pzazz_hij

Before I address the question on everyones mind regarding the Oscar that DiCaprio craves I have to talk about the on form director, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, and his latest masterpiece. Last year he swept up completely with 3 personal nominations and 3 wins for Birdman and rightfully so. This year he is up for another 2 and if he was to win them both he would be only the 2nd person to win back to back Best Picture awards (The first was David O. Selznick in 1939 & '40) and the 3rd to win Best Director back to back (John Ford 1940 & '41 and Joseph L. Mankiewicz 1949 & '50). He would however be the very first to do both... But could it happen!?

Well, firstly I have to say that any film that is able to put you in amongst the action as fluidly and emotionally as is exampled in the opening scene here is fully worthy of a best picture, the best film that I have seen do it was Children of Men in 2006; rather unsurprisingly a film by a friend of Iñárritu Mr Alfonso Cuaron and also the same man in charge of the cameras Emmanuel Lubezki (The second man to win best Cinematography back to back (He could win a 3rd) along side John Toll). Of course, doing it once in the film really isn't good enough but the fact that it is done more or less constantly throughout the film is exceptional in itself. The opening scene I mentioned is a surprise attack by the Indians on our protagonist and his party, which travels like its one take and has you jolting at every bullet and arrow that hits home. A fully deserved nomination for the above mentioned Cinematographer. But the stand out point for me in this scene was how brilliantly the sound accompanied the visuals and thats not the Score, its the sound effects that feel as though they are happening around you. Brilliant! The minimalistic score is used nicely to overpower the end of the scene and carry us into the next one. All of these elements are under the supervision of the director who I will now say has to make all of this seem seamless and he truly does so. With that in mind the Oscar could indeed be his (But i haven't seen all the other nominees yet).

As soon as this scene was over I knew that I was in for a mesmerising experience similar to what I had with Birdman. Not that they are similar. In fact these films are in many ways mirror opposites. Where Birdman was fast, expressive and imaginative, this is patient, quiet and real. The scene that this film will be remembered for is the Grizzly Bear attack and it really is a shocking and very realistic watch as it happens, seemingly, in 1 take and goes on for at least 5 minutes. The fact that you are sat there at this point almost able to feel the pain he is in is something that must be seen to be believed. The story that follows is just about the mother of all revenge stories, as a true western should be, but also a survival film unlike any seen before it.

Tom Hardy, once again playing the villain can proudly take his Oscar nomination to further springboard his already high flying career; Will he win? Maybe! He's had a fantastic year though, starring in 2 films in the best picture category playing the hero in one and the villain in the other shows his brilliance.

Now... Leonardo DiCaprio... Will he win the Oscar this time? I honestly feel, just my opinion, that the argument suggesting that he should have won one by now is unreasonable because he had been up against some very formidable opposition over the years all of which were worthy winners that he simply wasn't able to outshine. The only one I feel he should have won for was Blood Diamond but was beaten by Forest Whitaker in a career defining performance. The same with Jamie Foxx as Ray. His other performances, albeit very good, weren't ground breaking or really in any films that merit the kind of Oscar best picture winners with weighty subject matter. But also he is the grounded actor in the room which allows for actors around him to experiment and test the water because they know Leo is there as the anchor. The other thing is that if he had have won previously would he have changed the kind of films that he makes? its not an unreasonable thought.

However, this time he has a very physical performance that is given a silence and demands a visceral understanding but also he and all the actors are almost always right in the cameras face... I mean that very literally. There are a few times when Leo's heavy breathing causes condensation on the lens and it never spoils the effect. In fact it makes you realise that the camera was literally a few inches away from him whilst he's trying to perform and given that most of us find that terrifying, for him to achieve this level of performance with that kind of distraction deserves every kind of credit that can be bestowed. His main competition this year is Michael Fassbender for Steve Jobs, 2 very different performances and 2 contrasting acting styles but in my honest opinion DiCaprio will not walk away from the Oscars disappointed this year. Its his to win.

As for the film... Its a masterpiece. Excellent and unforgettable.

Did I really just watch a Dinosaur Western?!

Its probably not what would normally come to mind when I say that - Dinosaur with a gun on his hip looking for revenge and fighting off Indians; No, nothing like that. However, I kid you not that thematically it fits the bill.

