Bon_Jovi_chick

Forget Batman! Forget American Psycho! In my personal opinion, "The Machinist" is Bale at his best. Not just because he literally starved himself for the role but his acting once again shines through. The film itself is a roller-coaster into paranoia and you'll keep guessing "What's going to happen next?" and as for the twist at the end, woahhhhhh!! This is a film about punishment and redemption; a man suffering from insomnia for over a year and as the year has gone on, his weight has exceedingly dropped but he carries on. That is until Ivan makes an appearance and his world turns around completely as he begins to lose the remnants of his insanity and he works hard to solve the mystery before he loses everything.

I'm not going to give away the ending but I suggest for the first viewing, just watch the film. Watch it, become emerged into it. Then watch it a second time to figure out the clues. Trust me, even after many viewings, you will STILL be looking for clues. I guarantee it.

This is definitely Bale's movie so if you're a Bale fan, then take the risk and buy it. However, this film isn't for everyone so unless you;re a die hard fan, rent it :-)

9/10

Helen xxxxx

With every sequel that comes after a great film, especially one that has taken decades to come to the screen, there is always going to be the criticism that it till never be as good as the original. The truth is in many cases, they are right and most sequels should be avoided.

With Psycho 2, it is not superior to Psycho but that does not make it a lousy sequel. With the success of the original film, the writer and director could have made it all 1980s slashy and gory style riding on the back of its original. It doesn't.

Yes, the murder scenes are more gory that the 1960s BUT unlike many sequels, this one rides on plot. We see elements from the sequel we get an original story which whilst keeping to the Psycho vision, is independent from it. There are more questions, more suspects and it's one of those "wait til the ending" parts because with the first time round of seeing this (unlike you know the ending), there is always the question of who did what and even at the end, some questions are STILL unanswered which makes it a true thriller because in many cases of life, there are unanswered questions which we interpret. Some people interpret the questions left at the end of this film in their own way. The director and writer respect Hitchcock by trying (and in many ways succeeding) by keeping up to his high standard.

The acting from Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates and Meg Tilly as Mary is superb. In fact Perkins is better in this than he was in the sequel.

Like I said, not the best film in the world but it should be snuffed out until you give it a try. It is an underrated movie and a really good sequel, definitely the best sequel out of the three Psycho sequels (watch out for Psycho 3! That one is the worst!) I give it 8/10 :-)

Now I have seen the first film and fell in love with it. I have not been a fan of Disney sequels so I watched this with cautioned.

In the end, I fell completely in love with it. It would have been nice to have Daveigh Chase be Lilo. However, due to her commitments with the TV show, that wasn't possible. To be fair, I really liked Dakota Fanninf in this and in my opinion, she gives Lilo a "lower" voice which actually reflects on the dark tone of the film.

Yes it is somewhat darker than the original film and I guess that's why I like it so much. Now, in my opinion, some Disney sequels don't seem to have much plot but this one had a great plot. It continues with Lilo missing her parents (although her mother tends to be the one mentioned the most) and with her and her sister now coping with their new extended family (Stitch, Peakley and Jumba).

Of course, more problems occur when Stitch becomes out of control due to a malfunction and he is losing confidence as well as causing a strain in his friendship with Lilo.

This is a great film equal if not superior to the original film. If you are cautious about Disney sequels, well still watch it. You may hate it but I'd recommend you do what I did: Just watch it and never judge the DVD by it's cover lol Helen xxxxx

I agree with the user "SpecialAgentFoxMulder" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.

I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.

There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx

This film was awful. The thing (the really sad thing) is that this film had potential to be good. I feel it was trying too hard to be in the same style as the Scary Movie series- basically "Scary Movie without the horror spoofs".

Sadly, it failed in all accounts. Jokes were over-used and the jokes that had potential to be funny were poorly written.

