paul_draper2001

I wasn't too sure what to expect going into the cinema to see this. I loved the TV series and was a bit worried the film would really let it down like has been the case with other comedies in the past e.g. 'Kevin and Perry go large', 'Bean: the ultimate disaster movie', etc but this is still great! the only thing i would say is that for the movie to really work they shouldn't have made a third series which tied up endings for the characters as none of this has been referenced in the film - Pauline and Mickey aren't married, Edward and Tubbs are alive and Papa Lazarou is, well...himself. although when you consider the storyline, the characters aren't actually being written about anymore. so it does makes sense.

as i said I'm a fan of the series and the movie isn't perhaps laugh out loud all the way through (though there are hilarious moments galore in the first 30 minutes) but thats OK because where it lacks in hilarity, it makes up for in the plot. And this is where it differs to most comedy series that go into a movie. The Storyline is really good and cleverly done, not only is it a cool idea to have the characters hunt down their writers who have stopped writing about them (and therefore begins the apocalypse of Royston Vasey), its great to involve a completely different scenario which they are apparently writing, set centuries ago where three men (played of course by Pemberton, Gatiss and Shearsmith) are plotting an assassination of the King and Queen. After three of the characters from Royston Vasey have kidnapped Steve Pemberton, they discover this new work on his laptop and step forward Geoff Tipps who writes himself into that world "suddenly a man named Geoff Tipps with a huge cock comes forward and saves the King!"

David Warner is great as the evil Erasmus Pea, who refers to Geoff Tipps by the name in his coat as "George of ASDA" how superb!

what is also clever is the fact that most of the time it is just the three actors in one scene together, regardless of which character is used or if its them as their-selves.

i wasn't sure what i was expecting, i had heard good reviews and as a result i partly suspected a big let-down, thank god i wasn't. the reviews were right, this really is a good movie, i came out very impressed and in fact saw it twice at the cinema (the first time i've ever seen a film twice at the cinema) the first time i saw it was with two friends who are big League of Gentlemen fans. My girlfriend wanted to see it, and i jumped at the chance to see it again.

I really would recommend this. Good film, excellent writing, brilliant script, although this really is for fans of the show and not for someone who's never seen an episode ever.

my only disappointment was that i felt Edward and Tubbs (ultimate classic characters) and Papa Lazarou (my favourite character!) weren't in the film that much at all.

9/10

In January 2003 on a college trip to Amsterdam, i and other friends went into the Anne Frank Huis on the last day. This is the famous place where she and her family went into hiding. i found it strange to actually walk up those hidden stairs and see things such as the heights of the two girls still preserved on the walls in pencil. i found the whole experience to be the most moving place i've ever been to.

seeing Anne Frank: the Whole Story on tv a few months after i just had to see it. It is a film which does everything right, its doesn't hide behind any barriers and shows the truth as it really was. We all know about Anne Frank's life during the time she wrote in her diary and in the 'hiding period' and it does show this, but what it also shows is afterwards - after they were found out and taken away. It shows just how Jews were treated and is unbelievable such terrible things occured in only the 20th century - a century most of us were born in, and yet similar regimes in the world today still treat humans like this.

You see the Frank and Van Pels' family split up by their sex, stripped naked and the women having their hair cut short and sleeping in cramped conditions, starving and forced to dig...presumably mass graves in which they would be buried. We can only imagine what was going through her mind as Anne didn't take her diary with her to the Camp. To be told your father is already in the gas chambers is not what any 16 year old girl should ever be told.

All in all i cant find any fault with the film, it gives her diary and the whole story justice and is nice to see the helper's of Otto's factory to be shown quite frequently and involving them. It is also supported by a strong cast, especially Ben Kingsley as the father who survives the concentration camp to learn after the war that his wife and two daughters are dead.

Perhaps the most moving aspect i found were the actual words at the end telling you statistics and what happened to the individuals (including the factory workers/helpers) and it leaves you with something really strong which really makes you think "One and a half million children were murdered in the genocide the Nazi's called 'The Final Solution'. Anne Frank's story is only one of them"

There have been some great or plausible movies or made for television films focusing on disasters or news events in history, such as 'Alive' and 'Hillsborough'. Sadly, 'Challenger' isn't one of them.

It perhaps could've been improved with not leaving the launch until the end of the film, and instead perhaps leaving it until about two thirds of the way through, leaving room for the investigation into the Disaster. It hardly breaks new ground either, apart from maybe that the teachers knew before the White House conference who was chosen to go into space.

