markymark70

Prisoners - 9/10 Superb film.

Great story-line, pacing, acting. It has it all. After I finished watching it, I remarked that it was the best film I've seen in a long time. And I've seen a lot.

A simplistic plot summary is this: 2 girls go missing near their homes and a frantic search for them primarily from parent Hugh Jackman and detective Jake Gyllenhaal begins. The raw, rough landscape - the washed out grays and browns in the picture - the cold, the rain: all help to make the atmosphere of the film, one of realism and desperation. There are a few red herrings thrown in here and there as we progress (or so I thought) but ultimately they all somehow connect (however tenuously in places). As I watched the film, some things happened which I could not see how they related to the overall plot - but a second watch helped out a lot in this regard. Some elements of the film were a little strange but the storyteller didn't skimp on content that's for sure. He threw everything at this and although richly populated and seemingly unconnected at times - it all adds up in the end. Barely. But it adds up nonetheless.

So huge credit is due to the storyteller and the director for bringing us something a little different, a little left-field but the most credit must go to the two main actors.

I've never seen Jackman in anything except Wolverine (not even the X-Men series - but just the spin off) and he is what he is in that movie - a mutant wolf-like creature/human. He does pretty well as this - but I must admit I had no idea of his acting chops. Well, here he shows us in spades. He's angry, riled, tired, exhausted, violent, desperate - at times all in the one scene - and portrays it brilliantly. A little OTT with the wild eyes in one or two scenes - but that is being picky. He held that pent-up and at times unleashed anger throughout the film expertly.

But even Jackman was outdone by Gyllenhaal. Now I have seen a lot of this guy's films ever since his breakthrough in Donnie Darko. He is good. Getting better. And has a massive future ahead of him. He can do anything in my opinion, he has it all. Here, he brings a weird edge to detective Loki - with his neck tattoo, his mason ring, his weird haircut, buttoned up shirts and general worldliness. He is a character that without knowing anything about his background or personal life, comes across as a dangerous, slightly unhinged individual with a troubled past, and maybe an even more conflicting future. But for now, he's a cop and a damn good one. Gyllenhaal even gives this guy a tick - with the constant eye-blinking - which simply adds to his mystique. Tremendous, faultless acting by Gyllenhaal makes him a wonder to watch.

Not to mention great turns by a creepy Paul Dano and another misfit David Dastmalchian. Both extremely convincing and off-putting in equal measure. Also, an early outing for Dylan Minnette - now, the excellent Clay Jensen from 13 Reasons Why.

In short - great movie - and without giving away the ending too much - a clincher to finish. A must-see.

3:10 to Yuma is an awful film. Something that I cannot believe the likes of Crowe / Bale / Mangold ever got involved in. I mean - did they even read the script beforehand? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The amount of unbelievable situations this flick throws up is ....how can I say it? Unbelievable!!!!

Here's just a quick flavour of what's wrong in this picture: - Peter Fonda's character gets gut shot at point blank range, carried into town on a horse, operated on by a vet and still leads a posse to track Crowe the very next day. Or it could even have been the same day !! - Crowe is a master criminal- so smart he's robbed the railroad umpteen times but instead of heading to Mexico with his gang he waits around for the Marshall's to capture him - even having a drink with Bale as he waits. - Bale got his foot blown off in the Civil War and hobbles most of the time - yet is able to run and jump in the dramatic conclusion like Usain Bolt. - Crowe is supposed to be a psycho yet runs with Bale trying to avoid his own men from setting him free. He must have had a 1000 chances to run the other way and escape.

I cannot go on as I would literally bust the 1000 word review limit on IMDb just simply pointing out the ridiculous premise of this movie. No wonder Cruise turned it down. He probably thought it was a joke. He was right.

The acting is pretty good - Crowe is quiet and simmering even though he has an unplayable part in my view. His character simply has no logic to him. Bale is brooding and excellent as always - but again, his character makes some decisions that cannot be explained. Idiotic is too kind a word. Foster is eating the scenery as usual - but also good in his over the top way. The direction is OK, cinematography fine. It's just the story line, premise, screenplay that literally makes no sense scene after scene, page after page until the end that has to be watched to be disbelieved. Or better still - don't watch it.

Skip the 3:10 guys and hope there's a better train behind it. 2/10 - Awful.

Where do I start with this one?

Me and Arnie have a strange relationship. I watch his films - love The Terminator / Predator and hate Junior / Twins. But never have I considered him as an 'actor'. Even though his characters can be wildly different - his demeanour and delivery always remains constant. And by constant I mean - 'poor'.

I grew up watching the 1980s action flicks and the rivalry between Arnie, Stallone, Bruce, Van Damme, Seagal etc. but mainly between Stallone and Arnie. Stallone had his critics (still does) but I was much more impressed with him from an acting perspective plus writing plus his characters always had an 'everyman' quality about them. He was vulnerable whereas Arnie was almost untouchable. Plus Stallone had Oscar's behind him (and I don't mean the film Oscar).

Arnie never needed to really act before, so when I started to watch Maggie - I was completely blown away. Here is a film that is not his usual tawdry comedy or over the top tough guy macho man action film. Even though this is loosely a Zombie film - it's not really. It's more like a character study of a father's love for his daughter. Very understated, underplayed and maybe a tad arty at times - but excellent work all round.

Arnie has used muscles here that he never used before - acting muscles - and he does it fantastically well. The anguish and pain etched on his aging face and captured beautifully by the camera. The washed out colours used here in this flick perfectly reflects the mood of growing desperation to save his daughter from something she cannot be saved from.

A special mention must also go to Abigail Breslin. What an actress she is. If she doesn't garnish a Best Actress Oscar in the future than I'll eat my left shoe. Truly breath-taking talent. Also kudos to first time writer - John Scott 3 and director Henry Hobson. Guys - the world is your oyster now.

Maggie is to Arnie as Copland was to Stallone. A chance to break out and actually act in a movie. Both of them took the opportunity with both hands.

Well done - 8/10.

I had never heard of this film before I stumbled across it one evening. I am a big fan of Christopher Walken and noticed that Helen Mirren was in it too. Rupert Everett and Natasha Richardson also star - so I assumed (wrongly) this would be worth watching.

It's not.