Before I dive into a full analysis let me say that I really, really enjoyed this film, Loved it in fact, despite a few issues but the major thing to mention is that I don't believe that its suitable for children. It is very intense and isn't sugarcoated in its adult themes and yet I can't help at respect it that little bit more for it because I remember watching Disney films when I was young and found some of them to be incredibly scary (Hunchback of Notre Dame for example) but they were saved by a strong and educational ending of the good winning, helping this in need, doing the right thing and generally the right kind of life lesson. It being a Pixar film, however, would normally suggest its ability to soften the blow of its adult themes, as was so well done with "Up" and its heartbreaking introduction.

So then, we open with the context in place which is that the meteor that wiped out the Dinosaurs on earth never happened. Millions of years later they still occupy the earth and are intelligent and "resourceful" whilst humans are still evolving. Visually the film is unlike anything I've ever seen, the animation looks so real, in fact I honestly believe that some of it wasn't but I would likely be proved wrong. The scenic shots felt alive and water flowed so realistically, it is groundbreaking animation.

The story, rather appropriately, is as old as the hills and is in no way original but there aren't many westerns out there that are. But even so the simple truth is that a story doesn't have to be original as long as your character is right and you handle your themes with passion and conviction then your story will seem as fresh as anything else and I honestly feel that this was handled with that right kind of passion.

Speaking of character, our protagonist is a young Apatosaurus named Arlo who is fearful of the world around him and accidentally gets swept away down the river whilst trying to frighten off a hungry human critter. Forming an unlikely friendship with said human Arlo takes a dangerous trek to follow the river back home. It is, if nothing else, a coming of age story that teaches our young Dino about friendship and not overcoming fear but simply accepting it. Young Arlo not only hits, but gets physically smacked, by every bump along the way and he is given the cuts and scars to prove it. Even though there are other, villainous, Dinosaurs to contend with on his journey the main antagonist is that of nature itself, which is shown to be as deadly as it is beautiful. Looks can indeed be deceiving, as this film examples many times, but it also fits the territory of the western.

The score as with most Pixar films is simple yet beautiful, half the time I didn't even notice it which means that they got it right and accompanies the film incredibly. I would also defend the argument that there isn't enough variety of Dinosaurs in it because, as was the wild west, the world is so vast and we explore only a small part of it. There is a drug reference in there which is completely misfired and doesn't need to be included, even though it was for comic effect.

Here's what I'm going to get some stick for... This latest effort from Pixar is better than "Inside Out"! Where Inside Out is strong and deals very well with the emotional complexities of childhood, it also lacks excitement and tries to be over creative with its explanation. This is a strong mix of fun, danger and important lessons that is brave enough to not hold back any punches.

A very fine film that will proudly be added to my Blu-Ray collection as soon a possible.

I feel it unnecessary to comment on the plot of this one because i think that EVERYONE by now knows the Spider-Man story. This "version", however, asks the simple question, 'Do you know Peter Parker?!'

Without comparing too much to the Sam Raimi films (which, for the record, I absolutely love) they had no interest in the true origin of Peter Parker, it was all about who and what Spider- Man is to the people and himself. That proved not to be a bad thing and certainly Sam Raimi's efforts to create Spidey for the big screen went down as a major success all round.

In order to reboot something so well loved and so soon after it was a hit you cannot do the same thing again, there simply isn't any point! This film needed to be different, it needed a fresh side of the story and a reworked main character... They absolutely did that!!

The difference here is that Spider-Man is only one layer of something much bigger. Peter Parker IS Spider-Man and its about him and his reason to do what he does and the responsibility in doing so. Certainly one downside is that this theme was explored quite extensively before, but this is managed to work as a fresh and not overused theme.

As for the new Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield, there really isn't many criticisms that you can make towards him. He really does do a great job in exploring the more scientific mind of both the nerd behind the mask and the web head himself. Even better than that he captures the emotion of a troubled teenager. He has a gift that he wants to use for revenge but instead decided to use it for good, this is perfectly played out in the scene in the car park, the way he speaks to the cops to defend himself is perfectly believable and again captures his teenage ignorance to the world he has thrown himself into. This is very nicely shown through a well written scene in which spidey saves a young boy... I think you will agree when you see it.

