Reviews

Yeah, I like Mik Dundee. Saw the first 2 flicks when they premiered on TV and enjoyed it. Surprised that a 3rd one was coming out so long afterwards, I curiously went to the cinema to watch it. I must admit, it sort of dragged on a bit for me. The Audience rarely laughed at all - in fact it was just about dead silence right through it (I think it was because the funniest jokes had already been seen on the trailer). Full marks to George Negus's son though, who plays Mick Dundees son in this film. He is well cast and is rather cute in the film, but despite the odd chucle every half hour, I feel the film has little to offer. The Plot? Well, Mick Dundees wife Sue gets a job in LA and they move there. Thats just about it. There is a brief subplot about stolen paintings that does not start until the last half hour, and it seems that was just put in as an afterthought to give the film some sort of storyline.

Not a bad try, Hoges, but the first 2 are miles above it. Croc 1 is funnier, maybe because it was original, I felt croc 2 had a good plot throughout, but croc 3 gets a bit tired. In fact, at times I thought the feature was just a 'directors cut' of the trailer!

I saw this as the sunday night movie and switched it on to see my favourite 'friend' jennifer aniston.

Picture perfect is perhaps more of a chick-flick (a romantic comedy), but I guess most guys would find it bareable. There is few times where you will laugh out loud, but you will find it as a cute, warm hearted, sunday night movie with a sweet ending. Good to watch for a quiet night in with your partner. The guys will wish that they were the lucky one that got to live in anistons apartment, and the girls will, in turn, like the look of the guys! (no relationship problems here, I hope!).

Aniston is cute in this (a pity that the intimate scenes dont show more of her - quite a tease in fact!), and there is a sweet message throughout. Not a bad romantic comedy... but after watching it, guys might want to put on a James Bond film to come back to down to earth!!

And the oscar for the most misleading title in the history of film-making goes to... (you guessed it!): Live Nude Girls!

If you see this film as the late night movie in the TV guide, it wont do you any harm if you have an early night. It is boring. An opening scene is fairly steamy (anyone who watches this film will know what I'm talking about), but you can switch it off there. The title of this film must of been invented just to get more people to watch this film. But the audience that dose end up watching it will be dissapointed. The story is a group of ladys (over 30) just talking about stuff. You hear the 'F' word mentioned a few times, catch some quick glimpses of small, wrinkled breasts, and, well, thats about it! Think of it as a very tame 'Sex and the City' episode.

Perhaps this is more a film for women in their 30's. A group of ladys talking about life and sex. But if that was the filmmakers target audience, why call it 'Live Nude Girls?'. That title gives a whole different audience to the film, and alot more critisism because of this. If they would of changed the title to, say '30-something Women', it could of attracted a whole new audience, and, perhaps, greater appreciation.

But, on the whole, whatever this film is called, it is of no interest to me.

'The Living Daylights' is, on the whole, a fairly decent film. But as a Bond film (despite the great adventure that lasts right through to the end – a trademark when it comes to bond films), it is, perhaps, portrayed in a very different vein than the classic Bond films. While it was refreshing to see a new actor (Timothy Dalton) take on the role of Bond after the very wrinkled Roger Moore (who everyone agrees, despite being a great Bond, hung around for a little too long), you have to keep reassuring yourself that this new person in the suit and tie is supposed to be playing James Bond. Dalton lacked the look and feel of Bond, and probably took it on as too much of a meaningful acting role (while Bonds are supposed to be fairly laid back). His face does not really look like James Bond either!

Having said this because we had a generation of Connery and Moore playing the part, I must admit that when I saw 1995's Goldeneye, immediately I thought of Pierce Brosnan as being James Bond. I did not immediately think that of Dalton. Having said that, Dalton does try his best. There are plenty of great gadgets, one-liners and action throughout, which thankfully do spring belief that it is a James Bond film you are watching. I'll have to agree that the credit sequence effects are the best in the series, also.