Set in Venice, we see a strained relationship between Everett and Richardson as a holidaying couple. They meet Walken one evening as they were looking for a bar, they have some drinks, Walken invites them to stay at his house and there they meet Mirren. I could elaborate more and even give the ending away (an ending that could not come soon enough) but even that would be a waste of time.

I cannot even explain the plot because it makes no sense. A bit like the dialogue too. Everett spends the whole time either walking (semi-bounding if you ask me - where did he learn to walk like that?) around with one hand in his pocket looking totally bored with everything or talking cack-handed, pompous rubbish. Richardson looks like she'd rather suck on a bag of lemons than be in this film and as for Mirren and Walken - why they ever signed up at all is beyond me. The dialogue is so bad - it has to be heard to be believed. One such example is Everett asks why Walken was secretly taking pictures of him before they met. Walken answers: "See that Barber Shop. My grandfather went to that Barber shop. My father went to that barber shop. I go to that barber shop." Then he turns to look at an island in the distance and says "See over there? That's Cemetery Island." Does a short snort and walks off screen - scene over. What????

This is a waste of time, energy, acting talent, anything else you want to throw in. Not worth watching even if you were given a free giant Pizza and a pint of Peroni to add to the Italian ambiance.

I would have given this film 0/10 if there was an option. Unfortunately, there wasn't. 1/10. Avoid like the plague.

While delivering a vehicle from Chicago to California, young Jim Halsey (C Thomas Howell) picks up hitch-hiker John Ryder (Rutger Hauer).

Uh-oh.

A sadistic psycho on a motiveless murder spree, Ryder challenges Jim to stop him, thereby kick-starting an increasingly violent game of cat and mouse down dusty Texan highways. Jim finds an ally in waitress Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh), but the police are convinced that Jim is the maniac and set off in hot pursuit. As Ryder continues to kill, maim and torture at will, the wholesome teen must leave his innocence burnt and bloodied by the roadside as he tries to clear his name and defeat his seemingly indestructible nemesis.

This film is a tremendous thriller with Hauer and Howell in top form. Hauer's ability to appear out of nowhere and seemingly get himself out of any tight spot without detection adds to the tone of the movie. As I watched it I thought for the first hour or so that John Ryder was a flip-side of Jim Halsey's character - i.e. they were the same person.

Every time Ryder appeared on screen it seemed that either (a) anyone who saw him died - bar Halsey of course or (b) nobody saw him only Halsey. Yet right at the end of the movie Ryder is captured by the police so he is indeed a real person. A very evil real person.

The movie doesn't work a super realistic level. For instance Ryder appears in places where it seems impossible - but I suspect the makers didn't want the film to be a step-by-step real narrative. The joy is letting yourself go with the flow on this one and enjoy the 'relationship' between Ryder and Halsey. Something that was completely missed by the Sean Bean remake.

The one question that has to be asked after this film is this : whatever happened to C. Thomas Howell? The man was on top form with The Outsiders, Soul Man and The Hitcher in the early eighties where the likes of Tom Cruise was only in bit parts (check out The Outsiders). He was the top prospect at super-stardom back then but has faded away to b-movies. Come on C - let's get back to the good stuff.

A blink-and-you'll-miss-him appearance in this year's The Amazing Spider-Man is a start as well as his role in Southland as Dewey - but there's so much more to come from this guy.

Superb film - I totally disagree with Roger Ebert's review of 0... I give this flick 10/10.

Okay, where do I start here? I like Stephen King (I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it - even though the fact that I read it on a sunny beach will colour my recollections). I like Kathy Bates and John C. Reilly. And I really like Jennifer Jason Leigh. Things are looking good for this movie so. And it delivered in almost every aspect. Almost. The film relays the story of a tough woman trying to get through her bad marriage, abusive husband (both to his wife and his daughter) and her penchant for being suspected of murder not once but twice in her lifetime.

Dolores (Bates) is accused of murdering the wealthy woman she works for as a maid. When her daughter Selena (Leigh) finds out that her mother is accused of this crime, she returns home from New York. Not exactly to support her Mom - she is a reporter looking for a story. The fact that Dolores was a suspect in her husband's demise some 19 years earlier hasn't helped her in this particular case or in her life in general.

The problem with most King adaps - is they can come across as trite and simplistic and what works on a page does not translate to the screen. There are exceptions of course - The Shining, The Dead Zone (terrific film), The Green Mile and of course The Shawshank Redemption. But for every Shawshank there is a 'Riding the Bullet' or a 'Maximum Overdrive'. Dolores Claiburne fits in the middle of these extremes.

The story is good, the acting is good and the direction is good (I particularly liked the way that the flashback scenes are in vivid, bright colours whereas the scenes set in the present are in cold, blue tones).

Bates is another Annie Wilkes type character here and she handles it just as well. She truly is a great actress and her portrayal of being a tough cookie with a strong heart was totally believable. Leigh is as intense as she always is. Her usual good looks washed away by the cold colours used by the lens to correctly depict her character as a washed-up, drugs-laden, hard drinking, lonely, bitter, sullen young woman. She has been eaten up by all sorts of insecurities buried so deep that even she has forgotten them over the years. Yet, in some way she still blames her mother. For Leigh (a beautiful woman IMHO) to allow herself to be shot in this way - pale face, lank hair, bad skin, chain-smoking - is testament to her commitment to the project. i.e. TOTAL. Strathairn is excellent as the evil husband - a truly unsavoury part. Plummer too, is good as the dogged, not-to-be-denied detective. As is Parfitt as the bitchy - yet ultimately generous - Vera.

The only gripe I have with the whole movie is the ending. The inquest seems tacked on, too short and not at all believable. And the last scene as Selena departs on the ferry is an anti-climax of the highest order.

Other than that - well worth a watch....7/10.

How do I sum up this film? Badly written, badly directed, badly acted? All three? Certainly badly written and directed. I've read in various reviews that the writer took 5 years to write this screenplay and as a result hardly any improv was used on set. My advice would be to : (a) Never hire this writer again (but it looks like he works exclusively for Abel Ferrara anyway) (b) Maybe concentrate a bit more on the writing the next time or (C) Spend less time writing and allow improv - it might improve things.

