mar9

The three nouns above were the episode titles for this 3-part documentary about the USA. "Fat" is naturally about food, and it's no surprise to find that the portions from the perspective of an austere Englishman are mind-bogglingly huge. As are the people who eat them. "Dumb" is basically a road trip through the some of the stranger sights the US has to offer, and the stranger people who populate them. "Rich" is an exploration of the US lifestyle for those fortunate enough to be able to afford it, and the answer is that it's pretty fine. Jonathan Ross is the perfect presenter for this show that proves that it is impossible to exaggerate the weirdness that is life in America. He gives his subjects free rein to be as mad as they obviously are, and participates wholeheartedly. Part 1 in particular is a good companion piece to "Supersize Me" and the other episodes are somewhat reminiscent of Michael Moore when he's not being irritating and invading office foyers and boardrooms. Find "Americana", watch it. It's good.

Attempted cash-in on the incredibly successful "Raiders of the Lost Ark" fails dismally. Ludicrous stunts; the two leads (Chamberlain and Stone) lack charisma and look embarrassed. Inane, insane, cocaine-fuelled garbage that is clearly a product of its time (the mid-80s). Even John Rhys-Davies backs up from his decent work in "Raiders" (playing the latest in his long line of typecast swarthy mid-Easterners), but after seeing his performance in this film, it's obvious why his career slipped to the lost world of video game cut-scenes.

Suitable only for non-discriminating viewers, or if you want to pick it to bits and laugh at it; if the latter, you'll be kept busy, believe me.

Jodie Foster is a wonderful actress and she is in form in this dark and at times suspenseful film. Unfortunately, the house in which she is trapped by robbers seeking a stashed fortune is the second-best actor in this film. Some woeful dialogue between the villains doesn't help either.

The climax suffers from Hollywooditis (indestructible bad guy - again??) but for most of the way this is a good but not great film.

This is a film that probably needs to be seen more than once. It is a great, measured, complex Persian carpet of a film, with a huge cast and an initially bewildering array of characters. If the viewer does not pay attention, it would be easy to be dismissive about it, because although it is a long film at over two hours, by contemporary standards not much seems to happen. The film's value is in the authentic performances of the entire cast and the interactions between them.

Watch out particularly for Richard E. Grant's gleefully sadistic footman, Stephen Fry as the police inspector and Kelly Macdonald's subtle performance as Mary. But really, everybody is good in this, not a bad performance in the ensemble.

Stunning cinematography and riveting performances by the three (non-professional) actresses playing the children are the salient features of this astonishing film. Phillip Noyce was obviously very homesick when he decided to make this movie. His love for his country of birth pours forth from every frame. At its heart this is a very simple tale, based on a true story of three Aboriginal girls, forcibly removed from their family because they had white fathers, who run away from the mission station in which they are incarcerated and who proceed to walk home across more than 1000 miles of desert.

This is much more than a road movie, however. Noyce has walked an expert tightrope, able on the one hand as an Australian to portray his homeland and its people accurately, but at the same time have the expatriate's luxury of detachment, being able to undertake an analysis of the background (political and social) to this story, without being shrill or preachy. We see the facile racism of the white bureaucrats (tinged with grudging respect as the girls elude recapture), and the human reality of those who witnessed the inhumanities of the Stolen Generations first hand (either as victims or as perpetrators). Even the black tracker sent after the girls (great work by David Gulpilil) is conflicted - he wants to go home, but his duty is to hunt the fugitives down.

Music and sound effects add to a remarkable cinematic experience. Heavy, crunching footfalls punctuate this film, setting the tempo, delivering suspense, marking time. This film will be a standard in Australian schools for years to come, and deserves a global audience as well.

This is a lurid piece of cult schlock from Japan, that combines the following elements: rock 'n roll, drugs, bikes, guns, UFOs and zombie flesh eaters, in a combination that makes about as much sense as a caviar vindaloo.

Criticising this film may seem unfair, seeing that it sends itself up about as energetically as it possibly can, and considering the mish-mash of a plot, self-parody is this film's only option. If this film tried to take itself seriously, it would easily reach the bottom of the cinematic pile.