The Bond girl is all right, although I do feel we see a bit too much of her (i.e. – little variety!). Bonds car brings back a few memories of Goldfinger, and there is a really good sequence when Bond and the girl are sledding down the ski slopes in a Cello case! The finale of ‘The Living Daylights' could probably even be the best in the series. The high tension, action packed exciting climax, in which Bond and the villain fight in the cargo hold of a plane, features some fantastic stuntwork and effects. This 20 minute sequence is probably the films biggest drawcard.

On the whole, The Living Daylights will give you an adequate evening's entertainment. I doubt if you would think of it as a bad film (I didn't), but if you want to see classic Bond - Moore, Connery and Brosnan feature a more stereotypical view of the character, and Bond will probably be remembered more from the films that featured them. A good try by Dalton in this film though, as I have watched this film in its entirety whenever its been on TV, but I have never seen his second film (‘License to Kill') in its entirety due to an eventual lack of interest – so TLD is my pick of the Dalton Bonds.

3 stars out of 5

‘Octpussy' is a different Bond film. Bonds ‘golden' era of the 60's and perhaps the 70's were well and truly over. Now we were into the 80's – a decade with started well with the great ‘For Your Eyes Only (1981)' – and producers were perhaps facing the uphill task of keeping audiences interested in Bond. Even more pressure was faced upon them when it was found out that the original Bond (Sean Connery) was returning to the role to shoot a rival, unofficial Bond film (‘Never say never again'). Moore's contract had run out, and producers were quickly thinking of a new actor to play the part. But then, with Sean's film to be shown at theatres at approximately the same time, Moore was re-hired as Bond, as producers did not want too many actors playing Bond at the same time confusing audiences. Moore was too old and wrinkled by then, but he does pass the test as being Bond with ‘Octopussy' – he does shape up fairly well here – but its his last (A view to a Kill) which was definitely one too many for the grandfather like figure running around and womanizing people who seemed to be his grandchildren. A pity, because in his 70's films, I felt Moore was a really good Bond!!

If you watch ‘Indiana Jones and the temple of doom', you can expect pretty much the same here, so it is pretty hard to compare ‘Octopussy' with the earlier Bond films. Why they called it ‘Octopussy' I don't know – as we don't see the woman with the title name until the films latter half!

‘Octopussy' does have the great Bond elements – the exotic locations, stuntwork, humor, action and gadgets. I found the effects fairly average though, as in the pre-credits sequence you can EASILY see a pole dragging a light plane which is supposed to be flying through a barn. But I guess it all adds to the fun of the film.

All in all, ‘Octopussy' will keep you entertained. Its not one of the best, but its not one of the worst, either. The only thing that really annoyed me was the ‘circus' theme towards the end with Bond dressed up as a clown. The first half of the film, as in this case, is perhaps better. But there is a final scene when Bond is fighting with his enemies on the wingtip of a flying plane which is pretty good, and the fight sequence on the rooftop of a moving train is all right too. ‘Octopussy' is a good Bond to watch if you are sick in bed and need entertainment to pass the hours away.

There are better Bond films to watch, but ‘Octopussy' is fun in its own way. 3/5.

After you have watched You Only live twice you tend to think that it is the film that all Bonds are based on, the only film that contained every single Bond element in one. When you picture a James Bond film, you picture this. All Bond films are different, and this one is special because it contains it all - its the ultimate Bond (maybe just outshined by Goldfinger). Thanks to the imagination of screenwriter Roald Dahl, the action scenes and sets that made Bond famous originate from this film.

YOLT is one of Seans best. It's more lively than the first two outings (Dr.No and From Russia with love, which may be a little to light on the action for todays generation), it contains heaps of action (a stark contrast to the borefest of Thunderball), and has a better location in Asia (Instead of the horrible Las Vegas Bond mismatch in Diamonds Are Forever). Its one of the few early Bond films in which Father and Son can watch and have fun without the little one getting bored. (Roger Moore filled the void later on with his string of great movies) YOLT is perhaps marred with some poor special effects, but the sets, locations and non-stop action make up for it all.

