Jekyll-5

If you could categorize this movie using a single term it would be simply 'good'.

If you look at it within the context of it being compared to the other Star Wars films you would probably say, not as 'good'.

if you look at it for its own merits you would probably say, pretty darn 'good'.

All in all it was a good movie. Some certain things irked me though, which i will bring to your attention:

1. Jar Jar Binks - It probably wouldnt have hurt to have the voice of Jar Jar binks be similar to, the Genie in the Animated cartoon of Aladdin.

2. The Neimodians (Viceroy) rather than sounding oriental (sorta) should have had voices similar to Aslan from the English series of 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe'

3. The Lightsabre duel at the end was 'good', but it was WAY too choreographed for the audience to believe it was impromptu

4. There were too many 'bit' actors trying to make their mark in the movie. They obviously weren't realising that they only had 'bit' roles because they're only 'bit' actors

5. Samuel L Jackson

But Like I said, it was a 'good' movie, and I will rent it out when it comes to VHS video

With the absolute shortage of heartfelt movies portraying the First World War in its entirety, there comes a need to find specific movies whose essence holds dear to (hopefully) a multitude of audiences. What I am getting at is that the movie genre has become a medium for protruding entertaining enigmas (gees I hope that sounds educated) upon an audience seeking nothing but pure entertainment. After all, why else watch a movie except to satisfy ourselves? Thats what they're made for isn't it?

The difference with Gallipoli is that it portrays an era of our (my) history, of which I am a passionate student.

Gallipoli, in its reality was our nation's birthright....a birthright baptised amongst a storm of fire. (Let me say this, ...if you thought Normandy was bad...let me remind you that Normandy ...at Utah Beach...aka Saving Private Ryan..resulted in 3000 casualties...possibly half that number dead...at most. At Gallipoli, the ANZACS alone, suffered 2000 dead...ON THE FIRST DAY!, let alone the thousands more wounded).

That's not to say I don't think Weir was graphic enough...far be it for me to say he was too traumatizing!

I mean the ending.......holy cow!

It lets me down to think that Mark Lee never made it the same way good ol' Mel did, but hey, that's show-biz......at the expense of our nation's military history (similar to Mark Hamil's second-fiddle performance...and future career endeavours as opposed to Harrison Ford).

All in all, the movie is a fine tribute to my country's fighting prowess. But it has to be known that real knowledge about events such as those that took place on the Gallipoli penisula are better found out via those who were there.

Nowadays the fantasy-sci-fi genre has fallen somewhat into decline. If not for the present day Star Wars film, 'Phantom Menace', and others like 'The Princess Bride', the genre would be almost non-existent.

Krull delivers itself similar to the way in which we are presented Star Wars. On the one hand we have all these lavish charcaters, creatures, and landscapes; giving a ripe fantasy apeal to it, and then there is the electrifying special effects (the enemy soldiers are black horned creatures whose weapons fire blades out of (lightsabre-looking) rods, giving off bursts of blue energy when they impact).

But differing from Star Wars, Krull makes more room for accentuating the death scenes. In Star Wars we are presented with storm troopers who don't bleed, and old Jedis who just vanish when they have a searing electric sword cut them in two. In Krull, we have the bad guys' heads split open and squid-like creatures fly out and bury themselves in the ground. We also have a morbid quicksand sinking victim, a man who is impaled by a spike that moves at about a half inch per second to slowly embed itself through his chest, and not to mention, where Leia, Han and Luke are saved from the crushing walls of a grabage compactor, the same cannot be said for one unfortunate man in Krull.

All in all a very enjoyable movie (Where do I get one of those shuriken's from), with Liam Neeson performing a minor role as one of the brigands who helps Prince Colwyn search for his missing bride.

In looking at the speed of the taps compared to the effort that the dancers exert to create them, it seems that this art is one unto itself. This documentary/live performance of Michael Flatley's Irish Dancing spectacular is obviously the culmination of years and years of dancing experience.

If you watch through the initial dances and songs, you eventually weed out the highlights, and come to the conclusion that everything else is mere clutter on the dance floor. Particularly impressive is the actual 'Lord of the Dance' dance, where every dancer culminates together for a spectacular fast-footed performance of the Irish step dancing to the old tune 'Dance dance wherever you may be, I am the lord of the dance said he.....

All in all, a good show

Being only 20 years old, it may be strange for me to have a favourite actor who's era of greatness was that of the mid 20th century. However, the 1948 version of Dumas' 'Three Musketeers' continues to remain one of my favourite movies, especially with the enigmatic performance of Gene Kelly being at the forefront.

The story follows the journey of a young Gascon named D'artagnan who endeavours to become one of King Louis XIV (I think) musketeers. I must point out that at this point, I always thought that there were only EVER three musketeers. However I soon realised that the three charcters at the focus of the story are but three of a large cadre of the aforementioned individuals.

The reason I liked this movie was not for its intriguing story but for the sword fights. The only other movie where I have seen sword fighting of such a skillful measure is that of the duel between Mandy Patinkin and Cary Elwes in 'The Princess Bride'. Even the newer version of 'The Man in the Iron Mask' and the pitifully woeful version of the 'Three Musketeers' starring Kiefer Sutherland, fail to master that sleek elegance and skill that is evident in the Gene Kelly version: rather they resort to a series of hard whacks and punches to achieve their aim.

Even though several of the death scenes involve the swords clearly being passed under armits and next to hips (similar to one of my favourite scenes in Cy Enfield's 'Zulu', where Hook, a soldier, stabs a Zulu with a bayonet under his armpit, and we are witness to a clear indent in the wall), this movie remains one of the better versions of Dumas's novel.

I give it 8.5 out of 10

James Durham