Among the many flaws in "Wild Zero", acting is probably the most obvious. Unfortunately, the zombies give the best performances in this film. Most of the actors with speaking parts in this film either cannot act at all or can only do it badly. It is also riddled with continuity errors, and is probably the worst edited film I can remember. The music is another minus. I thought bad rock 'n roll disappeared from monster movies after the 60s, I was wrong. Imagine The Saints without talent, or The Ramones lacking charisma and minus one or two chords, and you're getting close to the standard on display here.

To be fair, the movie has a positive message about tolerance at its centre, and a couple of impressive manga-like images are thrown up on screen during the action sequences. But at the close I would caution anyone if they intend seeing this film; it could do your head in.

No-one would dare write a novel as far-fetched as John Nash jnr's life. A prodigy, a mathematical genius, a paranoid schizophrenic, a Nobel laureate. With raw material like this, "A Beautiful Mind" was always a short-priced favourite to be a good film. Well, it is, but I don't think the Academy was right to call it the best film of 2001.

Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly deliver exceptional performances. I'm again frankly mystified why the Academy firstly nominated Connelly as a supporting actress when she gets enough screen time to be rightly regarded as a co-star. And as for Crowe not winning Best Actor, well... People who view this film superficially could write Crowe's performance off, dismissing it as thespian sleight-of-hand, a bit of hunching, stillness, some drool and hey, presto, paranoid schizophrenia. They would be wrong. There is so much depth to Crowe's portrayal. He plays Nash in the early years superbly as a self-acknowledged genius, arrogant but just a bit detached from normality, the accent just right. Then the years of Nash's illness, the terrifying delusions, the pain in his eyes during his insightful moments. This is incredible stuff, and Connelly is not overshadowed, she plays the role of Alicia masterfully.

It is interesting how Nash's delusional episodes are portrayed as real in this film, which is reasonable, given that they were real enough to Nash at the time. To tidy the film up, a couple of elements of Nash's life are neatly excised - the mistress, the early divorce from Alicia and their subsequent remarriage. Nash's 30 long years imprisoned in his illness are skimmed over in the final reel, which to my mind unbalanced the film a bit. It seems rushed in the last few minutes, as if Ron Howard has noticed that the film is already quite long and he's cramming the last bits in.

Finally, could it be that Ron Howard has constructed this film to draw parallels between Nash's life and that of post-war USA? Initial brilliance, unlimited potential and boundless optimism. Then a catastrophic fall into paranoid fantasy, stagnation, impotence and paralysis (for the USA, the Cold War years, culminating in Vietnam). Then a rebirth and recovery, slipping into comfortable autumn years with an acceptance of self, but at the same time an acknowledgment of the troubled past. As Harrison Ford said in "Frantic", "I am an American and I am crazy!"

....couldn't rescue this picture from abject mediocrity. Michelle Trachtenberg, captured just before she scored the plum role of Dawn on "Buffy", is a prodigious young talent, but is given too little to do in this sub-par film adaptation of the "Inspector Gadget" animated series. Matthew Broderick and Rupert Everett mug shamelessly to little effect, and the end result is frankly a mess.

The film is too chaotic and violent for very young children, though it might just work for pre-teens. For older viewers, there is too much cuteness (typical Disney), the acting is way too hammy and apart from the challenge of spot-the-cameo, there is not much on offer.

The film pretends to be a retread of "The Six Million Dollar Man", but in fact offers a saccharine reworking of "Robocop", as bumbling but good-hearted security guard John Brown (Broderick) is horrifically injured in a robbery-murder, providing the raw material for the eponymous crime fighter. Unlike the animated series, the film emphasises Gadget (and the romantic interest, robotics expert Dr. Brenda Bradford) and plays down the importance of Gadget's niece Penny and dog Brain, who in the cartoon series did all the detective work while Gadget bumbled about, getting himself into trouble.

This film also deserves some sort of award for shameless product placement. The billboard with an internet search engine prominently displayed could be forgiven, but the candy and soft drink vending machine in Gadget's car - in a children's picture - is beyond the pale. Even Robocop would baulk at this level of corporate mind control.

