Reviews

I give it one star purely out of respect for Dennis Hopper (oh Dennis, where did it all go wrong?) This was a horrible film. And by horrible, I mean waste of time. OK, some of the gore was quite realistic if a little excessive, but that might be all it has going for it. The 'acting' is merely an imitation of some of the worst hillbilly-killer-mutilator-family stereotypes - either that or 'I'm hitch-hiking in American backwater country and I don't understand why this is happening but I will find my resolve and overcome'...yada yada yada.....

If you've ever seen a horror movie, chances are you will recognise at least one part of this. As a blatant rip off, it still sucks. As a film in it's own right....it should be ashamed of itself....

This is not a comfortable film to watch. From the opening sequence until the final scene, I was willing these brilliantly compelling characters to succeed in their less-than-legal ventures whilst at the same time feeling that karma really should be paying a bit more attention to these two. Despite the brutality of their (mainly Jim's) actions and their obvious flaws, socially, emotionally and definitely mentally, they seem to avoid any form of retribution - and this is the source of the discomfort. You almost know what is going to happen, so used to the "Moral Message" movie is the modern day audience. But here's the clever thing - it makes you wait.

I don't want to say too much more, other than this is a visceral, powerful movie, with standout performances, an amazing score and a story powerful enough to stay with you long after the movie is over.

This review is causing me problems. I feel that every film should be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof), yet it is impossible in this case NOT to reference John Carpenter's original. Therefore, let me set the scene...

"A film called 'The Fog' you say? What's it about? Vengeful spirits? Well I do like a good horror film and the concept of figures appearing out of the fog is quite freaky...this should provide a few scares...lets put it on and let the slaughter begin..."

Characters - awful. Every one of them. Selma Blair is particularly offensive (and her quirky charm usually brings a certain something to proceedings) as the two dimensional, indestructible (see the car crash) radio DJ/mother who sees nothing wrong with wandering around in the tiniest bikini bottoms in front of her son. Tom Welling is unconvincing as, well, anything and lets not start on the bland Ms. Grace... Apart from these, everyone else was purely a contrivance to move the 'story' along. Enough said...

Story - if I'm reviewing this on its own merit, then the story is merely unoriginal, drawing on and plagiarising many other standard horror conventions. As for the pace, if its going to take the first hour plus for something to happen, at least use that time to develop the plot, create some interest, build the characters, make us give a crap...

Special Effects - I wouldn't have thought that with the technological advances of recent years that a few ghostly special effects would have been particularly difficult. Therefore, it says a lot when the fog itself looks fake, let alone the more complex rotting flesh, wounds, ghost ships etc.

Now for my major complaint. It wasn't scary. Not in a million years should this be described as a horror film. Every 'scare' was predictable, obvious, gimmicky and quite frankly, an insult. Superfluous characters killed off with 1970s-style methods - all appalling.

I had planned on saying much, much more but no matter how objective I try to stay, I keep getting angry that I spent any time at all watching this. There is nothing new in this review, but I feel that people must be warned.

I don't really know where to start. I was sceptical when this rental arrived, mainly because it was Final fantasy 7 but I was assured it was unnecessary to have seen/played the previous movie/game. I'm always interested in how far CGI and what it can do and I had heard good things about this film.

I've put a spoiler warning in case I inadvertently give something away, but the truth is I wouldn't really know how to - it seemed to me that there was no plot to start with. The opening narration sets the scene for a really original and possibly exciting premise and I looked forward to how the various events were going to progress and be explained. Shame then that they aren't. At all. In the truest sense of any video game, the scene is set for an endless series of fights and battles involving new and unexplained characters with abilities that are equally as mysterious.

I am aware that fans will bemoan that I should have seen the previous film or at least played the game, but my point is that I shouldn't have to - this is a film in it's own right and should stand up as one. In fact, I've been as neutral as possible - if I saw a film this bad without the gaming kudos behind it, I would be insulting the maker, director, production company and anyone who dared give it the slightest compliment and to be honest, I still feel as if I should.

The film is beautiful to look at. There is no denying the skill and technical ability that went into it. My only hope is that one day, as much thought and effort will be put into those little details such as story, plot and characterisation....

I'm a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.

The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.

And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.

The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.

And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'

"Where are the naked girls in the opening credits? Why is Bond blond? Where are the gadgets? Where is all the usual Bond stuff that makes us feel safe and doesn't challenge any conventions?" I honestly don't understand all the griping and complaining about Casino Royale. Granted, it is a departure from the typical Bond film - there are no underground lairs, no army of henchmen and no Rolex watch that can detonate bombs, fire lasers and make the toast at the same time. But so what? Isn't it refreshing to find that someone actually took the time to read Flemming's original novel and think to themselves "Hey, this is a pretty good spy story without all the extra flourishes. And that Bond, he's a pretty brutal kinda guy." Casino Royale brings (in my opinion) some much needed reality to a franchise that, quite frankly, was getting silly (the dude with diamonds in his face??? Please).

Craig does a fine job, convincingly playing the agent who slowly gains in confidence and arrogance as mission after mission goes by. And to my mind, the torture scene only serves to show us the true mettle of Bond - something that none of the other Bonds have had to deal with. Yes he gets hurt. But that makes him more impressive in my eyes.

As a Bond film, there are flaws, but there's no real need to point them out - every film in the long-running series has glaring omissions and continuity errors. Again, so what? Go see the film. It's fun, it's exciting and you might even like it...

I really and truly don't get it. What is it about this film that is causing any controversy or entertaining any of the poor viewers who are paying hard earned money for the privilege of seeing it? I've read the book (simplistic writing at best - nice idea though) and the film doesn't have a patch on it. And that's saying something.

First of all, Hanks as Langdon. Watch the film - does he really have any reason for being there? And the lovely Audrey Tatou - a visual treat but again, I felt there was no purpose behind her character (quite ironic considering the outcome of the FICTIONAL story). The only reason this film gets a rating from me at all is for the stellar turns from both Bettany and Sir Ian, without whom we would be left with a series of overly-dramatic flashbacks and cold chemistry. Oh, and Reno's two-dimensional Fache...please....

Of course, I knew with Ron Howard at the helm, there was likely to be some schmaltz and characteristic 'niceness' about the proceedings and I wasn't disappointed. It was a mediocre film and that, in my opinion, is worse than it being a bad film.

I know that this review reads quite harshly, but I do feel it is justified. Any of the 'controversy' is so heavily watered down that the church comes out almost totally blameless - instead, they were cruelly tricked by Teabing, for he is the true villain (add your own maniacal laughter here) who has confused and mislead the ministers and various sidekicks along the way. And what happened to Aringarosa?? When did he become a bit part? I spent most of my time at the cinema fidgeting in my seat, waiting to be engaged, either by the story-telling or the characterisation. Sadly, apart from all-too-sparse occasions, I was sorely disappointed.