The main issue here is there seems no motivation for any of the characters - Walken is a bad guy, Caruso & Snipes are good guys - but we need a little more than that. They are so one dimensional that cardboard cutouts would have sufficed instead of the actors. Fishburne is so over the top it is comical and Buschemi has hardly any screen time. There's no build up to any of the character's motivations and as a result when we see things on screen there is no emotional involvement with the audience. Bottom line is the audience doesn't care who gets shot, killed or whatever.

There is potential in 'King of New York' but in the end it fizzles out to nothing. Literally. The plot itself is simplistic in the extreme and embarrassingly step-by-step. No originality. It goes like this: Frank White (Walken) gets out of prison, takes dope, has parties, wants to dabble in a hospital project and kills all his enemies. The cops then call him King of New York. Then the cops get angry with Frank and decide to kill him themselves. Queue the shooting and more shooting and finally everybody's dead.

The plot could have been written by a 5 year old - never mind take 5 years to write !!!! There is no hook here, no emotional depth, no involvement, no background - nothing. It does have Walken - and his almost obligatory dancing scene - but it just looks embarrassing instead of kooky.

Poor effort - 3/10.

I've never seen The Graduate until last week. But I knew of it's reputation - a timeless classic. Apparently. I also looked up the rating on IMDb - 8.1 - impressive. So I dived right in there to witness what all the fuss was about.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it? I don't get it at all. Far from being a classic - I think it is a particularly dumb and totally far fetched movie with strange scenes, dialog, situations and a weird ending.

Okay - the premise seems reasonable at first - a newly graduated young man - Ben (Hoffman) - begins an affair with Anne Bancroft (Mrs. Robinson)- a mature friend of the family. But then falls for her daughter instead. Sounds OK - doesn't it? But is it executed well? Not in my opinion.

Firstly - Mrs. Robinson's attitude in seducing Benjamin initially is totally incredible and unbelievable. She is an attractive woman and Ben is young, socially inept around others and not to mention short and geeky looking. Why would she would even bother with him in the first place was my initial thought. But to persevere after being rebuked several times beggars belief. But the affair happens and thru circumstances - Ben is forced to go on a date with Mrs. Robinson's daughter Elaine (Katherine Ross at her most beautiful). Then we are supposed to believe that he falls in love with Elaine at the drop of a hat and wants to marry her? Ridiculous. And she wants to marry him too - after he treated her like dirt initially and then she found out that he slept with her mother? Again ridiculous. And the ending? Don't even get me started on that. I won't spoil it here for everyone - but to say it is laughable is to be generous to it in the extreme.

There are some clever camera tricks all the way through - however the 'snap' editing of Mrs. Robinson's nude scene was NOT one of them - but it isn't enough to save this poor attempt at a story. Simon and Garfunkel's music is okay - and maybe I am been too harsh here as I am not a fan of them either - but again the music can only do so much for a film.

In all - and I assume I am in the minority here - I thought the film was shoddy. 4/10 and 2 of those points are there for Ross' looks alone.

Beautiful girl, sexed-up, drugged-up, boozed-up teenagers, a secluded ranch, night, murders. We've all been here before - and it is rarely a good experience to be honest. This movie is worse than most.

There is not one likable character in the whole thing - including the stuck-up, silent type that is Mandy Lane. People get bumped off one by one during a drink and drugs fuelled weekend at a hard-to-get-to ranch. Even the methods of the murders are none-too innovative.

At the end of the day - nobody cares. That is my overriding feeling behind this film. I - as a viewer - do not care one iota who gets bumped off or how. In fact, in a couple of cases, I couldn't wait for a character to be killed off to ease both his/her and my pain at acting in/watching this tripe.

There is no tension in the movie whatsoever. Things happen, then more things happen and so on - blah, blah, blah...boring. It was a relief when it was over as I was moderately proud of myself for having the stamina to stick it out to the - not very surprising - end.

Don't bother wasting 2 hours of your life on this crap. 3/10. Abysmal.

I like war films when done well. Platoon was fantastic and I'm gonna put Casualties of War right up there with that multi-Oscar winner. That may sound a little haughty from me – but this film is deserving of such an accolade. The story is harrowing, the material itself shocking at times – but the overall result is a masterpiece.

I won't go into the plot details here in this review as it has been well covered at this stage but I will go into certain specific elements of the movie.

Acting: Fox is fantastic here – never better. Fox is a good actor anyway, we all know that, but I feel he does not get the credit he deserves sometimes. To some he will always be Marty McFly from the BTTF movies (to be honest he will be to me too) but he really puts in a great shift in this flick. His naturalistic, everyman style makes you want to root for him no matter what. He carries the film in my view as the only true upstanding character in the army who sticks by his beliefs no matter what. Actually – the fact that this incident took place in the Vietnam war is a side issue if you ask me – it could have happened anywhere at any time. It is truly about humanity's morality as opposed to being about a war or those who took part in it. But for me – Fox is terrific.

Penn is brilliant too. An angry, tobacco chewing 20-year old Sarge – dumped in a world of pain and suffering. You can see his motivations and where the frustrations have caused him to carry out the horrible act in the film. Penn is another brilliant actor in my view – in so far as whenever I see him, I believe he 'is' the character and not just 'acting' as that character. Here is the ultimate proof of his abilities. Some reviewers say that he 'overacts' a little here – but to me it is simply his intensity.

The girl who plays the rape victim - Thuy Thu Le - is also terrific. A true testament of finding a talent out there without a background of acting who can turn in a performance amongst the best that Hollywood can offer. It's such a pity that this film was her one and only performance.

The rest of the cast varies a little. Erik King as Brownie hams it up a little in a couple of scenes (just look at his facial expressions as the unit walks into a Vietnamese village for pure contortion) but does well in others (when he gets shot). Don Harvey as Clark is a parody of a evil persona within the movie – an OTT performance. John C Reilly is okay. Ving Rhames is okay. Leguizamo is good as the conflicted Diaz. Dale Dye is terrific – intense and totally believable, his one-on-one with Fox superb.

Cinematography: De Palma's style runs through this movie like a river. He is a genius. The angles he uses (Fox's chat with Dye), the foreground/background shots (When Fox is traumatized from Brownie's shooting in the foreground and the background shows the villagers helping the VC soldier to escape), the courtroom scene (where we see the accused soldiers one by one and only ever hear the prosecutor), the long tracking shots (Basecamp Wolf) and the superb Leone-like close ups (Fox in the rain) are all beautiful. And there is so much more also – VC tunnels, burned out fields, the kidnapping itself, another background/foreground shot when the girl is stabbed – that are used to tremendous effect. The brutal nature of the story and the action is still magnificently displayed through a masterclass of cinema-making techniques from a truly gifted director.