You Only Live Twice is classic Bond. The whole family (or just the sweet situation of Dad and his boy) can stay in and have a fun night together watching an action packed James Bond movie like this. If you want to get into the Bond phenomenom, YOLT is one you'll love.

This was the late night movie last night, starting at 12 midnight, and I stayed up to watch it until it finished at 2am. And may I say it: What a great film!

It stars Steve Martin, and I know I'll enjoy any movie that he is in. He plays Charlie, a kind hearted, humourous, well know and loved identity to his home town of Nelson, who has a distinguishing characteristic, an overlarge nose (And I can tell you, the make-up department did a great job on this!!). He falls in love with Roxanne (ala Daryl Hannah), and just as he begins to think that she loves him too, she expresses interest in a newly recruited fireman to the town, Chris, who works for Charlie. But the problem is, that this man cannot express his feelings for Roxanne, and gets large nosed Charlie to write letters to Roxanne for him. Roxanne falls in love with Charlie's personality, but Chris' looks. This is a recipe for disaster, and some great funny sequences to follow!!

Poor Charlie managed to seduce Roxanne to bed with him, forgetting for a slight moment that he was actually talking for Chris, who takes over at this point. Truely hilarious, and you feel sorry in the end for poor old kind hearted Charlie. The scene following this when Charlie talks to a group of old ladies returning from a tennis match is probably the funniest 3 minutes of television in which I have ever seen. Watch for it, its a classic!

You all will love the mishaps of the absent minded fire department in which Charlie works for, with one humourous muck up after another, Charlie says 'We dont want people who have a fire in their house to say "Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!"' Very, very funny. All light hearted and fun. You will love it!

'Roxanne' is a great mix of romance and humour - it will brighten you up when you are feeling down no matter how many times you have seen it. A true masterpiece.

When the final credits roll at the end of the film, I guarentee, like myself and many others, that your comments will be "What a nice little film". It's that guarentee that makes this movie so special. Well done Steve Martin!

It was always going to be hard to follow the classic ‘Goldfinger' with a better Bond film, and even though ‘Thunderball' grossed more than its predecessor, it stands today as overlong and lacking action. ‘Never Say Never Again', the 1980's remake again with Sean, is 100 times better and much more enjoyable and entertaining. ‘Thunderball' does have some fantastic underwater scenes featuring beautiful scenery, but, as many reviews here say, the underwater sequences go on way too long. The start of the film is very confusing also – you really have to listen extra carefully to follow it.

In its favor, ‘Thunderball' is probably one of the more sexy Bond adventures with some of the best girls of the series – I liked the scene when one lies in the bath naked and asks Bond to give her something to put on, and he just gives her a pair of sandals! However, besides that, I found the movie very forgettable – my only memories being how much the film was hard to sit through right to the end.

If you want a good James Bond film for a fun night in, choose either the brilliant classic ‘Goldfinger', which proceeded ‘Thunderball', or the action packed ‘You only live Twice', which came after it. Or you could rent any of the Roger Moore films, none of them are boring. I find that you have to be an established James Bond fan to fully enjoy many of the Connery ones, while anyone can enjoy the Moore ones, fans or non-fans.

‘Thunderball' is a good film for the Bond enthusiast, after all it is classic Bond (i.e. 1960s, Sean Connery), and by no means do I regard it as a failure to the series – its just that I personally found it quite boring when compared to the others.

3/10 – for fans only.

I want all this films negative critics to answer this simple question: WHAT DO YOU DISLIKE ABOUT THIS FILM? It seems everyone here and at Amazon.com puts it at the bottom of their list – but WHY?? I think its another great Bond entry! I don't see how it differs from any of the other Bond classics – all the ingredients are there: fantastic locations (You really can't beat picturesque Thailand for an exotic Bond location), a great villain, great sequences and a fantastic fast placed finale. It's a classic stereotypical and very enjoyable James Bond fest!

