dig deeper into Delia's history. The film even gets a brief, but reasonably effective version of both Holly and Mrs. Baylock from the original film but, as said, they appear far too briefly and too weirdly to make any true impact on the audience. Other performances are very overdone, especially the nun who gives the Yorks their new baby (Megan Leitch).

One good scene is an early sequence in which Karen and Delia are playing and run across a 'heroic' Rottweiler -- a more plausible introduction for man's best friend into the Yorks' household than in the original 'Omen'! Quite simply, Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) should have fired the Baylock woman (Billie Whitelaw) on the spot for constantly dragging that demonic mutt back into the house!

Die-hard fans of the 'Omen' franchise may want to give this one a go, but it literally is a film for a rainy day when there is nothing better to do!

Harvey Bernhard and Stanley Mann had penned an adaptation of Gordon McGill's 'Omen IV: Armageddon 2000' back in 1983, but it was rejected for this trashy, uninspired TV movie. In comparison, Bernhard's and Mann's script is godly and suspenseful, with a great look back over the 'Omen' films, and attempts to repair the damage done to the running plot of the franchise in 'The Final Conflict'.

Inverted crosses galore, the aforementioned retread of Goldsmith's score (shockingly mouthed by some demonic carol singers in one scene, ewww!!!), and that one death scene make this intermittently interesting but, if 'The Final Conflict' saw the 'Omen' series run out of steam, then this one left it dead and buried, with only other remakes left to make audiences remember the glory days of the original!

This episode is truly one of those overlooked gems from 'Batman: The Animated Series', like 'Fire From Olympus', 'Eternal Youth' or 'Riddler's Reform'.

After the introduction of Harley Quinn, it's one of those episodes that returns the focus to The Joker, allowing him to go it alone at least once more. Harley does make a spiritual appearance, however, portrayed by several of Cameron Kaiser's casino waitresses.

In some ways, this episode is similar to 'The Last Laugh' and the later 'New Batman Adventures' episode 'Joker's Millions' in that it is absolutely hilarious.

Mark Hamill is almost always on his best form in each of his episodes as The Joker, but he really excels here, taking several great quips and using that epic combination of chortles and full, maniacal laughs to really great effect. Bruce Wayne even gets a mildly James Bond-ish game of blackjack with him that leaves The Clown Prince of Crime seething with rage!

Hamill and the animators even make The Joker almost as indispensable to Warner Brothers Animation as Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck in his mannerisms in this one and it doesn't seem a coincidence that he is introduced whistling the 'Looney Tunes' theme and watching the cartoon.

His escape from Arkham and his rampage through Kaiser's casino say it all really: there's a reason why The Joker fronts the line in Batman's rogues gallery!

Diane Pershing drops in for a great little cameo as Poison Ivy, introducing the now-famous rivalry between Joker and Ivy that only intensifies when Harley comes between them. I guess it's interesting to see that even Batman's foes like Ivy, The Scarecrow and The Mad Hatter have lives beyond their villainous plots and foibles and, especially, Batman.

All in all, this episode always leaves me nearly crying with laughter and, for me, even though he's a vicious maniac, The Joker still has some talent as a gifted comedian, too, especially with his prop comedy!!

Before the 'Batman: Arkham' series of games came along, this was the epic Batman game and, despite those games, in many ways still is.

It's such an intricate and personal look at Gotham City and the Batman character and moves things along from the film in such a way that Batman fans will be both intrigued and rewarded.

It's not really a free-roaming game, but the locations are fantastic, comprising locations from the film, such as Wayne Manor, Arkham Asylum, the Gotham Docks, Ra's al Ghul's monastery and the monorail tracks whilst expanding on others, especially The Narrows and Carmine Falcone's club. At the same time, unlike the 'Arkham' games, Gotham in this game is not a sightseeing tour, which actually makes it better and, ironically, preserves the sense of scope that Nolan invested in 'Batman Begins' as this is a Gotham where anything goes!

Whilst Nolan's Batman trilogy has drawn to a close, this game seems more ageless than the films, as it has serious hints of Frank Miller's 'Batman: Year One' and Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's 'Batman: The Long Halloween' in there. It's modernistic, but not as tied down in a saga as Nolan made his films. There is a great sense of Falcone's stranglehold over the city, combined with the new threat posed by Dr. Crane and his mysterious partner in crime.

Stalking villains is quite fun, as is interrogating them, and takedowns are not difficult to perform. There are also some Bat-gadgets, albeit not too many.

There are two really stand-out sequences here.

