Truman-10

As always, the critics are saying TWINE is yet more of the old Bond we've always been given. That is hardly true. For a start, the last two Bond movies, GoldenEye (1995) and Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) have been very different in style - a high-tech thriller and an all-out action movie respectively - and secondly, TWINE is very different to both of them. It has the slightly dirty Eastern European look of GoldenEye, but is more interested in characters and sweeping emotional drama than, well, anything else. Everybody knows hiring director Michael Apted was a direct response to the almost non-stop action of Tomorrow... , but it's a knee-jerk reaction. Although he does manage to get first class performances out of Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle, he makes them too human, too easy to associate with, so we are left with a Bond movie without a proper villain. No-one is actually evil, just misguided. Perhaps all they need is a hug. And there is almost no physical threat to Bond, even Renard, who can feel no pain, offers little challenge or danger to 007. In fact, there is very little threat to Bond himself through out. Nobody is desperate to kill him, Renard has no hard feelings against him and Electra King almost loves him.

I find it hard to believe people are raving about the action scenes. They were awful. Michael Apted has never directed an action movie before and it's painfully obvious. The shoot-outs are okay, but everything else is lame. There is no flair or intensity, every sequence is uncomfortable and clumsy. The showdown with Renard at the climax is incredibly amatuer and weak - like something you'd see on a BBC TV series. Which is pretty appalling when you compare it to the awesome showdown with Darth Maul at the climax of The Phantom Menace (1999), of the same year, and the blistering action of Tomorrow Never Dies two years previously. As an action film, TWINE just doesn't cut it.

Pierce Brosnan gets more emotional, human and serious as Bond, which the critics seem to like, but let's not forget why the public didn't accept Timothy Dalton - because he was too emotional, human and serious. The 'this time it's personal' tag behind the film is an action movie cliche we've heard 4 million times before. And it's been personal in the last three 007 flicks - in Licence to Kill (1989), Bond's friend was fed to a shark. In GoldenEye, another of his friends turned against him. In Tomorrow Never Dies, his old girlfriend turned against him. And now in TWINE, Bond feels guilty for unintentionally aiding an assasination. Brosnan plays an emotionally repressed secret agent exceptionally well in certain scenes, but is this what people wnat to see from James Bond? The more screwed up in the head 007 becomes, the more uncertain and upset he gets, the less attractive as a character he becomes.

Many agree that Brosnan didn't quite become Bond until Tomorrow Never Dies, in which he was perfect. But he's altered his performance again, and now he's certainly going the Timothy Dalton way. Let's hope he knows what he's doing. I was, before the film, a big supporter of Brosnan, but now I'm not so sure. He still hasn't QUITE achieved the character as only Connery and Moore have before. I'm really hoping Adrian Paul (Highlander: Endgame) gets a shot at the role now.

As for the other characters, I can't believe Valentine Zukovsky is supposed to be the same character as in GoldenEye. In that movie he was a tough, greedy, dangerous crimeboss. Now he's simply a wise-cracking comicrelief bumbling fool who can't be taken seriously for a second. What a waste. Denise Richards has taken a lot of stick for her terrible performance as Dr. Christmas Jones, but there is little she could have done in such a dead-end role. But, yeah, she is terrible. Thankfully she's kept off-screen most of the time in her suspiciously Lara Croft-esque costume.

It's also a shame that while Bond managed a smile when seeing Zukovsky for the last time, he couldn't as he watched Q exit for the very last time. Desmond Llewelyn was perfect as always as the disgruntled gadget-giver. He will be sadly missed.

Bond movies ARE action adventures. Choosing a director blatantly uncomfortable and unfarmiliar with the genre is just a stupid move. Apted shoots the whole movie like a period piece, a costume drama, and forgets what TWINE is. In the end, it's entertaining, and it proberbaly better than GoldenEye, but it's not Bond-y enough for a Bond movie. It's a shame, but The World Is Not Enough is a number of steps in the wrong direction. Tomorrow Never Dies remains the only true 90's Bond movie. TWINE, like GoldenEye, just strays too far from the essential formula and pays the price. And a screeching abomination of a theme tune (no wonder they're called Garbage) doesn't help.

Worth seeing for a great performance from Marceau and an even better one from Carlyle, but whatever you do, see Tomorrow Never Dies first. It is not only one of the best 007 flicks, it's one of the best action movies ever, and far more deserving of your attention.