The screenplay, music, production values are all top notch and the story rattles along at a nice pace. This is a movie in which anyone who was remotely involved in it could be extremely proud. Well done all.

9/10 – I deducted the point for the sometimes ropy acting of some of the periphery characters and for one emotional speech from Fox which was simply too preachy and overlong.

I watched this with only a basic understanding of what the background was to the story. Also - I did not know previously that it was Peter Weir's first film for 7 years. He should have stayed where he was.

The premise of the story is an extraordinary one - a group of prisoners escape from a Siberian Gulag during the second world war and manage to walk all the way to India. Amazing stuff - especially as it is supposed to be true. However, the articulation of this story left me disappointed.

The opening credits tell you the entire story from start to finish through the use of a couple of sentences. Because of this - the whole dynamic of 'what will happen next?' is taken from the viewer, as we already know the end.

Anyway - that disappointment aside - the story starts off well enough and a strong early performance from Mark Strong augers well. Then what? The escape happens - off screen - and no more Strong. Things then seem to take the repetitive, undramatic route as we embark on our looooooong journey. Essentially the weak story goes like this: - escape Gulag - start walking through Siberia - encounter hardships - somebody dies - start walking through Mongolia - encounter hardships - somebody dies - start walking through China, Tibet....etc etc. you get the picture until we end up in India. And that's it !!!

I ask myself - "So what?"

The characters are one dimensional at best. I got to the stage where I couldn't tell one from the other. And as for the Polish / Russian accents. They may be authentic - I don't know - but the fact that I see two Irish actors (Farrell and Ronan) with strange accents didn't help matters.

Acting: Farrell is good here to be honest. He carries that menace and unpredictability around with him with great aplomb. His accent though sullies it for me. Harris and Ronan are okay too. However, Burgess didn't do it for me. His presence, or lack of it, let the film down I fear. But he is new enough to this game so it might get better for him - if he gets another chance.

Photography: As you would expect - the landscape dominates the story and is captured beautifully.

Overall - watching the film was just as much of an endurance test as the walk itself. And the rushed ending twee to the extreme.

Poor - 5/10.

First off - I know who Zac Efron is as I have a very young daughter who thinks the High School Musical movies are the equivalent of the Godfather trilogy (with less blood and more songs). However, when we tried to get the whole family to watch this movie at home - my two sons (teenager and almost teenager) baulked as they thought it a movie for girls. I can see their point. Efron is impossibly good looking and carries that Disney baggage around with him - as well as a swarm of screaming girls. No teenage boy is gonna want to watch him.

However, I feel the guy is been harshly judged. Charlie St. Cloud is a move is the right direction for him. Not a HUGE step by any means but a step nonetheless. And not only that but he copes quite admirably along the way. Let me start by stating the film's premise - Charlie's brother is killed in a car accident while he was driving but he still 'sees' his dead brother every day at sunset for an hour. He promised to practise baseball with him and he keeps his promise thus missing out on using his boating talent, a college education and life itself. He is a caretaker of the local cemetery and essentially his life is stuck in that very moment when his brother was killed.

I gotta be honest with you and say the first hour of the movie was indeed very intriguing and at times, I did not know which way it was going. I had a hunch (which turned out to be true) but it didn't seem to follow a formulaic progression as other flicks do. The last half hour pushed the realms of credibility way beyond the point of no return - but overall a solid outing.

Players: Efron is surprisingly good here. The lad has shown some promise in the last movie I saw him in - 17 Again - and nails a nice few scenes here. Yes, he still has the topless, wet T-shirt, against a sunset showing off his handsome face and piercing blue eyes scenes thrown in for the female audience. But he nails some good moments in there too - none more so than when he 'comes back' in the Ambulance only to see his dead brother in the trolley opposite. He also spends a lot of the movie crying. But he is the best thing here. Ray Liotta has a brief - but important - cameo and also Kim Basinger pops up as Efron's mother. Crew is nice to look at in a not-so-hollywoodish way and does okay. Tahan is alright as Charlie's younger brother Sam. But Efron is in every scene and fares exceptionally well.

Story: Premise is fantastic, as is the first hour. It sags a little towards the end and then goes all-out barmy. The familiar 'I see dead people' theme is a little unoriginal at this stage but yet seems to work on a lesser scale.

Cinematography: I normally do not say anything about this aspect of a movie, but the shots in the movie are eye-wateringly good. The small village where the boys live looks like a place i'd like to retire to and never leave. Superb.

Overall, if the story was tightened a little near the finale and some of the periphery characters given more development (some of Efron's old 'buddies/rivals' looked like they never acted a day in their lives) then this could have been something really special. In the end, a solid attempt from Efron - who must be trying desperately to be the next DiCaprio - and a good movie to catch. I enjoyed it.

7/10.

Ever since it was announced that Wahlberg was trying to get this film made - and that was a looooooong time ago at this stage - I have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of this film. I was not disappointed.

Not to re-hash the story too much but this is a real life story of Boston boxer 'Irish' Micky Ward and the struggles with his career, personal and family life in the mid-90s. Wahlberg is Micky Ward and Bale plays his crack addicted, squirrelly brother Dicky Eklund.

The style of the film is more realistic than the likes of 'Rocky', 'Raging Bull' and other fight films. It has some nice HBO TV style fight scenes which is shot is a clearer presentation akin to watching the bouts on prime-time television. But the meat of the story and the conflict is not in Micky's quest to achieve a world title - but in his ultimately uncomfortable relationship he has with his family. 7 girls, 2 boys, 2 fathers and 1 mother is a hell of a mix in a poor neighbourhood. Add to that Micky's mother is also his manager, his brother is his coach, his father also a coach and you see how complicated this could become. Micky is essentially the meal ticket for the entire clan.

Performances: Bale is terrific. If he doesn't get the Best Supporting Actor Oscar this year, then I'll eat my left shoe. (I might regret that last statement as Geoffrey Rush seems to be swooping that accolade for 'The King's Speech') But nonetheless - Bale deserves it. His portrayal of a crack addicted, might-have-been is spot on. Twitchy, wide-eyed, slurred but his stint in prison and the viewing of his so called 'comeback' documentary straightened him out and made him realise what is important. Family. His brother.