The first is the entire Arkham Asylum sequence, which faithfully adapts locations from the film in building The Scarecrow's domain for gamers to enjoy. Although the asylum is devoid of housing costumed villains at this point (other than the more than creepy Crane, of course), it has the feel of a sort of Hammer Horror film about and is even referred to as being reminiscent of "a cheap slasher" film and gives the player a sense of this location as being as important as one of the key characters in the Batman entire mythos, not just in the events of 'Batman Begins'. Christopher Nolan's wife, Emma Thomas even gets a sly cameo here.

The second and equally enjoyable is (you guessed it) driving the Batmobile. It makes you feel like a kid again and, certainly, out of all the on-screen Batmobiles, this is the one that you'd really want sitting in your driveway!! You get to smash up enemy cars and trucks, use missiles to attack assailants and speed around the streets of Gotham, improving Batman's reputation with ordinary Gothamites by doing genuine good. Even though, like the rest of the game, the driving missions are not free-roaming and are usually time-restricted, they're just as enjoyable as the scenery rushing by looks good and up to the standards of the other locations, whilst the car looks and feels great! But, perhaps the most enjoyable feature of the Batmobile is its turbo- booster, which allows you to jump bridges and squeeze through tight spaces. If only they sold cars like this...hint, hint!

This game has real atmosphere to it and, prior to the 'Arkham' franchise, remained the definitive Batman gaming experience, taking Nolan's realistic Gotham and throwing in heavy hints of what it would be like to actually be Gotham's resident defender.

Added to this are not only cinematics from the film, but the film's main cast reprise their roles in the game as well, all except Gary Oldman (perhaps because Sergeant Gordon makes such a fleeting appearance here). Even Mark Boone, Jr and Tim Booth appear as Detective Flass and Victor Zsasz respectively. And Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow gets an even better treatment than he does in the film, adding to the character's durability, but not ruining his performance in the film itself.

It's just a shame that EA Games pulled their adaptation of 'The Dark Knight', which looked set to do just as great (if not better) work entertaining players as this.

A great game and a great Batman game!

I only discovered around a year and a half ago that sequels were made to the original "Halloween" (1978) and, whilst I made it my business to get them all (including the Rob Zombie remakes) this is, by far, the best of them!

Don't ask me why, but I actually prefer this to John Carpenter's original -- not that it's better or anything like that. Carpenter remains the father of Michael Myers and what he did on such a restricted budget was amazing.

But I still think that, despite the increase in violence, this film is still entertaining and, at times, quite thrilling.

Even though she simply spends most of her time in the film running and cowering from Michael Myers/The Shape (reportedly whilst wearing a wig to match her hair from the first film), I love the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis reprised her role as Laurie Strode. And, despite this, her character still gets developed in a major way that should have drawn the story behind these two 'Halloween' films to a satisfactory close. The other 'Halloween' sequels just aren't the same without their original scream queen, even though she did return for the reunion twenty years after the original and Rick Rosenthal's second stab at the series!

But Michael Myers is like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. He's an unforgettable icon of horror and a human blob for audiences to focus all their personal fears on to. As Carpenter and Loomis would say "Evil never dies!" Though, I frankly didn't even notice that Nick Castle didn't return to play Myers this time around.

Donald Pleasence is, if anything, even more entertaining in this sequel and is always a pleasure to watch as Dr. Sam Loomis -- his most influential role since playing Blofeld in 'You Only Live Twice' (1967), so much so that his willingness to continue playing Loomis makes me wonder why he wasn't recalled to portray the cat-stroking Bond villain, at least in 'Diamonds Are Forever' (1971).

Nancy Stephens makes a great return as Loomis' chain-smoking, slightly cynical nurse, Marion Chambers (whose car was attacked by Myers in the first film), whose role I find slightly poignant as the film progresses, as she sets up most of the film's plot. Charles Cyphers also returns briefly as Sheriff Brackett and even Nancy Loomis gets a brief cameo as his daughter, Annie, despite the fact that her character is dead!

Lance Guest, who went on to star in the ill-fated 'Jaws: The Revenge' (1987) gets quite a good role here but, other than that, most of the characters are (as in most other horror films) set up simply to be cut down. Not that that's a real problem -- this film was probably meant to do to hospitals what 'Psycho' (1960) did to showers!!

Admittedly, Rob Zombie's attempt at the hospital chase had a lot more gore and tension to it and didn't drag on for half as much time, but the finale is a real blast and the addition of The Chordettes' song 'Mr. Sandman' is quite catchy, even though it doesn't make much sense in that it's a love song. Unless it's meant for Jamie Lee Curties and Lance Guest's characters... Or as a twisted symbol for Michael's arrival in Laurie's life...