Extremely little-known fact: The idea of Renard being unable to feel pain is taken from the character Stamper in Tomorrow Never Dies. Stamper had the same afffiction in that movie, which is why, even when he is stabbed in the leg, he doesn't seem to notice. The line when the audience are told this was cut so they could use the idea in TWINE for Renard.

Considering that the Lethal Weapon series has got better with every installment, reaching a peak with 1992's third installment, Lethal 4 is both a disapointment in some cases and not in others. For starters, it's simply not as good as the other entries. The action scenes may rank among the finest in the series (or indeed any series), but the rest of the movie feels, if not tired, then too comfortable. The family atmosphere both onset and off comes clear from the screen, overwhelming any sense of danger. There is endless friendly banter, joking and kidding around, and occasionally a bad guy pops up. But with an ever-growing roster of good guys, who always survive every movie, and no way near enough proper, nasty bad guys, there is little threat to our heroes. The essential status quo of an action movie is that the forces of good are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the forces of evil, but Lethal 4 presents the opposite. Riggs (sadly without his trademark haircut) and Rog, along with Rog's family, Leo Getz, Lorna Cole and the police guys, are this time joined by Butters (Chris Rock) and a huge Japanese family.

The bad guys....well, there are some Triad crimebosses, who we see little or nothing of, their lame henchmen, and Wa Sang Ku (Jet Li). And that's really about it. Perhaps really memorable bad guys have always been a problem with this series, but there should atleast be a lot of ‘em. Ironically, Jet Li is one of the most sinister and memorable villains of the series, but with such a weak crew of associates behind him, he's virtually on his own against all the good guys.

Of course, the whole series revolves around Riggs and Rog. Danny Glover, to his immense credit, has given a great performance in each film, and does so again here. And he doesn't look any older than in 1987. But Mel Gibson's Riggs has matured too much, and although it's a fine performance, it's too static, almost tired character who has finally calmed down and settled down. It works in that conceivably, the influence of Rog and family has matured Riggs and made him happier, but it's less fun to watch. Let's not forget who the Lethal Weapon is of the title - it seems the makers of Lethal Weapon 4 did.

Criticize this all you want, but most people enjoy it. It's overblwon and badly paced, but has great characters, visuals and provides a real spectacle. Awesome action as well - the lightsaber battle at the climax was better than anything in The Matrix.

Finall, a film that isn't afraid to ask, 'why does it feel so good?'.

Alien 4, on first viewing, is a lot of fun. Exciting and scary, with plenty of action and certainly the funniest of the series. But what ever you do, don't watch it again. On second viewing, it's a rehash of the first two movies in the series, struggling unsuccesfully through the coporate demands to establish a style of it's own. I'm sure Jean Pierre Jeunet could make a great Alien film of his own, with his own weird ideas, but he doesn't get a chance to here. He has to throw it the neccesary Hollywood cliches, guns and action scenes at regular intervals in an obvious bid by the producers to ‘be like Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986), but don't be like Alien 3 (1992)'. It's a shame that a series previously made up of such individual, creative films in which each took their own direction, has been diluted by such a movie.

At least Alien 3, which wasn't popular with the masses, tried something different and new. Ressurection suceeds as a collection of highlights from the series, and in giving us great new versions of Ripley and the alien - an alien-a-fied ripley and a Ripley-a-fied alien respectively. But that's all. And it's absolutely disgusting as well. Don't expect Alien 5 after the poor box-office performance of this one. A script, Alien: Revelation, was written, but it looks like the future of the series is with the upcoming Aliens versus Predator. Let's hope that lives up to it's billing.

When even Sylvester Stallone says one of his movies sucks, how can anyone else defend it? Judge Dredd is one of the least original movies ever. It's virtually impossible to see anything in this movie you haven't seen somewhere else. Dredd, obviously, is from the infinetly superior 2000AD comic. The visuals are the typical futuristic metropolis seen in everything since ‘Blade Runner'. The plot is simply a cross between ‘Demolition Man' and ‘RoboCop'. The performanes are pure cardboard. The sad case of a unique British comic turned into a typical Hollywood action movie, avoid it at all costs. Dredd-ful.

Sly Stallone IS a boring, monotous actor, so playing a boring, monotonous character could be seen as good casting. But it's not going to be fun to watch.