Family pictures are a curious breed, particularly when they aspire to greatness as George Lucas' fantasy "Labyrinth" seems to. There is a recipe to making such films, and the recipe is interesting as much for what it includes as for what it leaves out. Being a fantasy family picture, "Labyrinth" requires: enough magic to bedazzle the small children, a feisty young hero or heroine, scary monsters, a boo-hiss villain, narrow escapes, and a happy, warm, ending to bring a tear to the eye and prompt a family hug. It must not have: blood, realistic violence or excessive terror.

The included elements are there up to a point, and the film is colourful and glossy. Unfortunately, it is also terribly bland. David Bowie's Goblin King (a surprisingly flat performance) is utterly camp and devoid of menace. A bit of sexual tension between Jennifer Connelly's Sarah and Bowie would have helped, any tension at all actually. Sarah's supposed race against time to rescue baby Toby should pile on the suspense. It doesn't. The goblins and beasties should be at least a little scary. They are not. Sorry, Jim Henson's creations are irretrievably cuddly and cute in this film. The deus ex machina Sarah utilises to eventually enter the Goblin King's castle is also a let-down.

Without some sort of edge, "Labyrinth" falls short of greatness. It remains a curiosity, particularly for those wanting to see Connelly's early career. It is a cinematic pantomime, a feature length H.R. Puf'n Stuf. It's safe. It's nice. It makes you wonder what it could have been.

After the lacerating "Salaam Bombay", one could be excused for thinking that Mira Nair had lost her passport to creating a nice little family film. Yet for the first couple of reels, she seems to have made just that, as our struggling-to-be-upwardly-mobile family makes preparations for a wedding that is supposed to be perfect but is obviously anything but. I must admit I had difficulty with this part of the film, as the subtitling was patchy and when the actors spoke in English it was sometimes difficult to tell who was speaking and what was being said. This could be a film that improves on repeated viewing.

Perseverance pays off however. This is a "family" film with a finely-honed edge. Who could imagine that this seemingly shallow and chaotic family could have a genuine hero as its head in Lalit (Naseeruddin Shah), or that this film could reach across cultures to touch universal themes so effortlessly? Or that the dodgy tradesman P.K. (Vijay Raaz, in a wonderful performance) could combine the earthy humour of Shakespeare's rude mechanicals with the soaring romanticism of an urban Romeo? Tremendous stuff.

Yet another example of what British cinema can achieve: a simple story, told and acted well. Brenda Blethyn gives a layered and warming performance as the recently widowed and financially straitened Grace, ably assisted by a solid supporting cast. The "quirky small town" card gets played to the hilt, similar to many TV series and films that have come from the British Isles in recent years (Ballykissangel, Hamish Macbeth and others come to mind). Like the forementioned, this film makes use of some ravishingly beautiful rural scenery, in this case the wet and wild Cornish coast.

Some viewers might find wholesale acceptance of cannabis use a bit challenging, others might find the ending just a little too cute and safe. But it's an enjoyable spliff, to be sure.

After a decent build-up and some well-constructed tingly moments, this promising thriller falls to bits in the final reel. What went wrong? It's difficult to say without major spoilage, but here goes...

Harrison Ford is reasonably convincing in the early stages of this film and there's good chemistry between him and Michelle Pfeiffer, despite the 15-plus year age gap. As the film darkens, he becomes less convincing and begins to look out of his depth. A case of casting a box office certainty rather than an actor better suited to the role?

Michelle Pfeiffer carries most of the first half of the film and does pretty well. If only she'd shown this much emotion in "Wolf". She tries hard at film's climax but is sadly hamstrung by a couple of daft plot devices.

Back to that ending. Ugh, in a word. It simply doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. The first part of the film is a decent study of a woman dealing with the "empty nest" syndrome as her only child moves out to college and she is left alone in her house while her scientist husband pursues some high-powered research, spending most of his time at the office and even when he's at home, he's usually working. The haunting starts. Is it her imagination working overtime? When they renovated the house, did they forget to upgrade the wiring? Are the new neighbours weird (aside - Miranda Otto is tops but doesn't get nearly enough screen time)? The unfolding of the plot does not fit the early story development and the over-the-top, SFX-driven and much too long climax could almost belong to another film. As a result, another promising movie is dragged down to become merely ordinary, which is probably more disappointing than seeing a film that starts out average and stays there.