Anyway, this is quite a good sequel and, for those of you who enjoyed seeing P.J. Soles bearing all in the Carpenter original, Pamela Susan Shoop gets tasked with that duty this time around!

I guess it's an indication of how much horror cinema in the early 1980's had changed since 'Halloween' arrived in the late 1970's, but this is just what you might expect. Bloody, violent, a fair amount of nudity -- but still tolerable and still enjoyable, not just because of all of the above!! To compete with other horror films of the time, it even has its own share of inventive death scenes over the original.

As I say, the finale is great and the entire film is helped along by John Carpenter and Alan Howarth having remixed Carpenter's original score, as well as the even greater use of location work. Watch out for Rick Rosenthal's adaptation of the pumpkin from the original opening titles, this time serving an even more graphic use...

Hollywood has this annoying tendency to remake films that don't need to be remade! Alfred Hitchcock's genre-defining 'Psycho' (1960) got a shot-by-shot remake, so did 'The Producers' (1968), and so did this film. What next, a remake of 'Jaws' (1975), 'The Sting' (1973) or even 'Citizen Kane' (1941) or 'Casablanca' (1942)?!

If nothing else, the remake proved that you cannot improve on the casting of the original. Gregory Peck and Lee Remick are such a convincing screen couple that you could even believe that they were not acting!! Their respective ages at the time of filming are even consistent with those of a couple desperate to have their own child before it is too late, which lends credence to the plot, unlike the remake. David Warner actually developed the character of Jennings from a one-dimensional character into someone with a bit more seediness and sudden tragedy, so to praise David Thewlis in the remake is to praise him for usurping another's performance! And Billie Whitelaw, though literally the nanny from Hell, is such a fun and malicious character that you don't mind the nagging feeling that people as wealthy and renowned as the Thorns would never allow her near their child! Even Jack Palance's daughter, Holly, gets a very memorable role as the Thorns' original nanny, whilst Leo McKern gives a fanatical performance as archaeologist and exorcist, Carl Bugenhagen, which he would continue into 'Damien: Omen II' (1978).

The plot itself focuses on the lie that Peck's character, Robert Thorn tells his wife, Kathy (Remick) to conceal the fact that their child was apparently stillborn and that, in desperation, he secretly adopted a child to replace it so as to spare her the overwhelming grief. It's a classic horror/thriller set-up that you continue to see in original films today.

Director, Richard Donner insisted on stripping the script of all glaring Satanic references so as to focus on the inner plight of both Thorn and his wife as they come to suspect that their 'son', Damien (Harvey Stephens - in a role that redefined creepy/evil children in films and culture, generally) is, shall we say, not quite right. After all, wasn't it the blissfully ignorant Del Boy who took Rodney's advice in naming his own son Damien?

Damien lives a happy five years with his adoptive parents before all hell breaks loose and both Robert and Kathy are driven to breaking point.

The point of this film (unlike the sequels) is that it is all about interpretation. Is Robert Thorn's lie getting to him? Or is little Damien really a devil incarnate? Most think the latter, but Donner wanted to leave the audience guessing and, in many ways, 'The Omen' is best seen as a standalone film, even though the sequels are certainly worth a look.

A key point of this film is the fantastically eerie and bone-chilling musical score by the legendary Jerry Goldsmith, who earned an Academy Award for his work on this film. And rightly so! It is just a shame that Goldsmith, the musical talent behind such films as 'The Planet of The Apes' (1968), 'Chinatown' (1974) and 'Alien' (1979) didn't win one more often!! Go ahead, check your film collection - Goldsmith quite possibly figures in it!

And, even though both the fashions and the special effects seem a bit dated, they are part of the charm of the film. Damien inspired a whole (black) mass of imitators and sequels and remakes, but the original truly shines above all of them.

Quite clearly inspired by both 'Rosemary's Baby' (1968) and 'The Exorcist' (1973), 'The Omen' delivered at a time when horror films were all the rage. It was very, very lucky to lure in such stars as it did (particularly in terms of securing such classic American actors as Peck and Remick), as horror was something of a dirty word in cinema at the time and, rather than being another American horror film, the politics- heavy plot is set primarily in the UK, with both Italy and Israel providing a further backdrop to the devilish proceedings.