I know people have written long reviews on this film so I don't know what I can say that they haven't already said so I'm going to simply say: Don't bother! Spend your time watching good spoof films such as Spaceballs, the first two Scary Movies (soryy number 3 and 4 just weren't as good in my opinion! The Wayan brothers should have been brought back into that franchise!)

One of the funniest episodes ever! When ghost pirates make an appearance before the Halloween bash, it is up to the gang (along with Cartman's "Christmas present" the Antonio Banderas Love Doll) to solve the mystery and to help them is the band, Korn.

This is such a funny episode, a basic parody of Scooby Doo with Korn being "groovy" (with even a Velma moment). The "I Spy" bit is a laugh "a twee!"

Who are these ghost pirates?

Or are they pirate ghosts?

Will the mystery ever be solved?

Who will win the fancy dress competition?

And, most importantly, will the gang be able to scare the fourth graders?

This is a small fact: Korn perform "Falling Away from Me" on this episode. This moment has been noted for the song's premiere on US TV.

Basically, after what seems to be a lifetime together, Wendy has dumped Stan and is going out with Token. Stan is heartbroken and so to cheer him up, the gang take him to a bar called Raisins (which is like Hooters except that the waitresses are beautiful girls aged about 10). This doesn't help Stan but Butters ends up falling in love with one of the waitresses. Stan finds himself hanging out with Goths who seem to show the same depressing and cynical view of life that he does.

This one isn't depressing but it does have a heartbreaking message on what it is like when you lose your first love (Stan with Wendy and Butters with the waitress, Lexus). Most of us have had a similar experience and we can relate to it (although I don't think many of us would be so young but hey you never know!).

Give this one a try and if you're sensitive, get the tissues out!

Blessed Be!

Helen xxxxx

The plot is that Cartman was conned out of some money by a fifth grader Scott Tenorman. Cartman tries his hardest to get it back to no avail and the more that Cartman tries, the more that Scott gets his revenge! Then Cartman thinks of a plan....

This episode is so shocking, not because of the pubic hair reference but rather the twist at the end. You will see Cartman in a whole new light after this episode and this is shocking even by South Park standards! I can honestly see why it is constantly voted as one of the viewers' favourite episode, if not THE favourite (of course, with the recent success of "Make Love...not Warcraft", this episode could have some serious competition!

This is a must-see for all true South Park fans and don't say I didn't warn you about the shocking ending (What? I'm not going to tell you what it is!)

Now I have been a fan of South Park for 7 years and I have got to say that this is one of the best episdoes EVER! This is what South Park is all about!

Basically, the kids of South Park have bought the latest game "World of Warcraft" and are enjoying it when a rogue player starts to kill off innocent players. (The rules are you can't kill another player unless you are in a duel but it is implied that this player has played it so much that not only has he gone on a higher than even the game creators thought possible but basically, and most importantly, this player has no life!). It is up to Eric, Kyle, Stan and Kenny to save the day by playing it as much as possible so they can match to the "rogue" player and destroy him for good so everyone else can play the game peacefully. Of course, the creators are there to give a helping hand.

Now in recent series, I thought that South Park was losing its touch. There have been some episodes which I thought were brilliant such as "Scott Tenorman must Die" but on the whole, I thought it was going downhill. This episode proved to me that when it can, it doesn't have its good moments, it has it's GREAT moments! What I found refreshing is its lack of preaching messages which had to add some morale. This one is basically the lads just playing a game to defeat a menace so they could continue to bring peace to the World...of Warcraft.

Itbeautifully satires on how some people take games like this so seriously, it doesn't control their lives, it BECOMES their life! The one thing that disturbed me was:

SPOILER ALERT

The scene with Eric, Eric's mum and the bedpan. I thought that was a bit too grotesque!

SPOILERS END!

I'd highly recommend this episode though and watch out for a very funny Butter moment (trust me. You'll know it as soon as you see it!) Oh and watch out for the music montage. Trust me, you'll have a 90% rate of getting hooked to the song!