Adams is a ballsy character too - she has to be to survive in this environment. A strong woman who stands up for herself and her man against a formidable family group. I didn't know anything about Adams previous to this film but she seems to have that slightly grubby yet likable nature about her.

Leo as the mother/manager is a tough piece of work also. The family actually reminds me of so many families that I grew up with and in - that even though you know it is exaggerated on screen - there are many veins of truth running through it.

Lastly - but not least - Wahlberg himself. He has such a quiet way about him that even though he is a tough cookie, grew up in VERY similar circumstances to Ward and portrays a hardy boxer with a physique to match any professional - he remains an enigma. He comes across as a truly nice guy - both on screen and in real life. Even though he has had his brushes with the law (most famously his own stint in jail for a racist assault which resulted in his victim being left permanently blind in one eye), he really seems to have his life on track. Successful actor, producer, father and husband is a testament to his ability to stay the track. Here - his performance is an understated one but still packs a punch amidst the other more animated characters. He is the soul of the film both on the screen and in the background trying to get the thing made. None of the honours mention him but he knows deep down he has made something to be very proud of. Well done Marky Mark - you've come a long way from the Funky Bunch.

Overall - I'll score this 8/10. Some scenes a little slow to boil, some 'patchy' dialogue in places but overall it's heart is in the right place.

Who doesn't like an underdog story? A story where the hero comes from nothing to make it at the very top. Rocky did it - but that was from the brain of Stallone, a fictional story and character. However, Invincible is about a true life Joe who overcame all the odds to be a pro-football player.

I'm from the other side of the pond - Ireland - and football to me means something completely different. Neither do I have any interest in American football and not much knowledge of the rules / set-plays / special teams etc. etc. But this movie transcends all that and delivers a message centered around belief, never giving up on your dream and most importantly of all - friendship.

Mark Wahlberg is very good in his portrayal of Vince Papale - a 30 year old barman from Philidelphia who makes it on to a professional football team - Eagles - after an open try-out session organised by the new, desperate coach. Wahlberg has really improved in his acting as his career develops. Sure, he has duds (Planet of the Apes anyone?) but he has successes too (Basketball Diaries, Four Brothers, Shooter). This role is perfect for him. Even though he looks a little small to be a footballer, it simply adds to his likability. He is certainly well-built but his hangdog, everyman look fits so easily here that I, as a viewer, could totally buy into the fact that he was a down on his luck, out of work teacher trying hard to make his way in tough times in a tough city. He plays the role with such respect and pathos - that's its hard not to root for the guy. When he eventually makes it - I felt a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Mission accomplished from his point of view.

The direction of the movie is above average. First time director Ericson Cole does a good job on the scene setting, football sequences and some nice touches of CGI for some of the stadium shots. The opening montage depicting life in 1970's Philly to the backdrop of Jim Croce's lilting music is a fantastic introduction to the movie. I'm sure there are some liberties taken with the 'true' story but for dramatic effect there has to be - so no complaints here on that score. After all, for me, it is a movie first and a true story second.

Banks does a nice job with her (slightly underwritten) part as does all the buddies from Max's bar. Kinnear too is good as new coach Vermeil. But without Wahlberg stepping up to the mark - the whole thing could have gone down the toilet. But he is brilliant here. Even though Wahlberg has had his troubles down through the years (I could not stand him as Marky Mark) he has matured a lot and has a little rags to riches flavour about his own life too. Yet, he doesn't seem to act like a movie star. He projects the image of a quiet, hard working, prepared individual who knows how lucky he is to be where he is today and is not about to get all 'showbusiness' and lose it all.

Overall, the movie is an uplifting, inspiring story with some great gravitas and excellent performances. The only quibble I have is the sheer number of scenes in the film which show Wahlberg walking alone down a street, away from the camera. Not sure if this was supposed to signify something or not but it just got a little tiresome after a while. However - that is a small gripe. The other downside to the film is it's promotion over in Europe was very low key. So low key in fact that I do not even remember if it had a cinema release or not. I know it's a tough sell because of the American Football element but the DVD could have been pitched better too. Not a criticism of the movie per se but rather of the distribution of it.

Great movie, great performances, inspiring stuff. 8/10.

Donnie Wahlberg and Jason Gedrick team up again - they were both in the excellent Boomtown - but this time it just doesn't work. Gedrick is a night club owner in Miami who it seems is also dabbling in some money laundering with the local Columbian underworld. Wahlberg - we are lead to believe - looks like a small time hoodlum trying his luck away from the cold of New York. They team up and the film tells their story.

But what is the story exactly? A lot of the film centres around the night club, drinking, smoking. Some parties and doing weights are thrown in but the whole thing doesn't make much sense. Any important events seem to happen off-screen where we - the viewer - have no idea what is going on. The thing becomes too hard to swallow and by the time the little twist (and I mean 'little') comes - we have gone beyond caring.

The writer that brought us Goodfella's did not rediscover his golden touch here. Pileggi started to dip on Casino but this is a disaster. Although he doesn't exactly have De Niro, Liotta, Scorese on tap here. And this is just a TV movie too.

On the plus side - the scenery is nice. Wahlberg tries his best. On the negative side - and there is a lot - Gedrick's character never comes through as believable, Wahlberg must have been told to be the most disgusting person in the world for his character, bad acting from many of the bit players (the Russians come to mind here), some poorly done car chases, a jumpy/chopped script, the wasting of both Bauer and Chavira and many more.

Poor effort - 4/10.

First of all, I wanted to like this movie. I like Penn (in both his acting roles and 'some' as director - 'Into The Wild' was fantastic), I like Morse and Nicholson is a good addition as well. The subject of the movie resonates with me too - a father wanting to exact revenge on the drunk-driver killer of his little girl. What father wouldn't feel like that? However, mashing all this together for a film - it just doesn't work.

Why? For me - the story was too meandering, too off-the-beaten-track to hook in the viewer. Nicholson's erratic behaviour as a drink-guzzling, topless bar frequenting Lothario - although giving us a look into how his life has become empty and shallow - does not give us much sympathy for him. He tracks down his daughter's killer and gives him 3 days grace. After such time, he will come and shoot him dead. The first question in my mind was why? Why not kill him there and then - get it over with - after all he had been waiting 7 years already.