The death scenes are great but, unlike the sequels, the focus is not on them. A lot of odd happenings transpire that drive Robert and Kathy literally out of their minds whereas, in the sequels, every odd occurrence is literally a death of some sort.

Plus, an interesting point that has not been lost on reviewers is that the fictional Thorn family throughout this and the sequels seems to reflect the real-life Kennedy family. Robert Thorn, alike Joe Kennedy, is American Ambassador to the Court of St. James and the Thorns continue to suffer a succession of tragedies throughout the 'Omen' series until Damien Thorn himself is compared to JFK in the 'Omen III: The Final Conflict' (1981).

Literally the best in the series, this makes fine Halloween viewing or, if you're like me, you may find this to be a rollicking good psychological thriller for any time of the year -- perhaps one that bears the most re-watching!

The only reason that I have not given it 10/10 is that the technical specifications of the time are not always great. Picture and sound aren't perfect, but aren't even half as flawed as they are in a film like 'Charade' (1966). Really, it's a small complaint for such an entertaining film and I feel overly picky just writing this!

So, there seems little more to say, except "Ave Satani!"

At the time of 'The Dark Knight' (2008), it was reported that future Batman sequels would descend further into fantasy and, thus, further away from Christopher Nolan's original intention to adapt Batman as closely to reality as possible.

'The Dark Knight Rises' (2012) is certainly the most fantasy-based of his Batman films, sometimes raising incredible plot holes and questions like: how did Batsy get the Bat over to John Blake's location without alerting the criminals attacking Blake? And: how did Bane know where the super-secret Applied Sciences Division was or that it was actually under Wayne Enterprises at all? And: with Commissioner Gordon apparently cleaning up Gotham's streets so well, how did Bane's plan go unnoticed for so long?!

But, all in all, given reports that Nolan needed to feel invested in a third and final Batman film in order to make it happen, especially after he raised the bar so dramatically with 'The Dark Knight', 'Rises' is still very good -- albeit probably a little over-hyped compared to its stunning, character-driven predecessor.

The eight-year fictional gap between films shows us Bruce Wayne in his most incredible state -- a fallen and broken warrior who builds himself back up into the hero that we all know and love. If you sense similarities to Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns', then they are entirely intentional.

Christian Bale and Michael Caine again prove themselves to be great collaborators, whilst Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are given substantially more to do (particularly the former), effectively taking Caine's place in the second half of the film. Newcomers Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are also most welcome, despite the fact that their casting (particularly Cotillard's) seems primarily based on their participation in 'Inception' (2010).

And, for fans of Nolan's Bat films, a cameo or nod is made to practically all of the trilogy's most important characters. Alas, of course, except one -- the one who raised the bar for on-screen villains everywhere. I, too, pondered why some reference was not made to The Joker, until I realised that, in the wake of the tragic and senseless violence in Colorado, a society will usually strive to put the acts of a maniac behind them. It only seems fitting that The Joker is probably locked away in Arkham, whilst Gotham tries desperately to forget him.

And that leads us quite fittingly to one of the messages of this film. The heroic acts of The Batman and his allies get honoured, whilst all those bad guys, even though they are fun to watch, are a nightmare to know! A recurring theme in this series is that anyone can be a hero and that, although this is the last of the Nolan Batman films, the Dark Knight will continue to serve as an inspiration, not merely to fictional Gothamites, but to real people everywhere, even though Nolan has retired his version of the character.

The Bat is a bit far-fetched and, even though The Tumbler appears, the Batmobile does not. There's a welcome return from the Batpod alongside some old and new gadgetry, and I suppose it should be re-branded as the Catpod after its use in this film!

On that note, Anne Hathaway is refreshingly neat and effective as the dark and feisty Selina Kyle. After the horrors of Halle Berry's stab at the part (and I mean stab), Hathaway returns the character to a more human element closer to the character's roots. Although not christened as 'Catwoman' as such, she double-crosses the Dark Knight to defend herself, she is finally shown to be a cat burglar (something other interpretations have neglected) and Hathaway proves that, despite the absence of the whip, Selina still has plenty of feline wiles to make her a fascinating character.

Tom Hardy's Bane is a massive improvement over the mute brute of 'Batman & Robin' (1997), but his voice was a nightmare to understand in the cinema which, of course, twisted the focus even more in Hathaway's favour. His plan, though even more far-fetched than those of Ra's al Ghul and The Joker, is still quite exciting, with several sequences depicting Gotham as an American-based Iraq or Revolutionary France, set against Bane's rallying war cries and Hans Zimmer's gripping score, lending genuine tension and excitement to the proceedings, coupled with an obvious (even if it was unintended) political message.