Blessed Be!

Helen xxxxx

Okay, he's not going to read that comment but I thought I'd mention it because he made such a big deal over this episode. Obviously, he needs to get that rod out of his backside and just sit down and have a laugh. After all, when has South Park ever been taken seriously? Anyway, onto the episode, basically, Stan takes a Scientology test and the members of the cult believe he is Ron L Hubbard reincarnated! Tom Cruise comes to meet him and Stan says he is a not very good actor (I think) Tom gets upset and goes into a closet. The rest of the scenario is a pun of him "coming out of the closet" in reference to rumours of his sexuality.

Meanwhile, Stan is asked to be the new leader of Scientology. This part of the episode is minor compared to the Tom Cruise scenario.

All I can say about this episode: Sit down and give it a try. If you don't like it, you don't have to see it again, right?

This is my ultimate favourite book of the Harry Potter series. Its a turning point in Harry's point and it contains two of the best new characters of the HP world: Sirius and Remus. These two characters are portrayed brilliantly by Gary Oldman and David Thewlis respectively.

I think my biggest peeve over the film is that it doesn't stick too well with the book. The best scene in the whole book, The Shreiking Shack scene lasts at least 2 chapters in the book but it is cut down to a measley 5 minutes in the film. This scene tells a lot about the past and well it leaves a lot of holes for those who haven't read the book and this could cause a lot of headache trying to understand the next two books.

If you have seen this film but not read the book, then read it. You may understand this film a bit better.

8/10

I originally watched this film because it starred Alan Rickman. I figured that ANYTHING starring the Great Rickman deserved a watch. I ended up enjoying the film all round.

It is sort of anti-Chritstian- depending on how you look at it. It can be seen as bashing Christianity or it could be seen as looking at the Bible in a different light e.g. Jesus having younger brothers and sisters, God being a woman, Jesus being black and there being a black apostle. It can be seen as having an open mind to who God was and Jesus was.

Its very funny and should not be taken too seriously. If you're one of those people who cant have a laugh, then don't bother watching this film. If you think this film exploits Christianity, then just think about how other religions have been exploited for the satisfaction of Christians (e.g. the ending of the Wicker Man) 10/10

Okay here's the plot- David Thewlis stars as the voice of Sludger, an aardvark who is a natural drummer and wants the good life, including having decent trousers (he is OBSESSED with trousers!) Along comes Feldwick C. Hackenbush, a caterpillar who is obsessed with fame and fortune and sees Sludger as a potential target. Together they set off to Beak City where Sludger changes his name to Hamilton Mattress and sets out for fame.........

This short animation film is brilliant! It's so funny. Like many kiddie films, this is a moral story. Sludger is seen as ugly despite his natural drumming talent and the moral of the story is that looks don't matter.

David is brilliant as Sludger- he brings the character alive and makes him really funny. When I think of his voice, I think of "Island of Dr Moreau" or "Harry Potter". I can imagine David having loads of fun with this one I've not had so much fun with an animation since watching "Wallace and Gromit".

Rating 10/10

Okay here's my review of "Total Eclipse".

Here's the plot: It is 1871 and the great poet Paul Verlaine (David Thewlis) has asked to meet with the teenage writing genius Arthur Rimbaud (Leonardo DiCaprio) after reading some of his poems. What happens next involves a relationship based on betrayal, lust, violence and insanity which ends when a quarrel gets out of hand……..

When I first heard of this film, I expected something along the lines of the bio flicks "Prick Up Your Ears" and "Wilde" and in a way I did. Rimbaud is Oscar Wilde as Verlaine is Lord Alfred. He is Joe Orton as Verlaine is Kenneth Halliwell. He is a genius compared to Verlaine's already beautiful poetry.

However, what I didn't expect was "Total Eclipse" mainly focusing on the homosexual relationship between Rimbaud and Verlaine. Although "Prick Up Your Ears" and "Wilde" do the same, they also focus on the prodigy's (Wilde or Orton) work and how they soared compared to their counterpart. This film does not do that.