Morse - who had obviously pumped iron for the intervening time in jail - plays his part as best as he can. He's not given much in the way of a script to flesh out his character but he does well to personalise and internalise the pain. Nicholson does okay too - his acting a little spotty at times but in the main he holds it together quite well. A decent turn from Angelica Huston adds to the film. Robin Wright-Penn though does not. It's not entirely her fault as her part is completely irrelevant as Morse's not-quite-love-interest. (In one scene - which I had to replay to see if I saw it properly the first time - I thought Morse had broken her neck for no apparent reason. But it turned out to be a cuddle. Strangest cuddle ever if you ask me.) So the movie meanders through a series of not very exciting moments until we end up at the end of the 3 days with a chase between Nicholson and Morse. This, although leading to some redemption, is almost laughable. First of all Nicholson is an old man, coming off the back of a night of beer and cigarettes and generally out of shape. Morse, on the other hand, looks like a clean-living, hard-working, in-shape perfect human specimen - but yet cannot outrun his predator. A preposterous chase from his trailer through the streets of downtown (where Nicholson has umpteen opportunities to kill his prey and doesn't) ends up in the graveyard where the little girl is buried. Causing both men to finally find some solace and finality.

Poor.

Don't get me too wrong here - there are some nice scenes, some good dialog too but it is ruined by an unfocused script and an ending that has to be seen to be dis-believed. Penn has had worse outputs than this and he is clearly learning his craft as he goes along but this does go down as a thumbs down rather than up.

I'll give it 6/10 for an honest effort at telling a well-worn story in a different way but it was a disappointment at the end of the day.

I really enjoyed The Illusionist. A very well made movie, well acted and a great story. When I first recorded the movie, I must admit I had my doubts as to its suitability for me. I'm not exactly a 'magic man' type of guy to be honest but it soon won me over.

The pace, look and feel of the movie was splendid. A steady pace throughout and the film was shot in a subtle old-fashioned manner which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Edward Norton - as he is normally - is excellent here. His character a long lost love of a Duchess - the beautiful, radiant Jennifer Biel. I had never seen Biel in anything before this - but she is totally believable here and very pretty indeed. Giamatti - as the police inspector - is great too. His demeanour, walk and speech perfectly suited to the times and his position within the society of that era. That era involving the late 19th century Vienna is yet a further character in the story - exquisitely depicted and the attention to detail is second to none.

The name of the film gives the viewer a strong hint that not all is what it seems here and even though I knew something was going to twist, my enjoyment of the film was not stolen from me as I did not predict the ending. Other - more smarter - people I am sure will see it coming but in this instance it is nice to have that little bit of ignorance. There are a couple of plot points that maybe could have been expanded on a tad - to fully drive home the story - but I am nitpicking here.

To me - a superb film with great acting and fabulous sets and a solid story. What more could you ask for? 8/10.

Everything about this movie is fantastic if you ask me. The Dead Zone is a very much underrated and unheralded movie - never do you hear it been mentioned in the higher echelon of films. Maybe it is my own personal twisted choice of what films are good or not - but this certainly should be considered a classic.

Cronenberg is a strange director and I must confess - I am not really a fan. But this is sublime - the atmospheric approach to the film is brilliant, the camera-work exquisite and the direction spot on. No cheap thrills here - just solid story-telling and direction. I think this was his first foray into main-stream movie-making - and for me it remains his best by far.

The acting too is tremendous. Walken is on top-form here as Johnny Smith - a common name for a guy with uncommon powers. His presence on screen is unquestionable. In this film he is not an actor playing a role - but he quite literally IS JOHNNY SMITH. A great turn by Martin Sheen and good back-up by Herbert Lom, Brooke Adams (looking great) and Tom Skerrit as Bannerman. My only quibble would be that Skerrit and Anthony Zerbe (who plays the dad of a boy whom Johnny is tutoring) look very alike on screen making it hard for me to distinguish them. A tiny quibble.

The Stephen King story is brilliant - and with Walken at the top of his game here (Check out 'The ice is gonna break' scene for sheer intensity) and this film is near perfect.

I gave it 9/10 .... before I wrote this comment.....Now I cannot remember why I knocked a point off. Well worth a watch - brilliant.

What can I say about this film? The premise is a really original one - a guy who can teleport from one spot to another by the power of his mind. And not only that - but he doesn't go down the tried and trusted (and to be honest clichéd) route of super-herodom, saving all manners of unfortunates along the way and battling against a stereo-typical baddie. Spider-Man has been done - and quite enjoyably too - but this film does not go down that route. I commend it for that.

However, the plaudits stop rolling here.

The prequel scenes showing David Rice (our Jumper of the title) are better than the main scenes with the lead actor. That's gotta hurt. To me Christensen (who I have never seen in a movie before btw) is as wooden as a 2x4. The young actor playing his character was able to portray more emotion in a second's linger on his face than Christensen did for the remainder of the film. I heard he put in a good acting shift in 'Shattered Glass' but here he is terrible.

But he is not the main problem here. The main glaring issue with this movie is the bad guys. Samuel L Jackson is playing Samuel L Jackson at this stage - but his motives are quite unclear and never fully resolved or explained. He is a member of some strange organisation - the Paladins - who track down and kill the Jumpers. Why? Because apparently these Jumpers all turn bad eventually. Not much of a reason is it? Apparently they have been chasing Jumpers for 100's of years.

That is the story! Really. There is nothing else under the surface - no real emotional pow, no impact, nothing.

The Jump scenes are okay if a little distracting at times (or downright silly and badly done like the car chase in Tokyo) but the reasoning behind the chase is not fully explored. Also the Jumpers seem to teleport anywhere they like - and be seen by loads of people - yet they never become national news. A small boy sees both Jumpers disappear before his eyes in a busy airport - but nothing becomes of it? Come on - Lindsay Lohan changes her hair colour and it is splashed on the newspapers and TV for days. Surely, disappearing people would warrant a mention at least.