I have to say I'm a huge fan of the Lethal Weapon series and I've seen them all far too many times. In terms of action movie franchises, Lethal Weapon is second only to the Bond movies.

Like the Bond series, the Lethal series began with a serious, violent thriller and evolved into spectacular action blockbusters with plenty of humour. Unilke Bond, however, the Lethal series got better with every installment, reaching a peak with 1992's Lethal 3, before returning one last time for a not-quite-as-good final installment in 1998.

So, Lethal 2 is better than the original, not as good as Lethal 3 and about on par with Lethal 4. What does that mean in real terms? Well, it's very violent, intense action of the eighties rather than the more stunt-based, spectacular action of the nineties. It mainly consists of machine gun shoot-outs and bloody fist fights, like the original, but already begins to move away from the seriousness of Lethal 1 by creating more elaborate, unlikely deaths for the villains that are therefore less exploitative and less nasty. Unfortunely, there are almost no really memorable action scenes in Lethal 2 apart from Riggs' Raiders of the Lost Ark-style attempt to take control of a truck whilst in motion. The final shoot-out is so cliched and unimaginative it beggars belief almost. Isn't the ‘rule' that the good guys have to fight the bad guys pyhsically at the climax? Not just shoot them? Riggs does get to kick ass, but it's bullets over fists here.

Still, very enjoyable stuff with great characters. And that's far more important than action anyway, isn't it?

The original Hulk movie brings the gamma-ridden powerhouse from the pages of Marvel Comics to the screen with -gasp! - intelligence. Rather than focussing on the epic action and destruction of the comicbook, which it hasn't the budget for anyway, the movie concentrates on creating believable characters and as realistic a plot as possible. It suceeds admirably, thanks to a superb central performance from Bill Bixby and some assured direction from Kenneth Johnson. And no comic fan can argue that Lou Ferrigno isn't the Incredible Hulk. He bursts from the four-color pages with absolute fury and destroys whatever he comes across.

The cast all perform well, with none of the over-the-top clowning you get in so many comicbook adaptions. It's got some great 70's locations and a wonderful theme tune as well. Of the six Hulk movies around, this remains the best, and with another intelligent superhero flick, X-Men (2000) demolishing the box-office, hopefully people will take a look at the last good Marvel film. Yeah, Blade was a Marvel character but Blade, in reality, is complete and utter shash.

The original Hulk movie brings the gamma-ridden powerhouse from the pages of Marvel Comics to the screen with -gasp! - intelligence. Rather than focussing on the epic action and destruction of the comicbook, which it hasn't the budget for anyway, the movie concentrates on creating believable characters and as realistic a plot as possible. It suceeds admirably, thanks to a superb central performance from Bill Bixby and some assured direction from Kenneth Johnson. And no comic fan can argue that Lou Ferrigno isn't the Incredible Hulk. He bursts from the four-color pages with absolute fury and destroys whatever he comes across.

The cast all perform well, with none of the over-the-top clowning you get in so many comicbook adaptions. It's got some great 70's locations and a wonderful theme tune as well. Of the six Hulk movies around, this remains the best, and with another intelligent superhero flick, X-Men (2000) demolishing the box-office, hopefully people will take a look at the last good Marvel film. Yeah, Blade was a Marvel character but Blade, in reality, is complete and utter shash.

The original Hulk movie brings the gamma-ridden powerhouse from the pages of Marvel Comics to the screen with -gasp! - intelligence. Rather than focussing on the epic action and destruction of the comicbook, which it hasn't the budget for anyway, the movie concentrates on creating believable characters and as realistic a plot as possible. It suceeds admirably, thanks to a superb central performance from Bill Bixby and some assured direction from Kenneth Johnson. And no comic fan can argue that Lou Ferrigno isn't the Incredible Hulk. He bursts from the four-color pages with absolute fury and destroys whatever he comes across.

The cast all perform well, with none of the over-the-top clowning you get in so many comicbook adaptions. It's got some great 70's locations and a wonderful theme tune as well. Of the six Hulk movies around, this remains the best, and with another intelligent superhero flick, X-Men (2000) demolishing the box-office, hopefully people will take a look at the last good Marvel film. Yeah, Blade was a Marvel character but Blade, in reality, is complete and utter shash.