We do not hear much from Rimbaud's or Verlaine's poetry. It focuses on Verlaine's love for two people: his wife and Rimbaud, with him ending up with nothing except his memories and a tumour in his knee. It would have been nice to hear what Verlaine contributed to the poetry world but all we see of him is a screwed up and violent man who instantly shows regret for what he does.

The film does not clearly show what makes Rimbaud and Verlaine act so bitterly towards each other. They cant live with each other (Rimbaud constantly insults Verlaine and beings him down whilst Verlaine is a cheating husband who, despite loving Rimbaud, still loves his wife). It would have been nice to have a clear picture to why they behave this way although I can guess that Verlaine felt trapped by his mother and father-in-law and Rimbaud was just a cynic teenager who knew far too much for his young age.

However, this is a powerful film and cannot fail to move. Whether you're disgusted at Verlaine's disgusting treatment towards his wife or even more disgusted at his self or whether you want to understand what there is to like about this two men, this film cannot fail to express your hidden emotions.

Leonardo is brilliant as Rimbaud (and I'm not a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio). He was so believable as Rimbaud. One of his best performances! As for David…… woahhhhh he had a much tougher task to do than Leonardo. David had to portray Verlaine as a despicable, violent men who has a heart big enough to regret what he did afterwards. Despite his regret, there is nothing like able about David's Verlaine. You could say that he is similar to David's character, Johnny in the film "Naked". Plus, if you're a David fanatic, you get to see him in all his naked glory for about 10 seconds.

This film is well worth a watch, even just ince.

9/10

Okay, every review has a brief outline on what happens and here it is:

Johnny (David Thewlis) flees Manchester for London, to avoid a beating from the family of a girl he has raped. There he finds an old girlfriend (Lesley Sharpe), and spends some time homeless, spending much of his time ranting at strangers, and meeting characters in plights very much like his own.

That's basically it in a nutshell. Doesn't sound like much, does it? Oh you would be surprised! Johnny rants a hell of a lot but most of it is very provoking, especially when it comes to the Bible. But if you cant understand the Manchester accent or the English lingo, you're not going to enjoy this because you wont understand half of what is being said or half of what is going on!

This film is not for everyone. There is no basic plot to it which is basically Mike Leigh's style and I was asking myself repeatedly: Where is this story going?

Despite this, it is very funny. It is mainly dark humour but Johnny shows off a mixture of sarcasm, intelligence and dark humour. In the first 10 minutes, I couldn't stop laughing at his wit (even though I don't think it was meant to be THAT funny!)

However, it's also very sexually explicit. There are a lot of several rape scenes and the consensual scenes include Johnny treating his women roughly. This blurs the reality of what is rough consensual sex and rape.

Johnny is a confused person and David Thewlis carried this off brilliantly! It is his best role bar non. He acts the way he does because that's the way he was brought up. Johnny is a genius and has his say for the world but form the way he was treated (probably by his mother), he's given up on life and the world and gets by being sarcastic and bitter. However, he has a good heart and seems to have feelings for one person: his girlfriend, the one person who he doesn't try to mess around with (physically or mentally in the film!)

Some people are confused because of Jeremy and what part he has to play. I think what Leigh was trying to do was try and make a contrast between him and Johnny. Whilst Johnny shows compassion, Jeremy has no heart at all. It does not justify Johnny's rape or rough consensual sex- it rather shows that there are nastier people in the world than Johnny.

After reading reviews from IMDb.com I found that women tended to hate this film whilst men love it. I wont say that I loved it but it was a good film and a lovely controversial (and extremely thought-provoking one at that.