Now, I can't go without mentioning the villain. The Lizard is quite fantastically realised by Rhys Ifans, or rather Dr Connors is excellently played by him. Many will argue that Lizard is too heavily CGI, they may be right, but it never feels overdone and his overall detail is very true to its origins. The best thing about Connors is that he toys quite brilliantly with the ideal of a mad scientist without actually surrendering to the label. His brilliant mind becomes corrupt by what he accidentally turns into and ultimately this sets up a very nice showdown.

Clear to say that I really enjoyed this new take on the Spider-Man story and i do believe that it is set perfectly for another that would likely be even better and could surpass even that of Spider-Man 2. The Amazing Spider-Man is different. Thats not a bad thing. Give it a chance to show you why!!

P.S Stay for the end credits ;)

A man sits in a diner at 'The Booth at the End'. He is visited by people who want something. He creates the opportunity for them upon them taking on the task he sets them. They each return to him to discuss their progress. "That's the Deal"!

The show is filmed entirely in one location and the episodes last less than 4 minutes each. Yet every time an episode ends it feels like a cliff hanger. The impressive thing may be in how the script is laid out and how tightly it is written. 'The Man' whether he's in control of the conversation or not is interested in the finer details and we therefore get into the real mindset of the characters and are taken to a level that we may never of thought about asking ourselves. The really impressive thing is that each episode is never shot the same way twice, its not that they don't use the same camera angle in different episodes, its more about the style and how each new piece of the puzzle comes to affect the way you look at the show as a whole.

To fully understand the genius of the show I can only recommend that you watch it. It needs patience and an open mind to start with. If you are willing to give it that, then be prepared to be intrigued!

Rango... yes it is a play on the classic Western Django. Thats why its so interesting!

I had eagerly awaited the arrival of Rango, not only as a western fan but also as an admirer of Gore Verbinski; and the inclusion of Johnny Depp has yet to be a bad thing. The trailers had almost completely left out any kind of plot hint, which i now realise was a very good decision.

So, the story is that a chameleon, with acting ambitions, longs for social interaction outside of his lonely environment. His wishes are granted when he stumbles into the western town of 'Dirt' and takes over the vacant role of Sheriff. When he discovers the towns water supply is almost run dry he searches for answers along side the townsfolk, all of whom believe Rango to be their Saviour.

If you have seen the trailer you will have noticed the singing mariachi owls, who tunefully break down the forth wall to open the film. Not too dissimilar to the rooster in Disney's classic Robin Hood they help guide the story along and in doing so also keep you guessing. Which was a real bonus for me in terms of animated films as they do tend to get predictable, despite how well they are told.

Rango himself upon first meet is absolutely NOT a hero. Even more interesting though is that his name is not Rango. In fact we have no clue as to what his name is... no doubt an obvious reference to the classic Spaghetti Westerns to which its inspired by and its Eastwood lead 'Man with No Name' character. But Rango, despite his lack of name, knows what he wants and Verbinski very clearly makes sure the audience knows too... He wants the chance to be a hero and to one have a story to tell. Let the narrative unfold...

The real winner here is the scenery, its animated alright but i was struggling to believe that at various points in the film. The scene in the saloon towards the beginning is fantastically lit and the final showdown is shot better than a lot of the classics. I'm not kidding! In fact I would happily pay to see it again just to look at those shots again because they capture the tension so well.

Although the real audience is those who love the classic west, Verbinski is able to make it accessible to a vast number. The younger audiences will definitely appreciate Depp's eccentric character as well as the very well timed humour, both visually and verbally. The more mature audiences will appreciate the latter a lot more so. The story is excellent! It unravels perfectly and its runtime passes by almost without effort.

Rango is western... make no mistake. But i assure you one thing should you decide to give it a chance, its what it needs to be! Its entertaining, action-packed, funny and sincere. Above all else, it has what makes a great film, alongside the great protagonist is a great antagonist! Rattlesnake Jake is scary... he's great with his words and deadly with his gun and he helps build to a great and tense final showdown!

Rango gets 10/10 from me!