Yet another classic from Van Damme, truly one of the most gifted Austrian actors with a double-barrelled surname and the initials J-C. V-D. ever. He is backed up by a superb supporting cast of talented thespians who wring the audience through a whole array of emotions as they grunt, swear, wear stupid costumes and kick each other in the face repeatedly.

Since the first three Bat-movies were so creative and entertaining, law of film averages would suggest part 4 would suffer a definite drop in quality. Ther first 3 are all completely different to each other. Batman & Robin is quite literally a scene-for-scene rehash of Batman Forever (watch it it if you don't believe me)but with all the characters except Robin being as silly as possible. And the fight scenes are absolutely appalling. Still, atleast we do have three incredible Batflicks to enjoy until Batman 5.

Se7en is easily one of the best psychological thrillers ever made. The only probelm being, like in David Fincher's Alien 3, that there isn't enough excitement for a thriller. The climax is excellent though - I won't spoil it for you, but when Sommersset says over his walkie-talkie: "Doe has the upperhand", it kicks off one of the most original and brave finales to any film for a long, long time. As to the issue of which is better, this or The Silence of the Lambs, I can only point to the fact that Lambs isn't the sort of film the Oscar board likes at all, and it was still awarded the five main Oscars. Se7en wasn't.

And please, if you are going to comment on Se7en yourself, DON'T GIVE AWAY WHO THE KILLER IS! Don't spoil it for those who haven't seen it.

Kickboxer is a hauntingly beautiful portrayal of brotherly love, expressed through the ballet of kicking people as hard as you can. Watch as Jean Claude Van-Damme's brother is ruthlessly and evily almost kicked to death, and how JC himself heroically almost kicks the culprit to death. Van Damme deserved an Oscar for the way he portrayed his grief and anger through one blank facial expression. People say Hollywood treats it's audience like idiots, but they delivered a wonderful film here for people who want to see other people being KICKED REALLY, REALLY HARD.

While not as good as Spider-Man Strikes Back (1978), this is amusing stuff, with some extremely cool fight scenes and painful sound effects. Nicolas Hammond finally gets a decent(ish) haircut, and he goes to Japan to battle a couple of low-rent kung fu types. the theme tune is great, and Spidey himself is ridiculously funky. Go on, watch it - you know you want to!

I simply cannot believe how completely and utterly awful this film is. It really, really is terrible. It's the worst film ever made (although Jean-Claude Van Damme has made a lot of films that come close). It's obvious what happened - a cash-in on the official Connery series was to be made, and the producers knew they couldn't match the real films, so they made it a surreal farce with as many past-it guest stars as possible. But who ever directed it has obviously never seen a Bond movie, because this is nothing like it whatsoever. Truly, unremmittingly dire, appaling, ridiculously awful, 100% lame, an utter turkey, lousyness in spades...

If you listened to this with your eyes closed you'd think,'Why is Bruce Willis talking in a woman's voice?'', before realising it's not Die Hard 4, but The Long Kiss Goodnight. Yes, it's yet another 'action' film that is actually a load of people being shot by the so-called 'heroes'. But what makes this notable is that it's Geena Davis here slaughtering the bad guys and muttering tough quips, like the oh-so-feminist 'suck my d**k!'. when the bad guys are after her.

Directior Renny Harlin, and presumably Davis herself think women can only appear tough if they are mean, swear constantly and try and be men. But was Ripley from Aliens like that? No sir. Although other reviews here say there is a lot of action, there really isn't until the end - this is an action thriller rather that just an action movie. The stuff at the climax - fist fights, helicopters, mine shafts, loads of baddies and the biggest explosion you've ever seen (really) are worth hangin' around for. Oh, and Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious.

Desperado has almost no plot, very little characterisation and it isn't very exciting. Like Batman & Robin. However, unlike Batman & Robin, it's very entertaining, almost painfully stylish and incredibly cool. Banderas just is El Mariachi - I'm gonna have that haircut, I think - Steve Buscemi is very, very funny for as long as he survives, and the latin Winona Ryder Salma Hayek provides the eye candy. Unfortunetly, the action scenes are actually almost all blazing gun battles (a shame for those who wanted to see stunts on horse back, Banderas thrown into a pit to do bull fighting, etc) with hordes of bad guys getting slaughtered, but at least El Mariachi knows what he is doing is wrong, and stops doing it. He's nice to everyone else, and even teaches a kid to play the guitar. So, Desperado is basically an entertaining adventure with bullets flying everywhere and a less than serious tone most of the time - some of this is really funny. However, when Banderas and Hayek go to the bad guys base, don't expect it to be the final explosive shoot-out, because it ain't.

