nemo183

This film has already had some good, accurate and concise reviews. It is well written, well acted and well filmed. The research that has gone into it seems considerable, and then used in an intelligent way to produce a piece of drama, rather than a dull documentary. Whilst some of VG's works are dismissed in what appears to be a clichéd manner, ("childish"), this is a point that has to be made.

The film also reminds us of just how much work VG produced in such a short space of time - indeed, what we now we regard as some of his finest.

I'd suggest that some of the films finest moments pass almost without us realising the true meaning of the very carefully chosen dialogue.

In particular the line "It was you - you made me do it" after a scene of destruction will resonate with anyone who has ever worked with anyone with mental health problems, and contains enough different meanings to write a book about.

This work is a fine attempt to explain the unexplainable, whilst at the same time holding it's audience.

Since this series has long been and gone, and several other reviewers have described it perfectly, I'll just make a few brief points. Anyone who has ever spent time working in the environment this series is set in will appreciate just how hard it can be to distinguish between Doctors and Patients. Psychos works because it captures the very essence of the subject. At the same time it allows both the story line and characters to develop in a way that pushes the very edges of the boundaries of reality. Are units like this staffed by people like this? No. Does the program portray the essential nature of all those involved? Absolutely.

It's worth pointing out that the series is now available on DVD.

I love the idea of IMDb, and on the whole it works really well. But, if you think about it, there are just times when the rating system doesn't work.

Catwoman is not a great film, or even a memorable film. But it is an enjoyable romp. It has a great sound track. The camera work is superb. You get to see both Sharon Stone and Halle Berry in leading roles, in the same film.

OK - the plot is thin. However, I've sat through much worse than this, from films which have even been Oscar nominated.

So, let's keep a sense of proportion, and just enjoy things for what they are......

This a difficult movie to score. Certainly, it works well by it's self, without having seen the previous 13 TV episodes. As is well documented, these were not only shown out of order, but I believe some were never aired. Given the amount of junk on TV, it is beyond all understanding why the TV series was treated so badly - and almost vindictively.

Back to the film. $40 million seems to have gone a long way - it never appears to be a budget film, more like a $80 million film.

Followers of the TV series might agree that in the normal course of events the film would have been a more natural event if it had followed a second season of TV.

As things stand, there is an initial shock when the film is forced, through lack of time, to crash right into what might have been the end of several years of TV seasons.

Even so, although most viewers will have benefited greatly from prior knowledge of the TV series, the film still works as a stand alone piece. The special effects are special, the plot works fine. In comparison to "Doom 3", it is a masterpiece.

Here in the UK the cinema release got virtually zero publicity, but with a bit of luck the video sales should squeeze the project into profit. The very fact it was made at all is a shining example of viewer/fan power.

Finally, over the last part of the closing credits, we get a reprise of the original theme song - but with slight changes, which I reckon were forced due to copyright problems.

I should imagine there is probably a film to be made about how hard it was to make this film - and I should imagine several Hollywood "BigWigs" would be seen for what they really are, let alone the disgraceful efforts Fox made to bury the whole project. You really do have to wonder why.

There's probably a film to be made about the creation of this series, which might explain the seemingly endless lengths Fox (who paid for it) were prepared to go to in order to prevent it being the even greater success it could have been. Wouldn't it be great to meet the suit who decided that the first episode shown on TV wouldn't be the double length pilot, which sets up the series?

Since this series has already had so many rave reviews, I'd just like to put in a special word for the music score.

Leaving to one side the almost perfectly crafted signature song at the start, which is not only hauntingly memorable both for it's tune and the lyrics that accompany it, the score is one of the best ever to accompany a TV series.

In keeping with the general setting of the program (that of a recreation of the Wild West, but set 500 years in the future, where the only 2 super powers are the USA and China) the score at first listening appears to match the action with what appears to be fairly conventional guitar/banjo tunes, which fit the action perfectly.

It's only on a second listening that you realise that in actual fact a vast range of unique, almost tribal, instruments have been used that create a sound-scape which combines to give a sound that includes different aspects of music from many different cultures.

If you were only ever to listen to three minutes of the whole series, the final music played over the last episode where the crew are returning the body of a friend to his family cannot fail to bring a tear to the eye.

Finally, surely we must all look forward to the as yet unseen programs of almost unbelievable quality that Fox must be sitting on if they feel that this material is worth showing in place of another series of FireFly.

On reflection, however, this jewel of a series will always have the advantage of remaining almost perfect in our memories, without having to live on, season after season, (like Buffy, Stargate, etc. etc.), with each season being slighty less good than the last, until they finally expire as the cast ages, the writing becomes weaker and weaker, and they eventually stop, not with a bang, but a wimper.

Your view of this movie may well depend on if you watch it at your local cinema, or just rent it for the night on DVD.