The first Transformers movie, despite its few problems, managed to do what everyone wanted it to do... Entertain! The original transformers, comics or TV show, very rarely ventured into a great story or even exceptional originality. But what made it work was its simplicity and entertainment value. Two opposing sides of an alien race that can each transform into various vehicles (or weapons, in the case of Megatron) and battle it out over planet earth, whether they were fighting for the Autobot matrix or energon the concept was the same. And, one of the best things about the impact of the original movie was how Optimus Prime ended it with 'a lot like us humans are more than meets the eye', which gives the film and gave the cartoon depth.

Much like the cartoon, the first film took that concept and introduced these Transformers (both Autobots and Deceptacons) as their own characters and gave them a bit of space to develop. The story was the simplest and correct one, both sides wanted the allspark and a young human is caught in the middle. Let the action do the rest...

This time, the Autobots and the military have joined forces to make a special unit to hunt and destroy the Deceptacons on earth. Optimus Prime informs the military chiefs that he believes the Deceptacons are looking for something, which is why they are still on Earth. Meanwhile, Sam is about to depart for college and discovers that he has a small shard of the allspark. Once the Deceptacons discover this and the location of Megatron they set about retrieving the shard and the secret it held which was accidentally unlocked by Sam.

So, the plot is basically the same as the original, the young boy has the key to total destruction of earth and the only ones in the way of the Deceptacons and him are the Autobots.

This is not a problem! The problem is the rest of the story, which i got lost in quite prominently, i didn't know who i was meant to be following or why and even when i was sure the whole scene seemed to move to a completely new area without any acknowledgement of it.

The development of the overall story needs to be kept in check, in this case the story lies with its human stars who don't have enough of a formal interaction with the Transformers to develop. Also, the new Autobots and Deceptacons come in from nowhere and we are supposed to know which side they are on. The thing is we want to know about these transformers, we enjoyed learning about them in the first one it just didn't happen enough, here it doesn't happen at all and it is a huge problem. The fans of the Transformers will know who's who but for a basic audience they have no idea who or what is going on. The new Autobots are never introduced, they are simply there, we don't even know what there names are by the end of the film. I know of Arcee, who was a rather popular member after her debut in the Transformers animated movie, and the twins, who actually manage to get some screen time to themselves, but we want to know a bit more of them.

As for the Deceptacons, its more or less the same thing. We are subtly introduced to the Deceptacon Hound, which is actually quite nice, but its first scene leads to nowhere and leaves a huge loose end in the story. The character of The Fallen is the only real introduction we get, which at least is one of the tings that works in this film. The resurrection of Megatron kinda speaks for itself and does work.

It goes without saying that the special effects are amazing! If there is any reason that people should see this film it is the scope of the action and how well the special effects make it happen. The action itself is too simple, which i was so surprised at considering its a Michael Bay film. Nothing really happens for long enough, the best action scene is a very nicely filmed battle in a forest which is easily the most exciting part of the film. The rest is not looked at closely enough and contains too much fast cut editing between military commanders giving orders and not what we paid to see... Autobots vs Deceptacons! The film is supposed to be about the Transformers, not the humans who are stood in between (or around) the Transformers. The humans take up too much screen time and don't let the robots have any.

The film is much darker and more focused on the evil force of the Deceptacons, not in the best way however. The action scenes are more intense, i will give it that, but when it meets with an unbalanced story to action ratio the problems start to arise. The very little story thats there is attempted to be thickened when its not necessary, if it was kept simple and all the loose ends were tied we would have had much more fun from this film, but as it is we don't get anything that is worth the hype.

Better luck with the next one Mr. Bay...

A sequel to Crank? That was my reaction when i first heard about it! At least Neveldine/Taylor were behind the wheel again, and whether we would ultimately be able to believe it or not Jason Statham returns. But when i found out the plot i was rather excited, especially considering that i gave the original crank 10/10, mostly for originality and quality entertainment value. The main problem, of course, is that the plot is basically the same, except instead of adrenaline he needs electricity.

I'm not going to go into the greater details of reviewing this film because to be honest i don't think there is any need to, so i will just stick to the main points.

The plot (if you can call it that) is that the Triads pick up Chev more or less as soon as the original ends, and take him with the intention of reviving him so they can steal his, apparently, indestructible heart. Replaced with a battery powered ticker, Chev escapes his surgical bed with the intention of getting his heart back and finding out the ones responsible my any means possible. However, when the battery pack gets damaged and the internal battery takes over Chev has to acquire regular electronic charges to keep it going.