So tell me, what is so bad about it? Why do some people label it the worst in the series? I really do not understand it! Is it because there is too much humor? I don't think there is too much, and the humor that is there works throughout and makes it very enjoyable. Is it because it is silly at times? Well, I'm sorry to all you Bond enthusiasts, but your high time favorite ‘Goldfinger' has its share of silliness too – in fact all of the Bond films do! And I still rate ‘Goldfinger' one of the best in the series! I don't understand the reviews here that say it is boring and it lacks action – I found it nowhere near boring – it was really enjoyable – a great mix of humor and action, right through to the end! Now Thunderball – that's boring!! Or maybe its because people just don't like Roger Moore. Deary me, guys, can't you remember that he was Flemings original choice for Bond over Connery? And what's wrong with Britt Ekland? I thought she looked rather attractive in this film!

For all those who do not call themselves Bond enthusiasts, ‘The Man with the Golden Gun' is a popular choice when selecting their first Bond film on video. I can't understand why heaps of people rate the other Bond films SO highly over a classic gem like this. When it was on TV a few months ago, everyone at work watched it and they all said it was great. My 5 year old niece stayed up to watch it and loved it, and keeps reciting quotes and scenes from it! Most people I have talked to rate this as one of their favorites, and when I went to buy it in the shop there was only one left, and the person in front of me was buying a copy also! Yet when I read peoples comments on the Internet, you all seem to loath it!

Wake up to yourself critics and just sit down and enjoy this good movie like we did, for god sake. Not all Bond films have to be 100% serious, just watch Golden Gun and have fun! Its quality entertainment, it's got all the classic Bond ingredients – its just ultimate Bond! Well done Roger Moore – The Man with the Golden Gun is just another exceptional entry in the series, with absolutely nothing wrong with it (In fact, it has everything going for it!) and it does not deserve the criticism it gets. 5 stars out of 5!

‘Live and Let Die' is everything you want in a Bond film – exotic locations, interesting villans, loads of action and a good balance of fun and humor. ‘Live and Let Die' is one of my favorite Bond films, mostly because it was the first one I ever saw – and it got me hooked. I remember watching this when it was on TV one night with Dad, and we both loved it. Moore shines in his first appearance as Bond, and some of the sequences, especially the classic half hour long boat chase, which may be the best action sequence ever filmed, will keep you watching right through to its conclusion. When I went to see my first Bond film at the movies, which was ‘GoldenEye' in 1995, I was disappointed, because to me it was unexpectedly not as fun as the earlier ones I had seen like ‘Live and Let Die'.

To my amazement, however, many so-called Bond fans dislike this film, and its precedor ‘The Man with the Golden Gun'. To me, however, these are two of my favourite Bond films, mainly because there is more action in them than some of the Connery films, and they are more fun and enjoyable to watch. They may not be as serious as some of the Connery ones, but they are more fun, and Bond films are supposed to be fun!

Roger Moore is my personal choice for the best Bond, but I am not saying I dislike Connery either. Connery was simply made for the part in the early 60's with great entries like the classic ‘Goldfinger' and ‘You Only Live Twice'. But I find that his other films are a little dated – ‘From Russia with Love' and ‘Thunderball' are prime examples of two of the most boring films in the series, and if either of those was the first Bond film I watched, I probably would not have been hooked on the series as much as I had after watching ‘Live and Let Die' first. Sure, Connery was a much leaner and meaner James Bond, but Moore put the necessary elements into the series to maintain its survival, and his films contained more action and less long boring bits. Those so-called fans who loath Roger Moore must remember that if it wasn't for him, the series would not be as popular and going as strong as it is today, and that's why many other people choose him as their favorite.

I recommend for anyone who wants to get into the Bond experience to make sure you include ‘Live and Let Die' and the fun cult classic ‘The Man with The Golden Gun' on your list, as well as the more action orientated Connery ones and the two best post 1970's Bonds – Daltons ‘The Living Daylights' and Brosnans ‘Tomorrow Never Dies'.

‘Live and Let Die' got me hooked, and I'm sure it will do the same for you!