Although i have not minded her in other films, i don't think Karen Allen was anywhere near the ideal choice to play Christa McAuliffe, she was at times irritating and wooden occasionally too, it also seemed to rely on her looks more than her acting ability, and also over-done the scene where she makes her speech at the White House about taking ten souls on board with her.

The disaster happened in 1986, the film was made 1990, a bit too early in my opinion. Had it been made at present times, less emotional feeling would be used during the making of it, I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that you can tell it was obvious it was made in a time when the world was still not fully over the shock of the disaster.

May all seven astronauts rest peacefully. May this film have reached its potential and not been a disappointment.

This film really did take my breath away. Being 17 when i saw it last year on channel4 in Britain, and also being male doesn't seem to make it easier telling your friends you were scared by a movie. But when one of those friends agrees with you and you realise you're not the only one to think it, it does help.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is truly THE most frightening film i have ever seen. I usually tend to be a fan of the horror genre, in fact The Shining is my favourite film of all time, but no film i have seen since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre has ever been good enough in creating the same impact and shock upon me. When discussing it with people of a similar age what they thought of the film, most responses thought it was a lousy film and was funny in parts. As a generalisation (and i know this isnt always the case) it seems a lot of people who think that the film isnt anywhere scary at all, do not know it was actually based on fact. When i told some of my friends this (they didn't know) they changed their minds slightly about the film.

This is the main feature when watching this movie is that knowing its based on fact, you can't help but feel for the characters. Sure, you know they are being played by actors and aren't actually being brutally murdered, however you can't help being reminded in your mind that most of the gruesome scenes which are shown has actually happened to someone.

There truly are disturbing murders shown and what becomes of the corpses, but this film's title shouldn't be taken too literally! - there is only one person shown that is actually killed by a chainsaw, however not every film is true to the title and you do also get the hint the main murderer - Leatherface (who wears a mask of human skin) does kill regularly with his chainsaw. Probably one of the worst scenes that i remember in this film is of the murder of the first girl; having attempted to run away from leatherface, she is grabbed by him and dragged into the slaughter room, where her live body is hung on a meat hook, while in front of her we see Leatherface working on the dead body of her boyfriend - mutilating it with the chainsaw. This is just one example of many in the film where in breaks through the boundary's of conventional horror.

Marilyn Burns cannot be corrected for her brilliant acting and realism, when she plays the tortured survivor Sally Hardesty. Having had her four other friends murdered by the disturbingly psychotic Leatherface, she becomes the only one to survive but has to endure an unbelievable torture by Leatherface's family of psychopaths.

This, is another part of the film in which you really feel for the character. Having been chased a long distance by Leatherface and his chainsaw, she finally comes to a man who appears she is safe with, only to find out he is part of the disturbing family and captures her, where she is being skinned at the dinner table. Marilyn Burns plays on your emotions even more by the constant screaming, to which no one can hear (thus needing the tagline from Aliens - In Texas, no one can hear you scream). An effective use of the camera also helps to sink more fear into you. A close-up of her eye, which is moving all the time and staring completely helps to show us how she feels, in a way it puts us in her situation, feeling her fear. A point-of-view shot in the same scene also does this, showing us the table with the family around and the youngest member mimicking her cries as he goes on to torture her. It is only by a careless moment by this person that lets her escape, but even then it isn't over. When she runs out of the house, Leatherface is soon to follow her, chasing with the chainsaw again. What perhaps is also disturbing in this outside shot, is that we can tell it is now daylight, having been captured in the dark night before. So we can only imagine just how long she has been in there, being tortured.

From the moment the horror starts, it never stops in this film until the end. This was a low-budget film, but was a high budget required? the answer is no. This film is a slasher-movie being propelled to its most potential in shocking you...and it works.

If you think this film is rubbish, that is your choice. I recommend this film to all die-hard horror fans, like myself (as i mentioned) but dont expect it to be similar to horror films you have already seen. If you have seen similar movies - they are most likely made after 1974.

Great film, shocking, powerful and disturbing but a great film. This is not for the easily disturbed.

wow! I know there will be many who disagree with my views on this movie, but there are also many who will agree.

Vanilla Sky is just fantastic. It has a quite original twist than most movies around. Because of this twist, it is one of those great movies such as 'the Sixth Sense' and 'Arlington Road' which after watching it, you feel as though you HAVE to see it again, now that you know what is really happening throughout the film. Without spoiling it too much for others who haven't seen it, there is a certain feature in the plot which is shown throughout many times and you don't realise just how important it is until the end. Vanilla Sky is also the only film which i have seen twice at the cinema.

On another note, i have never thought too highly of Tom Cruise before, and never considered him a good actor. His performance in his role in this movie, changed my opinion. i have never seen him act like this before and it all added to the greatness of this movie.