Lame and lazy, this made for TV feature length adventure for the teenage witch shows how much the TV series owes its spark to the talents of Caroline Rhea and Beth Broderick - both are absent from this film. There is very little to like here, with flat performances, scant, predictable plot and an intensely annoying soundtrack. This film achieves some kind of distinction by making Australia's Great Barrier Reef appear to be a really, really dull place to visit. Melissa Joan Hart ambles through this film, giving the strong impression that she's actually on holidays and doesn't particularly want to be doing this movie. There's not much to inspire from anyone else in the cast, either.

For hard core fans of STTW only - and uncritical ones at that.

A boy from the wrongest possible side of the tracks gets his chance at stardom of an unexpected kind in this feelgood British film. Set against the backdrop of the miners' strikes during the darkest years of Thatcherism makes for some interesting contrasts as we see Billy and his fellow children seemingly oblivious to the menacing circumstances that they live in. Some fun moments arise from this - the scene where Billy walks along the street chatting with Debbie, oblivious to a rank of riot police on one side, is a delight.

Jamie Bell is the child star who does a good job of making Billy believeable. One bit didn't work for me - the scene in the dressing room after Billy's audition, I'll say no more, except that this for me was a device to artificially pile on tension in the film at the risk of credibility - this is the one time in the whole film where Billy behaves completely out of character. I also wonder what happened to Billy's oversized ears by film's end - it's a bit hard to reconcile Bell with the adult that plays the grown-up Billy. Oh, well.

For mine, the best actor in this film is Stuart Wells who gives a riveting performance as Billy's best friend Michael. The rest of the cast are generally very good also - flawed, real people, no Hollywood mannequins here. Perhaps a bit too real - the Northern accents are so impenetrable at times that this film could do with subtitles. A bit too much T-Rex in the soundtrack too, particularly since one T-Rex song is usually too many. But minor quibbles aside this is an enjoyable film.

The best thrills and chills are those inside our own heads. Everyone knows it but Hollywood keeps trying to outdo itself with more gristle, more gore and ever bigger vats of blood. Not the case with this film, which is almost a throwback to the ghost stories of the 19th century and the B&W mystery films of the mid 20th century. Revisiting that territory, in a film as tidily put together as this one, is refreshing.

Nicole Kidman is radiant as Grace, the isolated, migraine-prone mother of two perturbed children (Alakina Mann is wonderful as the older child Anne, James Bentley is good too). Both children suffer from photosensitivity and Grace is meticulous in protecting them from the daylight. But all is not well. They are marooned in a mansion house (Grace appropriately compares the house to a ship at one point), the place is eerily fog-bound, the postman hasn't come, three new servants have arrived unexpectedly and the children are noticing that they don't appear to be the only ones on the house. Then Grace starts noticing things too...

The most trivial things become objects of fear and suspense in this film. A face in a picture, shadows, a moving curtain, a door that moves suddenly, a bump upstairs, half-heard whispers, a piano playing behind a closed door, dense fog. The atmosphere is developed superbly and Kidman plays her part - when required, she looks utterly s*** scared. But don't expect gory shocks for there are none.

Passable but not great adaptation of the popular "X-men" comic series. Once the decision was made to adapt this story from comic to live action, rather than opt for the obvious path of creating an anime version, the question had to be asked: what is the live version trying to achieve that an anime can't? It wouldn't be the special effects - CGI is so good by now that live action and anime can produce similar end results, only the palette and textures are different. The answer must lie in the acting, in the ability of human beings to provide emotional depth and subtlety that animation and voices cannot. "X-men" doesn't quite make it in this regard. Which is a pity, given some of the names on the cast sheet.

In fact, some things such as action and fight sequences in this genre are still best done by anime. A number of such sequences in this film look like manga frames brought to life. It's impressive, but ultimately weird. The fight scenes are cranked up to such a bizarre level, with odd camera angles and exaggerated violence, that they look frankly unbelieveable. Particularly when no-one actually appears to die in this film, if they lose a fight they just get belted for miles out of the frame and disappear. If the camera happens upon them sprawled on the deck, they get up and wade back into the brawl. If it doesn't, they seem to just quietly disappear from the film. Odd.

Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart have both done better work than their roles as the two mutant leaders, doing their own version of the War of the Roses (check the actors' birthplaces and your English history!). Much was made in Australia of "nice guy" Hugh Jackman landing the plum role of Wolverine. Apart from a simplistic study of macho posturing, he brings little to his role, it must be said. My favourite from this film is Anna Paquin, all grown up and looking just a bit like Claire Danes, which is no bad thing. We first see her upstairs in her suburban whitebread house, her mom's piano tinkling downstairs (a nice touch and this film's single delightful moment). Anna gives a brave and layered performance in what is admittedly the most interesting role of Rogue, the mutant with the poison touch. A few more performances like Anna's and this could have been a great film.

To summarise, the film does enough to pique the interest of those unfamiliar with the corresponding comic series to give it a look. But only just. I cannot speak for existing fans of the comics.

... but this film could easily be regarded as the category killer of the romantic comedy genre. There are very few ways that anyone could make a better "boy meets girl" film than "Amelie". It makes the endless succession of Hollywood romantic comedies look dull and ordinary by comparison.

But what a curious pedigree! The director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, gave us bizarre nightmares and post-apocalyptic alienation in "Delicatessen" and "City of Lost Children", although it must be said that both of those films include beautiful romantic moments. "Amelie" retains some of the surreal elements of the two earlier films, but there is a lightness of spirit about Amelie that sets it apart and makes it something truly special.

Audrey Tautou gives a magnificent performance as the quirky, clever, but intensely shy Amelie. We believe that we truly understand her as she secretly makes changes in the lives of those around her, playing matchmaker for some, bringing unlooked-for happiness, punishing the wicked with impish glee, but when it comes to her own pleasure and happiness, we see her torment and feel her pain as she is unable to make that crucial final step. How the Academy failed to recognise the quality of this performance with a Best Actress nomination is frankly incomprehensible. I note BAFTA among others got it right.

There is much more to like about this film. The ensemble supporting cast, music, cinematography, the curious use of colour (Jeunet films are alike in this respect, the look like no-one else's), the narration - just enough of it without being intrusive. I have very few criticisms. The subtitling can be a challenge to read at times and I thought at least one translation could have been better. This is hardly a fault with the original film, however, just the barrier of language. Finally, a small reprimand to Jeunet for reprising the classic bonking scene from "Delicatessen". It just wasn't as funny the second time around. Otherwise, great film, see it. If you don't like it, you have no soul.

...the standard Sword 'n Sandal epic. Russell Crowe propels this film in a tour de force of a performance, ably supported by a solid supporting cast. Even the often appalling Oliver Reed does good work in his last film. Ridley Scott directs this film with a deft touch, heavy where he needs to be, violent and brutal, but not gratuitous, and with a good eye for the spectacular.

The plot stretches credibility in the latter half and I for one feel that Maximus' identity was exposed to the evil Commodus just a bit too early on. Commodus - what a villain, played with just a touch of camp by Joaquin Phoenix. Swarthy, oily, murderous, cowardly, lusting disgustingly after his own sister, what other name could one give such a character than a Latinised word for "toilet". One of the most repulsive creations ever put on celluloid by an actor. Can't blame him though, there had to be something substantial to match Crowe's massive screen presence. Bloody good.

Cast, script and some outstanding performances drive this curious little film set in the obscure world of air traffic control. It's a study of testosterone-loaded d**khead macho behaviour as Nick "The Zone" (Cusack) sets in motion a dangerous rivalry with new employee Russell (Thornton). It is obvious from very early on how inappropriate this all is as the two go at it - at work, at play, socially, on the roads and sexually. This film provides a good look at how twisted the male of the species can be, with just enough comedic elements to keep it from being all too heavy. Cusack's performance is energetic and just a bit crazy, while Thornton is cool and laconic. They mesh well, and are ably supported. Hollywood gossip addicts will enjoy seeing Thornton's real life wife (Jolie) playing his on-screen spouse in this picture.