Marks: 8/10

I've read a lot of critic reviews and a lot of reviews of the audience and I watched it, fearing the worst! Instead, I liked it on an overall scale. I've seen a lot worse like 'Jack Frost' (not the Michael Keaton version but the film about a killer's spirit trapped in a snowman and goes on a killing spree! I found that film so stupid, I turned it off after 20 minutes!) But then again, I saw the unrated directors cut and saw probably more gore and blood than the PG original version gives out.

Okay, here's the story. The year is 2010. Edward Douglas (David Thewlis) is lost at sea being the soul survivor of a plane crash (there were two other survivors but you'll have to find out about them yourself!). He is rescued by Montgomery (Val Kilmer) and taken to an 'island paradise' operated by Dr Moreau (Marlon Brando). It is while Edward is on the island waiting for the communications system to be fixed (so he can call for help) that he finds out what the doctor's secret project is. This mainly all happens in the first 20 minutes but I wont tell you the rest!

Okay, first of all, I can see why this film has been beaten and bruised by so many people (especially the critics). There are several flaws in each film. In between conversations there are several pauses and although this is meant to put in suspense, it just makes the film drag. Also, the truth over the doctor's project is revealed in the first 30 minutes so it seems that the next 1 hour 10 minutes are a bit of a drag. Oh and Marlon Brando in that gear…. Sorry it doesn't work!!!!!.

On an off note, I've got a feeling that the doctor and his little friend were the inspiration for the 'South Park' characters Doctor Maphesto and his little monkey friend. I could be wrong though!

However, this film is NOT (repeat NOT) unwatchable. It's quite interesting. Although Marlon is the star billing (well not on IMDb.com but definitely on the DVD cover and film credits), David and Val stole the show hands down (Hey I found a Val film I like! Cool! I'm not counting 'Willow!' in that because that rocks anyway!) Seeing him play the insane role was cool and I have to admit he was sexy!

As for David, his acting was amazing (as usual) I cant think of any other word to describe it! I cant work out his accent but from watching 'Naked', his accent in 'Dr Moreau' is Mancunian but its stiffer than that in 'Naked', like he was trying to be posh or he was bored or just had a stick up his bum!

This is one of the great moral stories of all time. The original story must have got its idea of 'Playing God' from Mary Shelley's book 'Frankenstein. We have the doctor trying to play God and create the perfect species by injecting splicing animals with 'perfect' human genes. Similarily Frankenstein decides to create the perfect men with a high intelligence and beauty! However, in 'Dr Moreau', there is the modern fable that sometimes, from the way we act, we are not always men but resemble the beast. This is portrayed highly at the end of the film with the final narrative.

Also, the title sequence is terrific!

Overall, I give it a 7/10- good but could be better!

H xxxxxx

I can see why many people see this as a bad film. It's a bit difficult to understand the plot around it- it took me two viewings of the film to realize what was going on.

The basic storyline is that a bickering married couple are on their way from holiday when they find themselves in the company of a hitchhiker and a love triangle starts to unfold........ It's a dark thriller with a lot of twists and turns.

The acting was okay. I also saw this film because it stars Alan Rickman (one of my favourite actors). His American accent was a bit dodgy and sometimes, he just give up and goes back to his dry British tone.

The wife was poorly acted and the lad was a little bit too weird for my taste.

I can see why some people find the script to be very bad because the relationship between the three main characters was not developed enough and there are a few holes in the story. However, because I have a strange mind, I see the holes as part of the question for asking certain questions adds more mystery to the story.

Like (a few spoilers)

a) did David really go to the golf session or was it a ruse so the lad could seduce the wife? And was all that part of the final plan?

b) did the boat really sink near the end of the film? If so, was it accidental or deliberate? If not, was it all an act so the two men could spend some time together?

c) when did the two males actually meet? Did they meet earlier or was David picking up the lad their first meeting? The biggest mystery of them all.

SPOILERS END

The cinematography and music were average but could have been better.

However, I give this film a 7 and would recommend it to Norman Reedus and Alan Rickman fans (especially for the ending!)