All summer long, the channel nine network here in Australia advertised that Freaks and Geeks would be screened at 7.30pm each saturday night as part of the non-ratings period (The time when the main TV shows take a holiday). There was write-ups with positive reviews about it in the TV guides, the ad for it came on TV just about every ad break, it seemed like it was going to be an interesting show to watch. So I watched the first episode - and really enjoyed it! Set in 1980, its the exploits of a group of school kids - no, not Dawson Creek glamour queens that talk like walking thesaurases and have sex with eachother, no - this was real. A funny little comedy everyone could relate to about real life. The actors looked like school kids - not supermodels, and the exploits they undertake could happen at any school. Thats what made it so funny! The show reminded me of the classic 'The Wonder Years', and I started to look forward to the next episode.

But... after just TWO episodes, the show was suddenly taken off the 7.30pm timeslot and shoved in to 11.30pm Monday night graveyard shift. Why? The advertise it all summer long - tell us how good it is, the TV guides review it positively, and after just two weeks they take it off the air, before it had a chance to establish an audience. Why? I still especially stay up each monday night to watch it, and it is just getting better and better. The last episode I watched is when the boys watched a porno movie - funny as!! And realistic! But, I still wonder, why, after all the hype, the ads for the series are gone, and the timeslot changed. What are they showing instead at 7.30pm Saturdays? Some documentary about earthquakes one week and then about cyclones the next. Why? After reading other reviews, it seems that they are doing the same about this show in the US than that they were doing here. Building it up, establishing an audience and then taking it off the air. I was shattered when I heard that the series has ceased production... why, are the networks trying to tease us? Freaks and Geeks has had so many positive reviews... dont the networks hear them?

Freaks and Geeks is a great, funny, realistic show, nearly as good as 'The Wonder Years', but the networks just did not give it a chance. Dont worry guys in the US, you are not alone - they are treating this great show the same way down here in Aus as they are up there. What can we do??

I looked in the TV guide one saturday night and this film started at about 11.30pm. I had to wait up anyway, because I had to wait for a friend to leave for night-shift, so I decided to watch this film which I had never heard about. It came on, and it looked like it was going to be a comedy... I kept watching it, and I did not laugh once! But the thing is... it never really looked like that it was trying to be funny (even though it says the genre is comedy in this database). It is just a bunch of uninteresting stuff that happens to an indian in america, getting a job, moving in with someone... tell me, what is the point of this film? Nobody has heard of it, in the TV guide there is usually a review of all the films on during the week, but there was no information about this one... I look it up on this database, and there was not much info at all, no user comments, and there is just no info on this pointless film anywhere else in the world. It has no big name actors, it is very uninteresting, and it doesent even try to be funny or entertaining. Why did the network choose this film out of the thousands of others avaliable? What was the point of it? Nobody has seen or heard of it before, and I doubt if anyone would see it again in a thousand years. I just dont get it!

I must admit when I walked out of the cinema back in 1995 after watching 'GoldenEye', I was a bit disapointed about where the Bond series was heading. Sure, they had to make some changes for the 90's, but what really worried me was 'GoldenEye's lack of exotic locations, cleaver gadgets, and I guess just the lack of a feel of classic Bond films. But I saw 'Tomorrow Never Dies' when it premiered on TV a few weeks ago, and I must admit, it totally restored my faith that Bond now is bigger than ever.

'Tomorrow Never Dies' is a HUGE improvement on GoldenEye, as it totally restores the classic Bond elements, which I seemingly thought GoldenEye overlooked. Teri Hatcher has good chemistry with Brosnan, and the film just rolls along smoothely and as entertaining as the classics. Thailand is always good for an exotic location, and the backdrops are used supurbly here. Some of the best gadgets in the whole franchise are used, nothing can surpass the remote controlled car, or should I say, finger controlled car! And the great action sequences, like the motorbike and helicopter chase, really kept me watching. It still may not be good as some of the earlier Bonds, but its a dam good effort - really enjoyable entertainment. I can't wait to see 'The World is not enough'!