If you choose the latter option, and you're just not in the mood for the opening 20 minutes - which could be viewed as both bleak and depressing - you might just give up before the true story gets going, and miss out big time.

The film soon becomes a closely woven and complex morality tale of our times. The casting and acting are both superb.

Despite the storyline at times becoming slightly contrived, at no time are we, the audience, allowed to drop our "willing suspension of belief", and hence the film works perfectly.

It is so hard to review this film on IMDb.

Where do you start - with an analytical dissection of the plot, or your emotional reaction to it? Well, I'm going for the latter.

In the vast annual output of all cinema, often where money rules, how do you include a work such as this? The visual effects are spectacular - George Lucas should eat his heart out when it comes to the portrayal of warrior armies.

During the whole film, there is a superbly interwoven story of life and death, which eventually draws in most of the major characters.

Amongst the scenes of mass destruction, there are moments during which I would defy the most hardened film reviewer not to feel a welling dampness in the eyes.

I'm sure many others have given an overview of the plot - none of which is that original. However, the technical execution, as well as the acting, is superb.

There are many ways of telling this story, and yet the film works in being able to combine the global epic, along with each personal tragedy.

I doubt many film fans, had they known about this film, would not over the course of a year dumped a couple of hours of dross for the experience of watching this. It is not a great film, but watching it will probably be unforgettable for most viewers.

Yours in film, Roger

Hey, let's just get back these IMDb reviews under control.

This is an enjoyable, multi-levelled film that will particularly appeal to a European and American audience - just because it is so different.

However, in view of the whole range of current Japanese/Chinese/Tiawanese film output, anyone giving this a ten star rating should get out more. Especially those people (and you know who you are) have written a "review" which is a word for word quote from the DVD cover.

Having watched it twice, I enjoyed it. It's got style, and originality. It's really watchable. But, it's a bit like candy-floss - it appears more substantial than it is. In some circumstances, it would acquire a cult following of those wishing to explain each and every scene, in infinite depth.

There are some great performances. Unfortunately, Vinne Jones does not provide one of these. In his previous, and more honourable career, as a soccer player, he achieved a certain degree of fame as a last stop, hatchett man defender.

In his retirement, he was superb in his cameo role in "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" However, his role in this film is just a joke. Now, I quite understand if he was cast as a joke - this would lend a degree of irony to his role. But, I just don't think that was the intention.

So, in conclusion, watching this will not be a wasted 2 hours of your life - but if you haven't already seen 3-Iron, Oldboy, Immortal, Sympathy for Mr Vengeance or Casshern, why not do yourself a favour, and leave this as the light - but substantial - piece of fluff it is?

I seem to be in the minority here, but I thought this film was a complete disappointment when compared to "Dog Soldiers". Others have given an overview of the plot, which I won't repeat, and the film does have a few spectacular moments.

However, I never felt that "engaged" with any of the characters, and as such found it difficult to care that much as the body count grew. Maybe this is partly a bloke thing - since the cast is virtually all women, and character development does not seem to have high on the priority list, I found it difficult to get that concerned with the fate of any particular actor.

The special effects are OK, but by now my mind was wondering about all the logical inconsistencies in the plot, and the premise of the situation the actors have to confront.

There's also the problem of the set - although I guess the intention was to recreate the claustrophobia of the confines of the caves, in practice I felt that after a while this just gave the film a one-dimensional appearance.

Although there are frequent references to other movies during the film, and I guess spotting them all would be vaguely amusing, in order to play that card this would need to be a better film.

I was looking forward to seeing it, but it's one of those films in my opinion will soon be buried without trace, which is disappointing.

One of the best British horror movies to be released in the last five years. Despite it's tiny budget - i.e. seems to have no CGI, plus special effects of big explosions do look a bit dodgy - I suspect the blowing up of some quite small models - this movie works because by about a third of the way through, you actually care about what happens to the characters.

Another weakness concerns several of the plot lines, which are perhaps a little too well sign posted.

Despite this, the film still does well to create tension virtually from the start. The interaction of the British soldiers, initially sent on exercise with blank firing standard issue SA80 rifles, is accurately portrayed, as is their reaction to reacting to a real threat.

I don't know if there was any overdubbing for the US release, but the use of colloquial English (and Scottish!) might make some of the dialogue somewhat incomprehensible for anything other than a UK audience. However, even if very word isn't understood, the acting makes certain it's meaning is.

The cast of werewolves perform outstandingly, and their performances are enhanced by the use of great camera work - we see enough, but not too much.

It's also good to see a horror film that rejects the mould of the Hollywood "slasher" genre, and takes us in another direction.

I guess this film will mainly be compared to the classic "American Werewolf in London" on the one hand, and "28 Days Later" on the other.

It doesn't have the humour of AWinL, but it is equally engrossing in other ways. Although 28 Days features some superb cinematography, it comes nowhere near to Dog Soldiers as a complete horror film.