Fans of the Nolan trilogy will be rewarded with some interesting revelations that help to bring the series to a satisfactory close, whilst the series regulars still shine. However, it is a shame to consider that this is the final Nolan Batman film, even though there are so many characters out there that could still be adapted in a realistic or, as this film indicates, a semi-realistic light. It is also a shame that Nolan did not return to Chicago, given its status as the bedrock of Gotham City in the first two films, but his style is still evidently there. At least Wayne Manor, the Batcave and the Batbunker return, albeit be prepared for some visual changes!

If it helps, the first half of the film, up until Bane truly takes control as the villain of the piece, feels unnervingly like 'The Dark Knight', albeit without either The Joker or Harvey Dent and, as the film progresses, it churns in a healthy amount of 'Batman Begins' (2005) to bring this trilogy full circle.

A fantastic swan song for the Nolan/Bale alliance, even if some areas aren't clarified as well as in previous instalments!

You either love or hate 'The Omen' (1976) and 'Damien: Omen II' (1978), either individually or together. It's just one of those things. You may even love or hate 'Omen III: The Final Conflict' (1981).

I don't hate it, but it was clear that, by this stage of the 'Omen' series, ideas and enthusiasm were growing thin. 'The Omen' had the promise of this evil little child causing Armageddon and 'Damien' showed us how he cements the wealth and influence to do this. The failure of both Gregory Peck and William Holden (two box office idols) to exterminate the little brat was a great build up to what should have been a violent, memorable and, yet, graceful finale.

'Omen III' largely ignores the events of its predecessor, except for brief glimpses of and references to the Thorn Corporation, Paul Buher and Damien's uncle. Instead, it attempts to retread the more successful road of 'The Omen', albeit placing Damien in Robert Thorn's role as US Ambassador to the Court of St. James as he climbs the political ladder in an effort to secure the Presidency of the United States of America.

Trouble is, Damien shoots himself in the foot by feeding the suggestible current President (Mason Adams) false information on the sabotage of the Aswan Dam in Egypt -- implied to have actually been caused by Damien himself. Had Richard Donner directed the film, we might have got a great 'Superman'-style special effects sequence of the dam imploding and bringing Damien's style of chaos to Earth (and/or a more compelling story, one hopes!!). Instead, all we get are reams and reams of boring dialogue from a film that claims to be the most horrifying instalment of the 'Omen' series. And, after having been exposed as feeding the information to the President, Damien isn't even removed from office. After all, who would elect a Presidential adviser who got it all wrong, deliberately or not?

The film even tries, in parts, to compete with 'Damien' in providing some pretty gory deaths but, at a push, all I can remember are the messy 'suicide' of the Ambassador preceding Damien, and Don Gordon getting an iron in the face! Each of which are instantly forgotten amongst the tangled plot. This is a shame, since the death scenes were highlights of the previous films and almost always memorable. The less said of the feeble attempts of a group of monks to assassinate Damien Thorn, the better!

This failure would be acceptable if the story were compelling enough. Sam Neill as Damien and Lisa Harrow as his love interest and BBC journalist, Kate Reynolds try, kind of, to replicate the great romance that was actually quite a convincing part of 'The Omen'. But Damien is, quite frankly, just weird! And I doubt a woman apparently as intelligent as Kate would want to stick around him after being ass-raped by him and listening to him practically shouting at her that he is the Antichrist!!

It is surprising to discover that the film's screenwriter, Andrew Birkin went on to write 'The Name of the Rose' (1984) and 'Perfume: The Story of a Murderer' (2006), but this film's problem also obviously lies with the flat direction by Graham Baker, whilst renowned directors of photography, Phil Meheux and Robert Paynter probably provided whatever visual flair there is to be found.

And even the Satanist cult is way off this time. Even though there are literally thousands of them, there's no one to challenge the awesome memory of Billie Whitelaw (or even the underused Robert Foxworth and Lance Henriksen of the previous film, for that matter).

In the end, when you're about to doze off, things come to a head and, in one of the limpest and most predictable endings ever given to a horror film, Damien Thorn is suddenly dead. Even though the printed script stresses that Damien is on the brink of taking command of the world, there is nothing on the screen that translates that mood. However, as the 1991 sequel shows, they didn't use the Daggers of Megiddo properly and Twentieth-Century Fox, rather than Damien, will return to reap their revenge!