I LOVE THE SIMPSONS! It is the greatest animated show of all time, which started so many others. I watched it when it premiered on aussie TV in 1990, and it was instantly a hit. Everyone was talking about it at school - I remember the day after the first episode aired (It was Bart The Genious), the teacher said to us the next morning "Who watched The Simpsons last night?". Everyone put their hands up - the room fell into an avalanche of conversation - "we laughed at the bit when maggie was pushing all the buttons...", "we laughed at this, at that". All this after the first episode! Everyone was after the short lived 'Simpsons Illustrated' magazine, and the classic 'The Simpsons sing the Blues' CD.

The thing is, though, that the series did nothing but improve. Once Homer's voice changed (most fans can tell the season in which it did), the show was guaranteed of laughs. From the classic Blood Fued with Mr. Burns, Lurleen Lumpkin, to who shot Mr. Burns... can you remember the Bartman? The Network here in Australia which airs it used to screen it at 6pm each weeknight in competition with the 2 other networks which screened the news (Yep, there are only 3 commercial channels here in aus). Nowadays, repeats are screened on average of about 4 times a week at different times ranging from wednesday nights to sunday nights. You just never get sick of the Simpsons, and Homers halarious antics!

But, I must now pose the question - you can get too much of a good thing, cant you? Lately, while the series has remained funny, the storylines are just getting a little too extreme, and, need I say it, Homer just a bit too stupid. I hate to say it, but Principal Skinner being an imposter to his mother was a lame storyline - and moving the whole town to another site after homer ruined the old one, awwwwww, I dunno about that. Yeah, its just supposed to be a funny show, but I feel the producers have put the family through a bit too much now. Forget Homer banging in on celebritys, destroying the whole town and getting into global situations (Like when Bart went to Australia) - it was better then the show concentrated on the small family problems, then it was funnier.

The Simpsons are a great show, but it would of been greater if they would of ended production a few years ago, then it would of been a 'Great little show'. Now I feel its gone on a bit too long. But, nevertheless, i still LOVE THE SIMPSONS!!!!!

A few years ago now, I went to the video shop with my brother (who is much older than me) to rent a good movie to watch. There was nothing much that we liked in the new releases, so my brother went to the Sci Fi section. He picked up '2001 - A space Odyssey', saying he had watched that back in the 1970's for school and he felt like watching it again. On the car ride home, he said to me that I might find it a bit boring. My reply was "No, I like sci fi films. Is it like Star Wars or Thunderbirds?" "Not quite..." he replied.

We arrived home and started watching it. We laughed at the start because the opening scene was taken off in an episode of 'The Simpsons'! We kept watching - the dawn of time - a group of gorillas, or apes, or whatever, before they evolved into man. I enjoyed this sequence more because my brother was explaining it to me as it went - how they became intelligent, how they invented tools - my brother just said it was a group of actors in gorilla suits, but I actually found it compelling viewing!

Fast forward to 2001 - and you can see how much the world has advanced. its scary! From the dawn of time, to when (as the film seems to portray) spiritual beings produce a landmark that feeds on intelligence, to the extent in which that knowledge expands through the centuries... to the modern world that is not too far off today. Sure, the dates are mixed up, like some of the advanced gadgets we are still dreaming about now being invented in so called '1997', but boy, it really makes you think.

When I went to bed that night I was posed with all sorts of questions, from 'How were we created?', 'Where did we come from?', to 'Is technology taking over', 'Are we ever going to find things we were never supposed to see?'. So, I must admit, with me, the film succeeded, and I quite enjoyed it, to the surprise of my brother.

While I can understand that it would be a bore to most people now, imagine if it was 1968 in which you watched it? Now that it IS 2001, I wouldn't mind going to rent it and watch it again. And I'm sure most other people (even first timers) would find it interesting watching this portrayal of the human race and technology today.