Like all Schumacher movies, this is seriously flawed. It's quite interesting, and the acting is universally good, but it's a strictly by-the-numbers legal thriller with the twist that the innocent on the run, as in all Grisham films, is a kid (very well played though). Tommy Lee Jones has a large cameo rather than a leading role, playing his Fugitive role of a US Marshal who laughs at just about everything. If it's on TV you might want to watch it, but don't rent it. The Pelican Brief is much better.

Although Harrison Ford gets chased, punched and shot at in nearly every movie he's in, it's odd here because you're so used to him turning round and decking all the bad guys, and he doesn't here. Instead, he gets mixed up in a large bunch of political intrigue, involving terrorists, a last-gasp helicopter escape and of course loads of guns...it's an acceptable thriller, but with an immature 'even the President is corrupt' theme, and Ford is even more straight faced than ever.

People criticise this movie more than every other Bond (except Licence To Kill), but it's great. An old man who can barely stand up romancing a girl 1/8th of his age and decking all the machine gun totting bad guys is the charm of the movie. Mayday is rubbish, and Bond only sleeps with her to be PC, but it's good stuff. Purists who take the series too seriously won't like it, but they can stick to watching You Only Live Twice over and over and over again. Oh, and the Golden Gate bridge climax is great.

Well, Dr. No is the worst Bond film. Just 'cos it was the original, doesn't mean it is the best. That's just what stupid purists may say. However, without it we wouldn't have classics like Goldfinger, Tommorrow Never Dies and The Spy Who Loved Me, so show a bit of gratitude you young punks.

Wing Commander, let me see now: made by 20th Century Fox a few months before Star Wars came out. An adaption of a computer game that Star Wars geeks play, featuring none other than Mark 'Luke Skywalker' Hamill. Very Star Wars-ish. Surely it wasn't released just to cash in on pre-Star Wars fever by enticing all those geeks who couldn't wait for The Phantom Menace? Well, actually yeah. It's garbage.

A classic Bond movie - great Bond in Brosnan (although slightly too nice and not dangerous enough), great action, great plot (although it's almost identical to that of The Spy Who Loved Me), great bad guy, great sets, great car, great jokes, great name! It's not perfect though. Michelle Yeoh is miscast as Wai Ling - Bond girls are supposed to be extremely attractive - and she isn't very convincing either. Brosnan is a little too bland as Bond, and he hasn't got that awesome laid-back self-confidence that made Connery and Moore so good.

Also, we see 007 using a machine gun, which he really shouldn't, a machine gun is too bulky and clumsy for Bond.The obviously I-want-to-be-John-Woo style guns and martial arts violence has no place in a Bond movie. And the title theme by Sheryl Crow is lame. But it's still easily one of the best Bond movies. And it's got Teri Hatcher in it.

Mission: Impossible was the second most successful movie of 1996. Although it beat the moderate tornado flick Twister, it lost out to the special-effects display pretending to be a film Independence Day. It should easily have come first. Impossible is one of the most complicated summer movies for a long time, and a lot of people didn't understand it. Even I didn't first time - but I still enjoyed it immensely even though I sat in the cinema wondering exactly what was going on. Director De Palma is far more talented than typical blockbuster directors (i.e. Roland Emmerich) and it shows. The movie has a very mysterious start in the fog-shrouded streets of Prague, and goes on getting more and more tense and exiting until the incredibly cool final climax - and the bit when Cruise leaps onto the helicopter and the music starts- woah...

De Palma is a Hitchcock fan and you can certainly tell by this movie, using Hitchcock's favourite theme of a wrongly-accused man on the run. And it's far more entertaining than any of Alf's movies.

Thunderball is moderately entertaining, although it's so slow paced compared to the latest Bond movies today's youngsters will find it dull. All the usual elements are there, but toned down a bit. The climactic battle is just Bond, the bad guy and two thugs punching each other. The underwater battles are too complicated, and as many directors have pointed out, too slow. And, although people didn't know at the time, the sharks used don't attack people anyway. Still, it's better than Dr. No, From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the truly awful You Only Live Twice. Domino is a babe and Connery is pretty damn cool. See it, certainly, but don't buy it.