7/10

Whoever read my review for the first film (and probably hate me for writing it), well hope Ive redeemed myself with this review.

I loved this one a lot better. The acting was better all round and I can now no longer read the books without thinking of Dan as Harry, Rupert as Ron and Emma as Hermoine. I cant forget the lovely Julie Walters and Mark Williams as the every loveable Weasley parents nor Tom Felton as the nasty Draco Malfoy!! If the rumours are true that J K Rowling based Snape on Alan Rickman, then Im not surprised. He is perfect for the part and Maggie Smith is brill as Professor McGonagall. Its nice to know that Richard Harris died in a blaze of glory by being perfect as Professor Dumbledore. Kenneth Brahangh (sp?) is fantastic as the egotistical Professor Lockhart.

The effects were out of this world, with the Polyjuice potion and with the Basilik battle at the end. Ive had problems imaging this scene from the books but now Ive seen the film, the scene is clear in my mind!!

This film is a pure delight to watch and if you were, like me disappointed with the first film, then you will definetly enjoy this one!!! 100% guaranteed!

Bring on PRIOSNER OF ASKABAN!!! With the talented Gary Oldman as Sirius and David Threwlis as Lupin, this film should be as much of a delight as this one, if not more so!!!

10/10!!!

Like most Harry Potter fans, I had read all four books before tackling the films. I had tackled the books by February last year and watched the films by August! My least favourite book is this one and the film didnt do it much justice, acting wise. The talents of Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman and Richard Harris delight the screen but the childrens' acting was a wee bit flat. Of course they can be let off because for some, it was their first ever on the acting floor.

The only three kids I like in this one were the Weasley twins and Oliver Wood- they were a pure delight to see.

Better comments on my review for the second one!

When I first heard about it, I thought it was going to be the most stupid sci fi spoof ever! I finally watched it yesterday and it changed my mind completely. When I wasnt laughing, I definetly had a smile on my face. It's still a bit stupid but its a "nice" stupid, like its supposed to make you smile, not "stupid" stupid when all you can think is "Why am I wasting my time with this rubbish?"

Tim Allen is brilliant as the idiotic captain and Signouary Weaver kicks as the lovable blonde with the huge you-know what! But for me its Alan Rickman who steals the show as the dry actor who is jealous of the attention that the main star recieved. Once again, Rickman doesnt even have to say a word to make the audience laugh. Like in PRINCE OF THEIEVES, he just had to look funny and you'll laughing!!!

Word of warning: Don't even try to take this film seriously. You wont enjoy it.

This is a varied structured film. Its not stuck on one person's mission to get from A to B, like most films. This is a varied film with one precise ending. This is what makes this film unforgettable!

This films is focused on a family on a council estate living different lives. Kathy Burke is fantastic as Valerie and Ray Winstone plays Ray, her husband who is a drunk, abusive and is haunted by past demons. There's also Valerie's younger brother who is addicted to heroin and Valerie's mother, Janet (who is played by Lalia Morse who is Gary Oldman's sister and we probably associate more with Big Mo is "Eastenders")

This film is brilliant and incredibly graphic form beginning to end. According to the average, we hear the F word about 3.9 times per minute and we hear a lot of the C word. Theres a lot of violence and drug taking scenes that put "Trainspotting" to shame.

Ray Winstone once said that Gary Oldman knew what he wanted on screen and I agree. Seen as based on Oldman's life living in London, this film is one of the few realistic films around. It does not succumb to Hollywood with a terrific and convincing British cast. The two stars of the film are Burke and Winstone as man and wife.

The problem I had with this film was understand one of the Cockney phrases but coming from Manchester, I did find this surprising because Manchester and London are two different cultures.

Well done Gary Oldman! Hope he directs another film soon!

9/10!