This is landmark comedy. It is basic slapstick and simpleness, with a pittance for a budget, yet 'The Gods Must Be Crazy' has set a precedent for true funny films.

Set in Africa, it tells the overwhelmingly amusing tale of a bushman, totally oblivious to the modern world, who finds an empty coke bottle while hunting one day. Tapping it with his stick, he has no idea what this 'thing' from the modern world (or 'gods' as he thinks) is! Taking it to his family, they find that over time this 'thing' only leads to selfishnes, fighting and jealousy in the tribe, feelings in which they have not experienced before. The Story then leads to the bushman taking a pilgrimage across Africa to throw this 'thing' off the end of the earth. His travels take him into the modern world, where he meets many halarious characters who take him into amusing situations. Every Scene here is hilarious.

'The Gods Must Be Crazy' proves that you do not need a big budget or shonky special effects to produce an exellent piece of cinema. This film, although the picture quality seems dated, shows the beauty of Africa and its people, terrific African harmony, and yet it is not racist. The simple comedy scenes are so simple and light hearted, they make you laugh out loud. This is not manufactured comedy, this is film making at its best.

'The Gods Must be Crazy' is one of the funniest films ever made. It is a nice, pleasant story suitable for the whole family.

If you are sitting at home one night and want to watch a good, funny movie with your family, forget Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler, rent a true classic - 'The Gods Must Be Crazy' - I am sure you will absolutely love it! 6 Stars out of 5. Great Stuff!!

I looked in the TV guide this morning too see the midday movie was 'Santa with Muscles'. Being it a stifeling hot day here in Australia (Yes, Christmas here is like spending the whole festive season in the oven with the Turkey), I decided to spend the day at home inside in air conditioned comfort. I read the review in the TV guide and it said that Santa with Muscles was 'The worst Christmas movie ever made'. I watched the first 10 minutes of it, had no idea what was going on, and was instantly bored. So I stuck in a tape of the classic aussie film 'The Castle' that I had taped earlier to pass the time. I was not going to stick around for this excuse for a film. It amazes me that the world struggles to have money for education and basic community improvements, let alone the third world countries, yet somehow has enough money for production staff, camera equipment, casting, make-up, release costs and all the other high cost finances to make trash like this film. Why didn't the offending network put on an enjoyable Christmas film for Aussie audiences this afternoon? Everyone would of been at home in front of the TV to escape the heat today! How about that classic Lenny henry film 'Bernard and The Genie' which has not been screened here since 1992? Anything beats 'Santa with Muscles'!!

When I first watched 'Diamonds are Forever' I was excited - mainly because it was a Bond film with Sean Connery in it. At the time, most of the bond films I had seen had Roger Moore play the lead, and this was one of the first Sean Connery Bond films that I watched. Everyone said that he was the best, and when the first glimpse of him came in the pre-credits opening of the film (This opening is probably the best in the series next to GoldenEye), I was looking forward to seeing the master at work. But throughout the film I could not help thinking in the back of my mind that the only reason Sean was doing this particular Bond film was because of the overwealming amount of money they used to lure Sean back into the role after George Lazenby's one-hit wonder Bond in 'On Her Magesty's Secret Service'.

The cinematography and stuntwork used 'Diamonds are forever' are so good, you could easily be mistaken for thinking this film was made in the late 80's or even the 90's (Not 1971 in which the film was made). The quality of the picture is just so much better than the two following films 'Live and Let Die', and 'The Man with the Golden Gun' (Although I did find those films much more enjoyable than this one). I suppose 'Diamonds' is a good movie as a whole, good plot I suppose and some great sequences, but personaly I feel this film dragged on at times. I am a Bond fan that craves action, and I feel that Rojer Moore delivered it better than Connery. But this assumption is based when comparing to this particular film. I am sure that the earlier Connery ones such as 'Thunderball' and 'Goldfinger' (which amazingly I am still yet to see, but want to as everyone thinks it is the best) are better than 'Diamonds'.