Jamie Bell's character - Griffin - is a strange one too. He is a good actor and plays his part well - but the part itself makes no sense. He is on the trail of the head Paladin - Jackson - for 10 years with no luck in killing him, yet when Christensen comes on the scene with an offer to help - he turns him down flat. Why? No idea. Christensen then ends up fighting with Griffin - ridiculous. The last 20 minutes of the film descend into downright farce - and it ain't a particularly long film either - clocking in at a trim 88 minutes.

Too many stupid things happen in the film - and I got the sense the whole way through that the makers were simply treating this movie as a first instalment of what they hoped would be a franchise ala Spider-Man or X-men. It won't be.

Great premise - poor story - 5/10.

This is a real good episode of TIH with Bixby's wife at the time playing a psychic who can 'see' future incidents about people purely by touching them.

But the thing that really stands out here is the structure of the episode and the amount of story angles covered in the short run-time. First of all the episode opens up with 2 kids running from a cop down into an alleyway - where the hulk is spotted. One of the kids - we learn later - dies from a blow to the head for which the creature is blamed. Normally TIH episodes are purely formulaic in so far as we get a good 15 / 20 minutes of plot build up before Banner transforms to the Hulk. But here it is instantaneous. Although, we do not see the transformation - we do see the creature as the credits come up.

The initial incident is then almost forgotten about by the episode and instead we concentrate on Benet (the psychic) and her rather cursed blessing and her meager existence. It's very tragic that Benet's character contemplates suicide early in this episode as she felt powerless to prevent a young boy's death. Her own (and Bixby's) son died soon after and she ended up taking her own life on the grave of her son's on his first anniversary of his death. Bixby was never really the same after those incidents - and who could blame him for that.

Anyway - the episode also throws in some psychic visions, a grubby,sleazy landlord, 2 hulk-outs, a Banner suicide attempt, McGee turning up and almost catching Banner and a wrap up at the end to explain the initial shots of the kids running away. All neat and tidy in 45 minutes.

A very interesting episode and one of the best in my mind. The only downside here was Benet's acting - to say she was a little stiff sometimes is to say the glaringly obvious. But Bixby more than makes up for it. Watch the scene where he finds out that the kid has died and he believes that the creature has killed him. The pain and anguish in his face is far and beyond the token stuff you normally associate with television. Brilliant.

8/10.

An unlucky in love girl attends loads of weddings but never has an opportunity to get to her own. This film is chick-flick at it's oily, slick best. But that's not to say it is a great movie. It ain't. Some observations:

1. I could never get that whole 'Rachael cannot get a boyfriend' thing from Friends. Jennifer Aniston should have been beating them off with a stick. But here it is again in this movie. Come on, are we supposed to believe that a successful, employed, nice, highly pretty girl like Heigel is the ugly duckling sister in love with her boss who is oblivious to her as anything other than his assistant? I'm sorry but it is too hard to believe her in that role.

2. And this 'great guy' of a boss (Burns) falls for Heigl's sister in less than 2 minutes flat and asks her to marry him? Ridiculous - the sister isn't even as good-looking never mind as pure of heart.

3. Marsden is the cocky, cynical newspaper reporter who covers weddings but secretly hates the occasions. Heigl falls for him? How did that happen? He is the total opposite of what she is? this could only happen in Hollywood. Besides, there is no chemistry between Heigel & Marsden - no sparks at all - in fact it looks like she doesn't even like him, never mind love him.

4. What is with Marsden wearing a T-Shirt under his shirt and blazer? Stupid look.

5. Heigl realises at the end that she loves Marsden. How? Why? Throughout the film there was nothing to suggest her undying love for this guy. Sure, a couple of laughs here and there, a painfully inept bar room performance, a fumble in the dark in a car - but the guy isn't that likable to be perfectly honest. The over-the-top scene where Heigl declares her love via a microphone on a boat totally ruins the whole thing for me. Totally unbelievable.

Some good points include Heigl herself putting in a decent shift as the lead role and she has that air of 'real'ness about her in her reactions. Okay, some of the things she does, says are just plain wrong but that has more to do with the writing than the actor herself. Some moderately funny jokes are splashed along the way and Heigl is easy on the eye.

But the whole thing is too clichéd for me. The ditsy friend (does every rom-com, comedy movie have to have one of these by law?), the pure-hearted heroine, the not-so-nice guy she falls for (but hates him first, then loves him), the happy ending, the not-as-bad-as-we-thought sister...etc. etc.

But how Heigl's character ever falls for Marsden is beyond me? He is everything she is not and then writes an article practically degrading her as an always-the-bridesmaid-never-the-bride person WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE !! It gets published in a major New York newspaper but YET SHE STILL FALLS IN LOVE WITH HIM. What? If she had taken an axe from underneath one of those 27 dresses and decapitated him in her apartment - I don't think I would have been as shocked.

Too implausible, too clichéd but a decent turn from Heigl saves the movie from being a total turkey. Nice to watch with your wife but leave your brain outside.

5/10.

Yes - the worst episode (and that is including Never Give a Trucker an Even Break from season 2) yet.

Some hokum about New Orleans Magic men and a local doctor trying to treat the people of the city with conventional medicine. Banner is helping her out as a nurse. That should be enough to scare you - a drifter gets a job as a nurse in a doctor's surgery.

Anyway - the whole thing is ridiculous coupled with the fact that the Director of Photography must have learned his craft in the deepest, darkest cave - everything he shot was like midnight. Even the daytime shots were so murky it was hard to see what was going on. The 'New Orleans' scenes regarding the parade were laughable - it is so obvious that it is on a back lot that if I were the producer and knew my tight budget - I'd get the thing re-written. But the worst offender by far was the scene where Banner and the lady doctor come out of their surgery building to see a Hex Voodoo thing hanging above the entrance and a crowd staring at them from the street outside. The 'crowd' consists of about a dozen people who change places depending on which angle Banner looks at them. If he looks to the right he sees a Black guy with a white Tee-shirt, a lady wearing a red suit and an old, balding Elvis throwback guy. If he looks left - to what is supposed to be another part of the 'crowd' - he sees the same people again (in the SAME clothes) but just positioned in a different spot. Laughable.

Bixby - spouting some dire dialogue - does not give in to the cheap shots happening all around him but remains professional and delivers his - terrible - lines with gusto. But even he cannot save this diabolical episode. McGee pops up for his customary one scene, but I guess he wished he had stayed in bed that morning instead. An ingratiating scene with a large, orange woman and a guy dressed as an artichoke !!!

