tony etchells

Most people complain that this is a scene-for scene replica. If they truly loved the original they would know that this version is different in virtually every respect.

I have seen the original so many times (I own the DVD)and know the dialogue almost word for word. From the appearance of the Universal logo, with Danny Elfman's adaption of Bernard Herrmann's classic score bubbling away I was completely captivated. And then those amazing opening titles! To see them play on a huge screen, in colour with full Dolby sound was thrilling. Yes, they look the same as the original, but not QUITE the same.

These are different actors, each giving their own individual interpretations of their roles. Although they SEEM to be saying the same things, they are given a different slant by their intonations. I can't understand the criticism levelled at Vince Vaughn - why must he ape Anthony Perkins? He's more "normal" in appearance, easier to like and therefore more deadly. If I were Janet Leigh, I'd have taken one look at Perkins and climbed right back into my car (remember this film is supposed to take you by surprise).

Likewise Anne Heche is fantastic as Marion. It's set in 1998 and Leigh's painful self-consciousness wouldn't play. Heche knows she's committed a crime , but thinks only of getting to her man while she packs her things, blocking out any feelings of shame.

I also enjoyed Julianne Moore's fiery Lila, in contrast to the anguished portrayal by Vera Miles. And to round it off, Viggo Mortensen is a personable drugstore cowboy - nothing like John Gavin's stoicism.

So what's not to like? It's basically the same tale as the original, and you all love that. Get a grip!

The best horror films are the ones that stay with you long after they're over. Hollywood had lost the ability to produce crawling horror until very recently when The Others marked a return to form.

This move is a bona fide classic. Yes it's a remake of the famous 1956 movie where are handful of people come to realise that the human race is being taken over by emotionless alien invaders, but this time round things are very different.

Those familiar with the original will see the plot develop down seemingly familiar lines. But a couple of minutes in, it starts to dawn on us that the main characters aren't the first to notice the subtle changes in everyone around them, they're the LAST. Brooke Adams walks through a park where a teacher is instructing her children to take the toxic pods home with them. Unexplained crowds of people chase a terrified man down the street as she walks to work. Refuse collectors are everywhere, disposing of human hosts. A face stares impassively through the frosted glass of a window. Kevin McCarthy's anguished warning falling on the deaf ears of Sutherland and Adams and his death watched by unmoved onlookers. The damage has already been done long before she and her friends catch on.

It's this sense of helplessness, the knowledge that the alien takeover has happened right under everyone's noses that really makes the flesh creep.

It's a depressing fact that the moviegoing public is being brainwashed by critics to hate everything involving Kevin Costner. When released in 1997 this breathtaking, thought-provoking epic was largely ignored and limped to a box office gross of $14 million, thanks to some vicious reviews.

Lest we forget, Costner made the magnificent Dances With Wolves, but that was in the days when we were told it was okay to like him. His directorial follow up is every bit as good. He knows about directing. He coaxes great performances from his casts. He has real vision and takes chances. Like Michael Cimino, his efforts are belittled and mocked while directors with clearly less talent are applauded.

So to all those people who stayed away in droves and screw their faces up at the mention of this film, I say watch it before you criticise it. Don't rely on some magazine writer to tell you who's good and who's not. Your brain is there for a reason.

After every critic in the world heaped froth-at-the-mouth praise on this "masterpiece" I was eager to see it when it came out. I knew I was going to hate it with a vengeance very quickly.

So the cosy world we live in is all an illusion? Personally I'll take the illusion anytime if the alternative is living in a pot of hair gel.

The effects, ladies and gentlemen, are terrible. I've seen better on commercials (and most of them I had done before this was made). The acting is peurile - Keanu Reeves is a totem pole, Carrie-Anne Moss is cheerless and charmless, Hugo Weaving is more convincing in a dress.

"But it's so cool" I hear you protest. Because Keanu says "whoa" and wears shades? Because Carrie-Anne Moss is a babe (to spotty teenagers)? Because Lawrence Fishburne spouts some incomprehensible Morgan Freemanesque pearls of wisdom? Because there are lots of guns and fights for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Think about it for a minute and you'll realise you're being manipulated far more than the human race in this film.

I was very heartened to read that this wonderful movie has a loyal legion of fans. I agree that it is streets ahead of the overrated original. Alex Cord had charisma in spades - just try to tear your eyes away from him in any scene. Ann-Margret gives a marvellously gritty performance as Dallas,the emotionally battered saloon girl who's scared to hope for a future with Ringo.

I caught this on TV in the 80's, taped it, and found myself watching it several times a week for months. I still have the tape and wouldn't dream of erasing it. Hope it comes out on DVD soon.