Make your own assumption in who was the best Bond and which ones were the best movies, but to me personaly, 'Diamonds are Forever' is a bit low on my favourite Bond films list. Not as fun to watch as the Rojer Moore films, and not as original as the ealier Connery films. For Fans Only.

Let me just start by saying that most people agree, myself included, that Pierce Brosnan was an exeptional choice for the new James Bond. But I feel that they just cannot make Bond films now that are as entertaining and original as the older ones were. 'GoldenEye' starts well, like most Bond films, with an attention grabbing pre-credits stunt that will make you want to watch more. But while the the first and last 20 minutes or so of the film are exciting and action packed, the film tends to become a bit boring at times as it tries to let a story develop. I don't know about you, but I'm a Bond fan mainly for the stunts, chases, one-liners and gadgets - basicaly because they are just fun to watch. Whilst 'GoldenEye' does have some fantastic 90's technology action sequences and stunts unique to the Bond film genre, they seem to be sperated few and far between by too many long boring bits. Although it's definately not Brosnans fault, 'GoldenEye' just seems to be too serious for a Bond film. To me, 'GoldenEye' lacks the charm of the classic Bond films of the 60's and 70's, both with their light hearted humour, innovative gadgets and props and special effects with stunts that were even more entertaining because of the era in which they were made. Perhaps the best of the latter Bond films, say, from the 80's onwards, was 'The Living Daylights', whilst some would argure 'Octopussy'.

'GoldenEye' is all right, but not as fun to watch as the earlier Bond films. It's just not the same anymore.

After the excellence of 1994's animated masterpiece 'The Lion King', the offering sequel 'Simbas Pride' was a crushing disappointment. I must admit, I was a little apprehensive about watching the 'Lion King' when that first came out, but when I saw it I instantly lablled it, as many others would have to, my favourite film. Great music, great animation, great story - a film that will surely last as a hit through each generation. A sequel seemed a good idea, and it was made, but what an opportunity lost. Disney had the opportunity here. The Lion King was great - the sequel, made 4 years later, could maybe have been even better. They could of made another animation masterpiece, possibly after the animation of 'Toy Story', a visually apealing film that even surpassed that of the original. This could have been released in the cinema and would have made millions for Disney if the prequel was anything to go by. But what an opportunity lost. Gone are the tremendous backgrounds and computer generation 'wow' effects (like the stampede in the first one), this is nothing more than the same animation you will see on a saturday morning disney cartoon. It does not seem like a great movie. It was also disappointing to find out that the film was not made in the famous Disney studios, yet made in Australia, and even though I am an Aussie, great Disney films are made where Walt started it all. The opportunity was there for an exceptional sequel - they were capable of producing great animation, great songs, and they sure had the audience that would of came in their thousands to watch the sequel to their favourite film in the Cinema. The idea had the potential to be one of the best animated films of all time. It was just released on video. I'm sorry to say, they failed on all levels. If you want to see Disney at its best, avoid this film at all costs, and rent 'The Lion King', a true Disney animation masterpiece!

I have always been a big fan of Steve Martin, and hilarious 80's comedies like 'Trains Planes and Automobiles', so thats why I decided to rent this film. And I can tell you, I was not disappointed! Its not an hilarious movie, but it is funny from beginning to end. The mishaps that Goldie and Steve go through are sometimes predictable, but are always good for a chuckle. And John Cleese just steals the show. I have not seen the 1970 version, but I found this one pleasant and light hearted. I love watching 'endless mishap' comedies like National Lampoon's Vacation and 'Trains Planes and Automobiles', and this is another one to add to my collection. Steve Martin, you are king! And I can;t understand everyones negative comments on this film - maybe they were expecting just too much.

This film, along with Detective School Dropouts, are 2 very underrated movies. Lorin Dreyfuss is funny as!!!!!!!! Being a fellow dutchman, this film had me in histerics - but there is just one problem - how hard it is to obtain! Absolutely nowhere can I find information about a VHS video of Dutch Treat, or any info for that matter! Dutch Treat is a forgotton movie - Bring it back!