A special mention must go to the magnificent Cate Blanchett who delivers a luminous performance as Nick's neurotic wife Connie. The way she unravels on screen is a revelation. It's no wonder Cate is so busy making films. This woman can play anything from giants to midgets (and elves too, apparently).

SBS-TV used to screen this film on an annual basis, but it has been missing in action for some years, which is cause for regret. The title may seem obscure, but a look at the alternative English translations ("Maiden and the Beast" and "Virgin and the Monster") should make this clearer. This is quite simply a wonderful interpretation of the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, produced and filmed in the then Czechoslovakia. Cinematic gems can be found in what may be thought to be unlikely places, and this film is an example.

Students of cinema may be aware that Cocteau did a version of this story in B&W, and there is of course the more recent and rather tame Disney version. This film is a very different proposition. For a start, it is unsuitable for young children because of some fairly graphic violence, including scenes of animal cruelty. The film-makers seem to strive for realism, particularly the scenes in the village where Beauty (here called Julie) lives, all mud and images of earthy rural life before the Industrial Revolution. But even the magical bits are portrayed realistically. The Beast's castle is maintained by an array of goblin-like servants, who skulk in the shadows of the fireplaces and chandeliers. If I have one complaint about this film, it is that the scenes are sometimes so dark that it is difficult to see what's happening. This does heighten tension, but it can be overdone.

The actors are great, especially the two charismatic leads. The Beast (Vlastimil Harapes) is fashioned more as a great bird of prey than Cocteau's leonine creation, and there is great suspense as he struggles with his inner violent nature (a sinister whispering voice) that is urging him to remain in his beastly form and kill the innocent Julie. Julie (Zdena Studenková) in turn is wonderfully portrayed. We can see why she is so obviously her father's favourite.

Fairy tales are expositions of the human condition, and the Beauty and the Beast story is no different. "Every woman has the power the make the one she loves beautiful". It's a simple theme, but this film explores it beautifully. See it if you can.

As a hymn of praise to the capitalist work ethic, this film has few equals. Natalie Portman stars as a pregnant teen who is dumped by her boyfriend while she is shopping in a department store. She has no money and no place to go. But this is America folks, where if you are honest, thrifty and work hard, it will all come right for you in the end. Perhaps not everybody believes in this myth yet, which may be the reason films like this get made. Or perhaps in these cynical, post-modern times, this movie is classified as escapist entertainment. It's difficult to decide, because at times this film takes itself seriously to the point of pomposity, yet there are also occasional campy moments that suggest we the audience are being given a bit of a nudge and a wink.

Natalie Portman looks lovely in this film but is not entirely convincing. It is difficult to accept her impoverished state when she always has immaculate skin and hair, and the fact that she does not age a bit or develop a single line or wrinkle, despite her baby (the bizarrely named Americus Nation) being five by the time the film ends. The scenes in the library where she attempts to improve her reading are inadequately developed, except for introducing the romantic interest.

To summarise, this film is steadfastly average light entertainment which wilts under close critical scrutiny. Best watched when a bit sleepy.

Peter Jackson and team rise to the challenge of adapting Tolkien's epic trilogy to the screen and they succeed magnificently. It is entirely possible that this film could only have been made, or at least only have been made as well as it has turned out, in New Zealand. Consider the advantages: cheap currency and labour costs, English speaking well-educated workforce with a strong work ethic, superb scenery and favourable climate. Add to this Jackson's obsession with getting the details right and we have all the ingredients for a triumph.

This could have been a pig's ear of a film. Imagine if George Lucas had got hold of it! Fortunately, the important bits of Tolkien's story have been selected and correctly emphasised. Middle Earth is a land in terminal decline, a shadow of its former glory, and it's a seriously terrifying place. Jackson shows us all of this, the landscape dotted with ruins, the most magnificent of these the underground city of Moria. And it is populated with frightening hazards, the goblins, orcs, uruks and other fell creatures superbly realised.