A great performance by Sam Neill (who, apparently, has since disowned this early film of his); the consistently epic score from Jerry Goldsmith; a haunting opening sequence; the very, very occasional and instantly forgettable shock-factor about characters we care nothing about, and some intermittently nice and eerie location work are about all that save this film from being a complete waste of time!

Sequels usually are an area of some controversy and this is so with any film genre -- not just Seventies horror!

'Halloween' (1978) and 'Jaws' (1975) were ground-breaking, but their sequels seem to be largely neglected and only occasionally honoured in their own right.

And so it is with 'Damien: Omen II' (1978). Some disregard it entirely and move straight on to 'The Final Conflict'; others adore it, sometimes even more so than Richard Donner's original film.

I love it on a par with Donner's film, but I admit that, whilst he was away trying to make audiences believe that a man could fly, his presence was sorely missed.

Overall, the film is a great horror sequel and an entertaining one at that.

It takes the view that Damien Thorn is the Antichrist and charts his rise to power as he establishes himself further within the Thorn family, hoping to inherit a global conglomerate controlled by his adoptive uncle, Richard (William Holden). Although this loses the mystique of whether Robert Thorn was right or actually a raving lunatic taken in by the doubts that he had regarding Damien and the lie that he had fed his wife, to be honest, how else would a sequel to 'The Omen' have been crafted? Not all the Thorns could have been that insane or deluded!!

There's a great cast here, with Holden embarking on his only horror film and leaving behind a memorable performance for posterity, whilst he is joined by the incredible Lee Grant as his wife, Ann. I saw Grant for the first time in this movie and only later discovered her performances in 'Columbo: Ransom for a Dead Man' (1971) and 'Airport '77' (1977). She's a great actress in all, but this is the performance I remember the most. If you see or have seen this film, you'll probably understand why!

Supporting cast members are also memorable, including Sylvia Sidney, Lew Ayres, a young Lance Henriksen, and the always sly Robert Foxworth. The latter two are almost criminally underused characters, but they use their time well enough. Novelist, Gordon McGill even crafted a further two sequels after 'The Final Conflict' that, had they been adapted, would have given Foxworth much more screen presence to show what a great actor he is. Nicholas Pryor also deserves credit for his performance and British stalwarts, Leo McKern and Ian Hendry also get cameos.

And Jonathan Scott-Taylor is great as Damien, too! He grabs a few scenes that lend the character some inner conflict and even perfects his own icy 'Omen' stare as he starts to come into his powers. It's just a shame that the planned 1979 second sequel to 'The Omen' starring Scott-Taylor didn't go ahead, as there is too much empty time in Damien's life between this and the next film!

Although it was implied in the first film that he was possibly aware of his demonic lineage and that he may be adopted by the President of the United States, these are not really big things that leave you wondering "what happened here, then?" Even though William Holden/Richard Thorn wasn't in the original, who cares? 'The Omen' was meant to be a one-off and accidentally led to sequels. Plus, as 'The Final Conflict' shows, Damien was far more effective and enjoyable when he did have parents running around trying to stab him!!

But the film is cheesy. Elizabeth Shepherd's British journalist arriving in a terrible, gaudy red coat practically shouts it at you: "This is a film that isn't being taken quite as seriously as the last one". And that's it - this film is fun! It wasn't intended to be 'Haha' funny (despite some of the performances) but, when compared to the overbearingly grim 'The Final Conflict' and the deadly serious 'The Omen', this film has a real pace to it, particularly when Richard Thorn starts to realise that he can no longer ignore the omens surrounding him. Things just happen and you go along with them. It's like Marmite -- you either love it or you don't!

Naturally, to compete with 'The Omen' and David Warner's classic end in that film, there is a whole spate of memorable death sequences here that are fun and, sometimes, quite chilling as well... You can see them coming -- but, again, who cares?

Picture quality has improved a bit since 'The Omen', but largely due to the increased budget resulting from that film's success. There are more special effects, more family drama scenes, more Damien... It really complies with those three 'Scream' rules for a horror sequel, really: more, more, more!

And, on that note, be prepared to enjoy another musical contribution from Jerry Goldsmith. Although he didn't shoot to Oscar fame with this 'Omen' score (or its more lyrical successor, either), Goldsmith delivers racy, thrill-ride compositions, with a maximum of one pleasant interlude, a handsome amount of eerie uncertainty and foreboding, and a lot of that famous 'Ave Satani' returning, albeit in an altered form. It is clear that he was having fun tinkering with a set formula that he helped to create!

There is some quite beautiful location work, this time set in Chicago, Illinois, Wisconsin and Israel.