There certainly are a few surprises along the way and lots more quality entertainment to be enjoyed. This film is definitely a lot funnier than the original, even if they do repeat some of the same gags and play up to them more comically, it seems to work.

There are plenty of new and familiar faces thrown in to an already eccentric and unique character list (which was easily one of the best things about the original) and a lot more saucy ones, to put it nicely.

The bad things are that the action doesn't last long enough. There is plenty of it but its in much smaller segments than before. It also never really does anything that the original didn't do. Its much less graphic and has very few surprises in store.

There are plenty of reasons why this sequel is worth looking at and the shades of originality that are given to us will definitely catch you off guard. In fact i think its impossible not to laugh on numerous occasions.

If you are expecting Crank: High Voltage to be in any way a different experience from the first, think again. Although, its much faster and is full of craziness, some of which works better that others. But i absolutely loved it and look forward to seeing it again when its released on DVD.

I first saw this film at my local cinema back when it was first released in 2002. I brought it on DVD and have seen it many times since. I recently mentioned it in an essay i wrote, regarding the history and development of the Western genre, and as soon as i did i found myself looking at it in a whole new way. The reason i mentioned this film in my essay was because i was discussing the influence of westerns on contemporary films and argued that the westerns are slowly becoming popular again. Whether or not they will has yet to be seen for certain but it is films like this which prove my point.

The film centres around a wild stallion which grows up to become the leader of its herd. One day curiosity leads him to examine the camp of a group of cowboys who capture him and take him to be tamed as a military horse. Refusing to be broken he crosses paths with an imprisoned Indian boy who helps him to escape. Spirit is then taken on a journey across the western frontier, along the way discovering the Indian world and meeting a female mustang. Forced to run for his life, the life of his new Indian friend and to keep his homeland safe, Spirit takes on impossible odds to once again run free.

First time directors Lorna Cook and Kelly Asbury had all of the right ingredients and made them into a beautiful film. However, they failed to notice that they had the potential to make something amazing.

Firstly, the film is great as it is. On the surface it works well for its intended audience and for those expecting a bit more it has something original. The main reason for this is that the animals in the film don't talk. Matt Damon voices the narration from Spirits point of view at strategic moments in the film, but Spirit the horse never speaks. All of his emotions are shown through music and his themed expressions. Mostly, however, it is the soundtrack which creates the great atmosphere. Bryan Adams provides the key songs to reflect on the story of the film, but Hans Zimmer provides an amazing score which works equally well, if not better. Either way, both do an excellent job, all of the music is amazing and can be listened to over and over many times.

The story is good, its not great, but it works and covers the ground that it needs to. John Fusco, whose back catalogue reads very plainly as a western orientated writer, develops the script well and knows where he wants the film to go. However, this is where the films problem begins and is the reason that the film is not better. Its themes aren't varied enough. The themes of freedom, love and the true hero of the west are the strongest ones but the one which is only kept at one level is that of the unbridled west. Basically, Spirit is so called because he is supposed to be an embodiment of the spirit of the western film, the Wild West in general as well but the western in film is clearer. The idea being that the countless number of times people have killed the western as a genre and successfully argued that the western is dead are a dime a dozen, but the 'Spirit' of the western a genre can never be killed, it will always live on and Spirit's relentless attitude is reflective of that. It is especially reflective during the scene with the train, as Spirit has ultimately decided to give in and admit defeat but as soon as he sees that classic western shot of the landscape he realises that he must fight on. In reality this happened recently, in the 80s the western was almost completely out of production but in the early 90s, with films such as Clint Eastwoods 'Unforgiven,' which showed the real west in a whole new way. Since then westerns have been produced more prominently.

The western still lives on and films like Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron are the reason why! The reason Spirit deserves a lot more credit than it got is that it brought the west to a new audience and in a new way. The horses are an essential part of the western (in fact i doubt that there is a western that doesn't feature them). The reason, if any, that the westerns died out is because it exhausted itself and audiences got bored of the same old thing. What makes Spirit different from usual westerns is that it has a new story, from a new perspective and for a new audience, which if the western is to come back, is what it needs to do.