On that note - 4/10 - the worst episode yet. Let's hope the tempo and quality picks up in subsequent episodes.

I loved Shyamalan's Sixth Sense and also thoroughly enjoyed 'The Village' (even though that was panned). But I did not not like Unbreakable or Signs. Shyamalan is like Marmite - you either love his film or you hate it. He polarises opinion even amongst his own fans - of which I was one. I haven't yet seen'The Happening' so I cannot comment, however, I just managed to sit through Lady in the Water. Just.

But where do I even start with this one? If I have to sum it up in one word, it would be 'mess'.

A bedtime story for his kids - the plot (if you can call it that) is preposterous, the characters unbelievable, the premise incredulous and the dialogue atrocious. The direction leaves a lot to be desired and what was the whole point of the movie? There was none.

The basic rundown of the story is this: Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti), a maintenance man at an apartment complex, finds a very strange, scared girl (Bryce Dallas Howard) in the pool one night, and soon he finds out a) her name is 'Story' - what kind of name is that? b) she's called a 'narf' - based on an old tale piecemealed to him by a Chinese tenant c) she needs to leave this place before some weird moss-covered dog creatures called 'scrunts' come after her d) practically all of the tenants at the apartment complex will somehow play a role in her getting safely away on the talons of an giant eagle. I kid you not. That is truly it.

The Narf somehow inspires a guy who is suffering from 'writer's block' to finish his book which will someday inspire a future president of America. This guy is the reason she comes from her own mythical world - and who is this guy? You guessed it - Shyamalan himself in a strange, ego-massaging role as the chosen one. A latter day John the Baptist if you like.

My brain hurts on so many levels writing this review as the film is just complete codswallop. Some examples of my frustration are:

1. When the sea-nymph arrives from the water and spouts her preposterous story - Giamatti immediately believes her and lets her stay in his apartment - semi-naked. Not only that but when Giamatti retells the story to all others - they ALL believe it without question. What?

2. Giamatti then sees the underground home of the nymph beneath the swimming pool - but continues on as if this is a normal everyday occurrence. What? No T.V., no questions?

3. Howard stays in the apartment - naked by the way - and simply stares off into space for 90% of her scenes. She whispers incoherently for the other 10%.

4. Characters appear on screen explaining the story to us - telling us the story instead of allowing the audience to figure it out for themselves. Basic, fundamental flaw of film-making if you ask me. Or maybe it was because the story is ridiculous - and no-one could ever figure it out or be bothered to figure it out.

5. A kid is able to read obscure, prophetic messages from a collection of cereal boxes. I'm serious.

6. The kids father does nothing only crossword puzzles each day.

7. One guy exercises only his right arm.

8. Giamatti must have had blisters on his knuckles after this shoot as he is involved in numerous 'knocking on doors' scenes. After a while - it just turned into a joke.

9. Shyamalan's scene changing and framing were strange to say the least. Downright poor to be truthful about it.

10. The finale - was that it? That's what we sat through 100 minutes for? To say I was disappointed is to say the Pope is Catholic. What a letdown !!

Nothing makes sense about this film - the whole thing is testament to the fact that Disney turned it down. Good call. Shyamalan has made something here that if it wasn't for his previous successes - would be a career-breaker. Utter tosh. Avoid at all costs.

1/10 - only because I cannot bring myself to give a 0/10 rating for a movie.

For the very first time (and it has taken 2 and half seasons to get this far) we have an insight into David Banner's family. Banner returns home to his Dad and sister for Thanksgiving and during his time there we find out that his relationship with his father didn't exactly run smooth.

I won't go into the episode details here - as I found them an aside to the bigger picture to be honest. Some hokum regarding property development and buying of local farmer's land sits into the story but the background on Banner himself is fascinating. He struggled to get away from the farm when he was younger - abandoning farm life for the career of a doctor. But more lies beneath. Banner and his Dad didn't exactly see eye to eye since the death of his mother from - what Banner thought - was a curable condition. The fact that Banner carries around this family turmoil with him as well as the considerable problem of the Hulk is a real eye-opener for us - the audience. The man seems almost saint-like at times and always seems to do the right thing - but this episode shows us that he has baggage like the rest of us.

Even McGee turns up at the end - he REALLY should be putting 2+2 together at this stage - and it makes for a genuinely thought-provoking episode. The series needed more of this type of story-telling in my humble opinion as the episodic adventure-type thing every week tires a little after a while. More back story, more family interaction, more McGee, more focus on getting a solution to his problem would have made the series a lot more REAL.

Good episode this one - 8/10.

A nice start with this episode where David is sitting in a patrol car, handcuffed on his way to a prison camp in the desert. But before your mind can throw up the usual questions about - the cops now have David's real identity, they will find out he is a dead man, etc. - the cop explains it all away on the drive to camp. In that part of the country they don't check up on the guy - even though the cop knows he is running from the law - he still does not check on who he has in custody. No fingerprints - nothing. Hard to credit - but it gets rid of our questions anyway.

Robert Davi and Charles Napier co-star here in a TV version of 'Cool Hand Luke' complete with road gangs, cops with sunglasses, isolation boxes and of course the searing heat of the sun. David soon finds out the camp is run by a corrupt warden-type who practically tells David of his dastardly mindset during their introduction to camp.

A couple of escape attempts (and hulk-outs later) David is free, the camp cops have been indicted and the inmates justified.

Overall - a rather good episode. Okay, the way the Hulk leads the prison escape at the end is like the Keystone Cops (Never does a guard even get a shot off in any escape attempt in this episode. Where did they do their training? Pre-school?) but a genuine attempt is made to get a few elements into the story so we can forgive them for that. Another bad point is that there is a dozen guards waiting on a prison break one night when the Hulk appears in the compound. Even though the place is awash with strong lights from both outside and inside the compound, the yard itself smaller than a football field and a 7-foot tall green monster running around knocking down towers - the cops cannot see the hulk because it is too dark. What???? If it was any brighter - it would be daylight !!!

I always have to remind myself here that TIH was an episodic series which had individual stand-alone stories each week as opposed to follow-ons. Because of this, the small budget, the 1970's effects - I cannot be too hard on it. After all trying to get some of the elements of the story across in 45 minutes is not an easy task and at least TIH gives it a good old try.

7/10