Tolkien tragics might criticise this film for not adhering strictly to the text. What needs to be remembered is that the Lord of the Rings trilogy in text form is essentially unfilmable. Tolkien's dialogue is longwinded, his poetry is lamentable and he cannot write female characters. What Tolkien did give us was the complete creation of a mythical world, with brief and often indirect descriptions of momentous events. Jackson has distilled the best of Tolkien's creation, preserved the emotional core of the story, extracted authentic performances from the entire cast (Elijah Wood is the standout, but everyone does well) and coupled this with magnificent production design, dizzying cinematography and excellent special effects. The other great triumph of this film is that it looks real, even hyperreal, down to the actors' stubby, filthy fingernails and gashed knuckles. It is this convincing realism that makes this film stand out from so many other fantasy films (including the "Star Wars" series). Bring on parts 2 & 3!

Not very ghostly and not all that erotic either. I tend to be harsh on films that rip other films off without offering anything much that's new, and I'm not making an exception here. The rip-off this film does of "Witches of Eastwick" is so lamely done and unoriginal, it's almost sad. At least THAT film had Jack Nicholson at his scene-munching best. Here we have to make do with Manfred Wong who has a nice athletic bod and looks attractive with his rock-star hair extensions, but that's hardly enough to sustain this film.

Nor is the film's obsession with breasts anything to get too worked up about. There is the odd bit of full-frontal nudity (female of course, Hong Kong cinema isn't about to find equality just yet), but time and again the camera focuses on the nearest breast, no matter what else is going on in the scene. This is amateurish film-making, and is not particularly erotic either.

I find it astonishing that 20% of the IMDb users that have rated this film give it 10/10. Perfect film-making? Far, far from it.

Leo di Caprio flaunts his hairless chest, eats a caterpillar and goes nuts on a tropical island. The End.

This film about a dope-fuelled utopia hidden on a remote tropical isle off Thailand could have been much better. The first half is strong, and seems to follow a strong theme of travelling in hope being better than arriving. Robert Carlyle puts in a good but brief role as the crazed Daffy. Once the story arrives at the legendary beach, the film gradually unravels. Di Caprio may be a charismatic screen presence, but he doesn't have the acting ability to bring the story to life. The sequence in the jungle where he loses his marbles is particularly weak. Tilda Swinton, who is one of but a few reasons to watch this film, acts rings around him.

Bits of the film evoke other movies such as Apocalypse Now, Dr Strangelove and Lord of the Flies. This would appear to follow the book on which this film is based, in which the central character is obsessed with films and video games. This works okay in novels, where it is possible to transplant things from other media to fertilise a story, but if it's not done right (and it is not done right here) it only makes the film appear derivative. The novel "The Beach" was popular and very successful and this film would appear to be a sub-standard adaptation. Wonder why they changed Richard's character from English to American, hmm?

Parker and Stone transplant their pacy expletive-ridden humour from their animated masterpiece to a feature length live action film with generally good results. Much of the film is Trey and Matt running amok with their new toy box. The plot is simplicity itself: two average guys invent a new sport, a blend of driveway basketball with baseball scoring which becomes a national craze. Along the way they encounter numerous sporting movie cliches and send them up, along with any other bit of popular culture that comes into their sights. It runs like a stretched South Park episode, with the usual machine-gun dialogue, toilet humour and homilies from the heart.

If this film has a weakness it is the association with the team that gave us "Airplane" and the "Naked Gun" series. This influence is clearly seen with the heavy use of lame sight gags and the presence of a glossy and rather two-dimensional Yasmine Bleeth in the role usually given to Priscilla Presley. Robert Vaughn does a little better playing the corporate b**tard that has been his party piece ever since "Bullitt" and Ernest Borgnine overacts as only he can, but one must admit he's perfect for the role of the lunatic team owner.

For those who haven't noticed yet, Parker and Stone seem to be more comfortable as rock star wannabes than comics. This manifests in the prominence given to the soundtrack in just about everything they create. As usual, they give a good selection here including the obligatory track by their own ultra-non-PC vehicle DVDA.

A special mention must go to Dian Bachar, who deserves some sort of award for enduring the difficult job of playing Stan to Parker and Stone's rampaging pair of Cartmans.

In summary, this is an entertaining comedy which is held back from its full potential by too much reliance on the "Naked Gun/Airplane" formula. Parker and Stone could do something truly brilliant (or absolutely awful) if given full control over a future film. America, either lock these guys up or put them in charge.