All of the right archetypes are featured in this film, we have the mythical lone hero vs the encroachment of civilisation, the cowboys, the Indians, the romance, the action and adventure set against the backdrop of the unchanging background. The main difference is obviously that of the cowboy being the villainous entity of the film, destroying the beauty of the real west with modern civilisation. Which isn't wrong! The horses and the Indians were there first, but the Cowboys came and took them over, this is the difference between that of the mythical heroic cowboy and that of the real one. Which is what Spirit successfully captures.

There is so much more i could talk about, but i won't. I will simply end by saying that this essential animated western is worth watching. It gives the classic west a modern make over that is often tried but rarely works. Every time i watch this film i am captured and am blown away by the real beauty of the wild west.

This is one of those films where you know you will be leaving your brain behind and just enjoy whats happening, but i honestly never thought i would enjoy it so much.

There is a lot to be thankful for with this film, the main one being that due to the huge cult buzz on the internet it got extra footage with more of everything in it, more laughs, more terror, more sex related moments and yes, more snakes.

Quite easily, in my book, this film is the most entertaining and fun thrill ride of the year and is instantly a cult legend. It surpasses all expectations in action horror and comedy, you'll love it so don't waste time see it.

I was really looking forward to this after seeing director Alexandre Aja's 'Switchblade Romance' (or 'High Tension' as it is also called) last year, which was one of the best horror films i've seen, so if he did half as good a job here then it would still be worth seeing.

Being a big fan of horror i stand by the principle that there isn't a horror film out there thats too scary. I still believe it but i fail to see how they can get much more scary than this.

It starts off quite slow, which will be obvious to everyone, but this allows us the rare interaction we want with the characters that we grow to like. The victims are not stupid teens or just any random people just so they can be horror victims. They are a "normal" down to earth, stereotypical family that we care about, which does work well.

Much like 'Wrong Turn' the villains also have their own personalities and qualities that we , sort of, reflect on, and again it works.

There is not much originality in this film as far as the gore and violence goes but when it hits you, it hits you and you know it. There is lots of blood and graphic gore continuously through the second half of the film and, by this point, the tension has been built up really well ready for the big scares.

One thing that really did surprise me was that the ending had a really emotional touch, that i wont say any more on but i found it a really good and clever idea that did work, at least for me anyway.

Ultimately i really enjoyed it, in fact i thought it was petrifying stuff that i don't recommend you see, i insist you see. Brilliant Horror.

I went to see going scared knowing relatively nothing about it, although i knew that Paul Walker was the star and Cameron Bright was supporting him i hadn't seen any trailers or heard any reviews so as far as plot or genre was concerned i had no clue. I assumed it was a horror film with the title 'Running Scared' but i was obviously wrong.

Paul Walker plays Joey a man involved with the mob who is given the order to dispose of two guns that were used in a mob killings involving some dirty cops. Instead of throwing them in the river he hides them in his basement where they are found by his 10 year old son, Nicky (Alex Neuberger), and his best friend Oleg (Cameron Bright). Uknown to Nicky Oleg has taken the gun that was used in the mob hit. When Joey is having dinner with his family a bullet comes through his window from the neighbouring house, Oleg's house, and unfortunately for him Oleg then runs away taking the gun with him. Now that the gun is on the street Joey must find Oleg before it falls into the wrong hands and before his boss finds out that he didn't get rid of a gun that directly links him to the death of three cops.

Writer and director Wayne Kramer (The Cooler and Mindhunters) dives into the world of crime and graphic violence with one of the top and most nerve-shredding action thrillers in ages. He uses various filming techniques which originate from some of the early westerns as well as new and very stylish cinematics which build the tension up even more. I personally enjoyed the scene in which we see the bullet coming through the window and he rewinds the shot so we see where the bullet came from and it happens a few times throughout the scene and the film so you'll see what i mean.

The story takes the characters into various situations that unravel into a very surprising but very intriguing deeper meaning. I don't want to give a specific example because i don't want to spoil any surprises and trust me its a good surprise.

This is one of them films that keeps on delivering, its a real twitching, hardcore and violent movie that has so much going for it. I was really on the edge of my seat with shock.