Okay heres the plot- Jack (Gary Oldman) has a wife (Annabella Sciorra), has a mistress (Juliette Lewis), earns $56,000 as a cop and gets $65,00 from the mob for everytime he works for them. How? He is assigned to a witness-protection program and then he sells his secrets to a mob boss. Things couldnt get better for him....... until he meets Mona (Lena Olin). She's a killer. Jack is assigned by the police to protect her whilst the mob wants him to kill her. And shes got a proposal of her own- to help her fake her death in return for $325,000. What's worse is that Jack finds her attractive and she knows it and toys with him sexually. This is not your average love affair!!!

Sounds confusing? IT IS! It becomes more mind-boggling on the screen with Jack becoming the victim of a dangerous woman. In the end, it all comes to a terrific climax with Jack living in the worst hell possible- with nothing in the world, except endless and useless hope!

This film has holes in it and for some reason near the end of the film, the narrative changes round, with the narrator changing from talking about himself in the third party but rather taking a more direct approach. It took me two viewings of this film to understand what was going on.

Despite this, its brilliant to watch. Oldman is brilliant as Jack, the man who just wanted more and loses it all. Olin is terrific as Mona, the femme-fatale who brings this film into the film noir category and mentally "castrates" Oldman. She is Alex in "Fatal Attraction", she is Meredith in "Disclosure", she is Catherine- she is able to succumb Jack into her web and ruin him forever.

Although Oldman shows of his brillaint talent in this film, he has done better roles and films- like LEON but this is highly recommended to Oldman fans. If you are not an Olin or Oldman fan, avoid!

9/10

After seeing "Silence" and with also turning into a Gary Oldman, I was geared up hoping this film would be brilliant.

Sadly it wasnt. I think the problem was that the script changes sevral elements of Lector's and Starling's characters and also Jodie Foster turned it down. If she had done the role instead of Julianne Moore, I truley believe this film may have rated better.

Rather than the chills you recieve from "Silence", "Hannibal" is more grotesque, showing more blood, guts and violence.

Sir Anthony Hopkins did not seem as menacing in this film as he was in "Silence". Gary Oldman is chilling and completely unrecognisable as Mason Verger and like all his roles, Oldman plays this one perfectly. The only time you recognise him is in a flashback and even that is blurry!

Overall, I give it a 5/10!

H xxxxx

To be honest, I did not know what to think when I saw this film. Overall, its not my favourite film, its still watchable.

Mark (Elijah Wood) has just lost his mum to cancer and is sent off to his cousin Henry (Macaulay Culkin) to help. However, Mark learns that Henry is twisted and evil, whilst his mum and dad reckon he's a good boy.

Although Henry is twisted and evil, Culkin shows another side to him which shows that he wants attention. After killing his younger brother Richard and attempting to kill his sister, I can only lead to one conclusion: that Henry was once the oldest and had all the attention and became jealous when his brother and sister were born. And then Mark comes along and Henry feels threatened with his mother comforting another boy. A very different role from the "Home Alone" series and surprisingly brilliantly done!

Elijah Wood is brilliant as Mark who feels guilty for not being able to save his mother from cancer. At the same time as grieving, he has to protect Henry's sister from Henry and also try and convince Henry's parents that Henry is not as good as they like to think.

What I did not like about the film is the ending: to have a mother given a choice on which child should fall........ its a bit sick.

Also, the film was too short. It would have been interesting to actually see how Richard died and also see what made Henry become evil. That part can only be theorised- it should have been put on screen!

8/10!!!

I only watched this film because I'm studying Jodie Foster films for my university thesis. I started the thesis three months ago and Ive become somewhat hooked on SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. A truly magnificent and definetly Jodie Foster's best. Sir Anthony Hopkins was incredibly chilling in this film and its one of the few films that does send tension and chills through my spine.

Both Foster and Hopkins deserved the acting Oscar for their roles- Foster was so perfect as the brilliant but vulnerable Starling. Its a shame that HANNIBAL could not beat this film.

It deserves a higher ranking on this list than 26!

10/10

H xxxxxx