And, despite some confusion, if you're prepared to look hard enough for it, there is actually quite a decent chunk of plot involving Thorn Industries, Damien's rise to power and the interaction of the Thorn family and those surrounding it, as well as the usual contextual Biblical references. There are plot holes and strained plot lines, but films like this are still rather fun!

Finally, to dispel popular myth, there is actually a church in this sequel...see if you can spot it!!

Albeit not as original as either 'Batman: Arkham Asylum' or 'Batman: Arkham City', 'Batman: Arkham Origins' is still fun and, for avid Batman and DC Comics fans or even fans of comics and games, this is a great buy!

You're introduced to some fascinating characters, arguably many of whom have appeared in other games in the same franchise, but you're catching them before they have really come to understand Batman as being either their ally or their enemy. Some, of course, have made up their minds already and will never change them.

As with all the Arkham games thus far, the cinematics are incredible and there are several sequences involving both Batman and The Joker that hold up as well as if the inspired Paul Dini had written them himself. On that note, however, Dini's presence is sorely missed and it was a mistake to remove him from the production team even before the ill-fated 'Harley Quinn's Revenge' had gone into development several years ago.

That is not to say that Arkham Origins is bad. It isn't. You get to explore Gotham almost without barriers, the fighting system is still good and the story is incredible, even though it feels like it starts to lose steam and fall into clichés towards the end of its run.

Fans of comics like 'Batman: Year One', 'Batman: The Long Halloween' and 'Batman: Dark Victory', to name but a few will definitely enjoy some of the characters and events that crop up here and, for the seasoned game player, the Arkham series is still enjoyable. It just needs something a little new, perhaps coupled with a return from some characters who have been absent from the Arkham series and from Gotham City for quite some time. The Arkham series should also take a more adventurous step (that Rocksteady quite possibly would have done had it retained its licence over the franchise) and give the player controlling Batman a bit more chance of actually piloting the Batmobile and/or the Batwing and other assorted vehicles.

The voice cast here really has to be commended. Unlike some other gamers, I grew used to Roger Craig Smith as Batman/Bruce Wayne quite quickly, but he still seems like a flawed addition when compared to Kevin Conroy, who has been voicing the character for so long that his successors can sound a bit alien in the role. Anyone who has seen 'Batman: Gotham Knight' (2008) will also know that Conroy is still capable of playing a young Batman/Bruce Wayne, so Smith's presence here does seem kind of redundant. On the other side of the coin, however, Mark Hamill was irreplaceable and, yet, he had to be replaced after he hung up his joy buzzer and razor-edged playing cards. Troy Baker is an excellent replacement for Hamill and, while I would still love it had Hamill surprisingly leapt back into the role once more, Baker is an energetic and memorable Clown Prince of Crime and, if nothing else, a scarily effective Hamill impersonator at times.

Those returning to their Arkham Asylum and Arkham City roles remain inspired choices, whilst long-time Batman animation music composer, Christopher Drake delivers a fine score that, whilst up to his own standards, misses out on some of the quirkiness that made the music of the previous two games, as composed by Nick Arundel and Ron Fish, so unique and tailored to this interpretation of Batman.

The Batcave is awesome, holding an Anton Furst/Nathan Crowley/Goonies feel all at the same time (hopefully next time Wayne Manor will get more of a showing as well), and Gotham is still a fascinating place, especially as players are given the chance to explore regions that previously weren't available, such as those areas of Gotham that were underwater during Arkham City. Even though the Christmastime setting has been ridiculed for cutting corners (as it was snowing through most of Arkham City), this time period demonstrates just how unrelentingly hostile Gotham City is. Villains like The Joker and new-breed, Anarky, wage war on Gotham during the season of family and giving -- it is almost like something out of the pages of Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns'.

However, I agree with one reviewer who complained about the ridiculously long bridge! But other complaints about the static nature of the opening sequences are a point of personal preference -- I found them to be a useful tutorial that helped me to brush up on my old techniques from the last two games, whilst not being killed too often!!!

So, in summary, there's plenty to enjoy here, particularly as the game is set in the Dark Knight's formative years but, next time, perhaps Warner Brothers will either take a chance or return to trusting Rocksteady to take those chances on their behalf! All the same, the Arkham series remains one of the most effective and enjoyable ways of introducing or reintroducing both new and long-term fans to the mystique and intricacy of the Batman comics and his world in general!

Usually, I don't enjoy sci-fi, but this and 'Alien' (1979) are the exceptions.