As a said, its highly original in so many ways and as i said i don't want to spoil anything so i won't point out a specific one because i find its best to be totally unaware of what coming.

I give this film an 8 out of 10 because its brutally entertaining from start to finish but the story even though it explores a lot of areas that really intrigued me it doesn't properly satisfy you at the end despite everything being there and it all making sense its in between being beaten up and unclear screaming across a room so a bit difficult to distinguish facts. Non the less i hope you enjoy it as much as i did, its a real hard-hitting treat.

Straight away i've compared this film to Lord of the Rings which to be honest i probably shouldn't have done but there is no doubt about it that there are so many similarities between The Lion, the Witch and the wardrobe and Peter Jackson's Masterpiece trilogy that it would have been acknowledged eventually. A war raging in a world of magic and good vs evil that is inspired by a timeless novel, and filmed in New Zealand by a native director. It's too obvious for anyone not to compare. However, The Chronicles of Narnia should be given its own space in the world of cinema that will allow it to stand up against such a huge movie franchise such as Lord of the Rings because, put quite simply, its the most enchanting motion picture in years.

The story follows four siblings in their journey through a magical wardrobe and into the world of Narnia. Whilst there they learn of their destiny to lead an army against the evil White Witch who has kept Narnia in an endless Winter for 100 years. With guidance from the Lion messiah, Aslan, the four young heroes must find the strength to overcome the odds in the great battle of good vs evil.

Director Andrew Adamson has had great cinema success with his beloved Dreamworks creation of Shrek. But, this being first time behind a feature film, and a really big one at that, he had his work cut out for him immensely. Luckily he was clearly up for the challenge because with this spellbinding family epic Andrew Adamson has done the job perfectly. He made it so much better than i imagined it would be and the film genuinely has something for absolutely everybody's taste. As far as i'm concerned Adamson has himself a really good chance at an Academy Award because he has truly met the standard head on.

Visually, the film matches that of Harry Potter and all the special effect are so stunning and realistic that it will draw you into the magic even more.

The performances are excellent form the four leading youngsters and Tilda Swinton shows her evil side as the White Witch that could easily be her best spell yet. James McAvoy plays Mr. Tumnus with great emotion and captures the character on stunning form (I specifically felt a need to mention him because i think he's a brilliant actor and i'm an ever growing fan).

Its obvious that they would have had to cut some of it out from the original portrayal in the novel for various reasons. They kept the runtime to 2hrs 20mins and i, for one, am beyond impressed, nothing important was missed and everything was explained better than previous adaptations that i have seen of the novel. It was also good to see a film that didn't seem to last half as long as it did and that you didn't want to finish, the time went by quickly and i loved every single moment.

If you have any doubts about seeing this film for any reason, don't. Its a film for everybody that will capture and hold you until the very end.

From the beloved masterpiece by C.S Lewis another form of masterpiece has been created on the big screen, it is a must see and that is a fact that i must insist you pay attention to.

I know for a fact that Walden Media has optioned all seven of the Narnia books for film development and i really do hope that they make the rest of them because if they are half as good as this on screen then we will have a masterful saga.

If you really want to see a film thats worth yours family's money make it 'The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the wardrobe'. You will not be disappointed.

Jigsaw returns for another series of mind-blowing torture and relentless head games.

This time headed and co-written by Darren Lynn Bousman, as opposed to James Wan from the original who this time has turned to executive producer. Leigh Whannel also returns to script this instalment alongside Bousman.

Given the incredibly high standard that the original set, i think its safe to say that there wasn't many people who were expecting this to be as good as its hugely acclaimed predecessor despite the creators of the original on the production.

However...

Saw 2 is able to stand up to the original and then some. It goes much deeper than the before, its amazingly inventive and it answers the questions you may have had about the original.

It is a lot more graphic and has more intense deadly games that will keep you on the edge of your seat. I found so many things to cringe at in this film and i really could feel my heart pounding throughout the film.

Saw 2 is better than the original even though the ending didn't have the impact that the original did (at least in my opinion) its what happens throughout that makes it one of the best sequels in the history of cinema.

The script is ingenious and the overall result is so much more surprising than you could ever imagine. It will trap you in its twisted plot and send shivers down your spine. There will be shorter fingernails when you leave the cinema, more scared people and oh yes, there will be blood.

Without focusing too much on the original i will say that there is no doubt that 'The Mask of Zorro' was a cracking piece of entertainment that i could watch many times over again. But being a fan of all swashbuckling style adventures similar to the likes of Zorro there was no way that it beat any of the early Hollywood stuff of the genre. Where 'The Mask of Zorro' took the legendary hero to new heights with a new story line, compared to previous Zorro films, that didn't turn out to be bad, plus the special effects and unbelievable acrobatics it was basically modern Hollywood being extravagant with a swashbuckling adventure film.

'The Legend of Zorro', surprise surprise, is no different.

My first thoughts when seeing the trailers was that it would rely on nothing but special effects and that Martin Campbell would try to find any excuse to blow something up. I wasn't too far wrong but i have to say i totally forgot about that after the first action scene in the film and ultimately i gave him credit where it was due as far as quality entertainment goes.

The acrobatics and extreme movement is the first thing that catches your eye and safe to say i don't think its possible that any man could have done some of the stuff we see Zorro do throughout the film. But, to be fair it is a real treat to sit back and watch. It seems that every time we see Zorro in an action scene he finds some excuse to do a forward flip or something similar but like i said it is superb to watch even if a bit too over the top.

The big explosions in the film can also be forgiven in a value for money entertainment sort of way, as the whole part of the villains plot involves an explosive and too be fair the writers came up with a good excuse by which they could execute this feature.

The only real problem i had with 'The Legend of Zorro' was the end scene in which i was not, by any means, accepting the final fight. It was a bit too adventurous and relied purely on the special effect which was a huge shame and did spoil it for me.

'The Legend of Zorro' is crawling with bad points and no doubt there will be others who will exploit every single one but for me Zorro returned for a thrill ride like no other this year and for family action adventures its definitely one to watch.

Set in the year of 1885 Maggie Gilkeson (Cate Blanchett) is a doctor who along with her two daughters, Lilly and Dot and friend Brake Baldwin, happily live on a ranch in New Mexico. Until, one day a ghost from Maggie's past appears who, turns out to be her estranged father, Samuel Jones (Tommy Lee Jones). But Maggie does not wish to see her father after a troubled childhood so she sends him on his way and hopes to get on with her life without him. However, when her eldest daughter Lilly (Evan Rachel Wood) is kidnapped by a rebel group of ex-soldiers led by a witch doctor, Maggie has no choice but to ask her father to help track down the kidnappers and find her daughter.

Full of continuous epic action 'The Missing' is a film that does not show many faults and has everything you want to see in a first rate film, from tension to suspense with loads of great drama, tremendous acting and even witchcraft.

Director Ron Howard does it yet again, creating a superb film which I think he can easily put into his best of list. The only real bad thing about this film is that it goes on a bit too long (which in all fairness couldn't really be helped) but despite that, it grips you and holds on tight both unpredictable and unforgettable with great performances from Tommy Lee Jones, who never ceases to amaze, Cate Blanchett who is as good as ever, Evan Rachel Wood Gives another super performance and I was particularly impressed with young Jenna Boyd.

* * * * * (5 stars)

Comedian Johnny Vegas and co-star of 'The Office' Mackenzie Crook star as Dave and Ferris in this crazy British Comedy.

Dave and Ferris are potato delivery men who consider themselves the sex gods of Birmingham and feel that sex is the solution to their problems, but what they don't realise is that its also the cause of their problems.

After Dave (Vegas) has a fight with his his wife he looks for a "good time" in any shape or form, whilst Ferris (Crook) has various problems with his mother in law and the girl from the local chip shop. And if thats not enough they have to follow the sad lives of two other potato men, Jeremy who is obsessed with an ex-girlfriend and Tolly who has a strange addiction to strawberry jam.

In my opinion Sex Lives of the Potato Men is the funniest pure Britcom in absolutely ages and will no doubt become quite popular. I like it because of the mindless remarks and dumb conversations, they talk about anything and take it to its funniest resolution.

Although its stupid and will most likely be considered offensive to some people (infact, when i went to see it a woman walked out about half way through) the comedy carries the film all the way and you'll find it impossible not to laugh.