I watched 'Aliens' in a state of apprehension. Seven years between the original and a sequel (especially a sequel starring one of the original cast members) can be a very long time. A long time for things to go wrong. And this was, perhaps, what was going through the minds of executives at Twentieth Century Fox when they green-lighted James Cameron's sequel to Ridley Scott's masterful horror film set in space.

If anything, if you're going in to 'Aliens' blind or having already watched 'Alien', you're in for an interesting sequence of events.

From the beginning, it's very clear that, as an audience member, you're getting a rare treat, not just in terms of horror or action -- literally in terms of any genre of cinema. You are getting a proper sequel!

But, a sequel that establishes its own rules.

Sigourney Weaver was feisty and held her own in 'Alien', but here she becomes a pure bad-ass! If you have the 'Alien Quadrilogy' set, you can see from the Director's Cut that her character, Ellen Ripley has a lot of issues going on. The perfect early example of a conflicted, brave and determined heroine. The theatrical release gets these things across well, too. As does the fact that Weaver was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance -- in a time when horror/action flicks were largely denied such honours. Forget Lara Croft - here's the real deal!

But it's in Ripley's interaction with Carrie Henn's character, Newt and Michael Biehn's Corporal Hicks that the film develops its pathos. A chance for redemption and a life beyond being terrorised by a load of slimy space monsters.

Not to give too much away, but 'Aliens' is, in an odd way, drawn from similar threads as 'Jurassic Park' (1993) and 'The Lost World' (1997). It's distinct from those films, obviously, but the gung-ho element of an overpowered military force confronting a swarm of devilishly sly and powerful creatures rings similar bells. For die-hard fans of the 'Alien' franchise (or even of films in general), they will know what I am saying when I mention that 'Aliens' also shares key links with Tim Burton's original 'Batman' (1989), from its design to its filming.

There's a really great and touching story here, though, which develops James Cameron as the worthy successor (perhaps even an equal) to Ridley Scott himself in terms of developing the original ideas of Scott and his crew. Incidentally, this is the only one of James Cameron's films that I have seen and enjoyed.

Lance Henriksen, Jenette Goldstein and Bill Paxton in some of their best known and pervasive film roles are all superb and a perfect match for the extremely well cast original film. Goldstein, in particular, has the ballsy attitude of Grace Jones, whilst still remaining a likable character, and Paxton steals some of the film's best dialogue. Even Jones the cat returns!

For once, a sequel that is just as (if not more) enjoyable and hard- hitting as the original. If I had to raise a qualm with the film, it is that the 'Alien' series went into serious decline after this instalment. And, even though I've seen the other sequels, I prefer to accept things as they happened here as rote!!

I went into 'Alien' expecting a terrible, low-budget space-age horror film in the form of 'Jason X'. How wrong I was!

A friend introduced me to the 'Alien' series after I loaned him 'The Omen' franchise and, while I watched it mainly as a gesture, I discovered that this is truly an awesome film. And the fact is that, even for others out there like me who probably aren't too keen on sci-fi films, this does not really strike you as one. Indeed, chances are that through things like 'Family Guy', 'South Park' and 'The Simpsons', you've probably seen reworked scenes from 'Alien' already!!!

For one thing, the cast is excellent. Sigourney Weaver broke into mainstream films here, John Hurt got the most memorable scene, even Yaphet Kotto who played Bond villain, Dr. Kananga in 'Live And Let Die' (1973), and Ian Holm in a particularly memorable turn early on in his film career. And, for horror aficionados, Veronica Cartwright, who made her debut in Alfred Hitchcock's 'The Birds' (1963) and appeared in the disturbing remake of 'Invasion of The Body Snatchers' (1978), gets a key role here. As does a cool little cat named Jones. Oh, and don't forget 'Mother'.

The model work, set design, costumes and even all the space-style gobbledegook that would usually put you to sleep - it's all great. And did I mention that the legendary composer Jerry Goldsmith provided the musical score? To savour this film, all you really need to be is a fan of horror and/or action films, or just an adventurous audience member.

So this really was a pleasant surprise for someone who's proud to admit that he was wrong. I even have the 'Alien Quadrilogy' DVD set because of this film and its sequel 'Aliens' (1986). I can really recommend this set of DVDs (or Blu-Ray, if you prefer), because it includes both the theatrical version and the Director's Cut, the latter of which includes so much stuff that wouldn't have appeared in the cinema and adds to the plot.

If in doubt, read some of the other reviews. Hopefully there are other people like me who have been turned by Ridley Scott's genius! Sit back and enjoy a different kind of classic!!