It seems to me that this film contains several great ideas, but then fails to deliver with any coherent explanation in basic scientific terms. At a recent presentation, one of the main contributors was quoted as saying that initially, all great new ideas are rubbished, but then often, over a period of time, prove to be true.

I doubt that anyone would argue with this premise. However, it's really quite difficult, even after watching the film twice, to determine exactly what it is we are being asked to accept.

There's also a problem with the input of the main contributors. Half would appear to be established experts, well known for their published works. The other half would at best be described as "New Age" protagonists, who have not had the claims they make subjected to the same rigorous standards. Yet the film does not distinguish between the two groups.

In particular, I'd highlight the claim that 4000 people through the power of meditation reduced the crime rate in Washington by 25%, and that there are 48 previous studies that support this. I'm a great believer in the power of meditation - for the individual. However, these claims only seem to be made by a particular "brand" - ie TM.

In conclusion, I felt the whole film to be an uncomfortable attempt to match up new age thinking with quantum physics. I enjoyed watching it, but felt slightly cheated that the links between the two were not subjected to a little more rigour. Despite my reservations, I don't think anyone would regret investing a couple of hours watching this - and then having a long, hard think.

Congratulations to everyone involved for having the balls to make the film - they deserve every success.

Hey, I know the idea of this board is to be all inclusive, but surely now is the time to stop. Every single scene has now been dissected far beyond the intention of the the director. You either love this movie or hate it.

Let's all move on to talk about other great and underrated films - how about "3 Iron" or just about any other Korean film - how about "Old Boy"? Donnie has now been thrashed into the ground, and it just seems to me their is almost nothing more to be said.

(Although I can't resist mentioning it only took off after is UK DVD release).

So, although every new viewer may have a passionate view about it, It's probably been expressed about a zillion time already.

Why not just give it a mark out of ten, an instead of writing a review, get excited and passionate about a new,maybe obscure, release?

Oh dear, what a waste of 110 minutes of my life.

Where "Pitch Black" was, in turns, horrific, amusing, spectacular etc, and most importantly us as the audience cared about at least some of the characters, this is the opposite.

The sets are an unoriginal mix of "Lord of the Rings" meets "Dune" - as are most of the "characters" One can only assume that Diesel, Newton and Dench are in it just for the money. The nightmare would be if this where considered part of a new franchise.

The plot is minimal. The effects are nothing new, but despite the budget have a low rent feel. If, part way through, you feel the need to go the fridge and get a beer (and you will), you won't bother to press "pause" on the remote.

Maybe the very least attractive element of the film is the physical appearance of Dame Judy Dench. Parts of her face appear to have become 10 years younger. But not all of it. One can only hope this was done in post production.

Bearing in mind her distinguished career, I just can't see why on earth she got involved in this.

I'm surprised that this film rates as low as it does (5.3) when I recorded this.

Sure, it's not a "Great" movie, but it's got a lot going for it. The location photography is great. The integration of real and CGI shots is always convincing. The acting never falls below good, and sometimes is excellent.

Most importantly, since it's promoted as an action film, it's stuffed full of action. At the same time, there are scenes that reflect the spirit of the ideas of the original books it portrays. I guess most of these are lost on the 12-16 audience that the film is aimed at, but they are still there.

If you just want to slump in front of the television with your (12+) family, it's hard to see that this film could disappoint.

I have to admit that I watched 3-Iron back to back with Gothika, so I guess my view of 3-Iron must be viewed in that context.

Gothika - well, if you really have nothing better to do, then it's not such a bad film. The acting is great, as is the photography. Halle Berry does a good, professional job - and as I really like Bernard "gis a job" Hill, it's great to see him in another big budget movie, complete with Geordie accent. The main problem with the plot is that is is completely unbelievable. Whereas films like "Sixth Sense" and "The Others" allow and invite the audience to suspend belief, and just go with the film, Gothika fails to do this on all accounts. I'd give it a 4/10.

So on to 3-Iron. It's just great. Common wisdom suggests that for any book or film there can be only 1 of 13 plots. In current films from the USA, it seems there are only about 5 plots. Watching 3-Iron as as a non-Korean speaking Brit is a pleasure - they seem to have released other plots, and have the skill to combine them with the existing 13.

A minor point that helps is that although the film has English sub-titles, it really does not need them as it speaks for it's self. Again, as a non Korean film expert, there's no need to even bother about the performance of the actors - I've no idea if they are "Big in Korea", but they all give great performances.

What you eventually make of the film is completely personally - are these real situations? Are they played by ghosts? Are they scenes acted out of our own minds? In any event, it really doesn't matter. At the moment (2004/2005) it seems the Koreans are on a roll, and I can't imagine anyone with a true love for popular cinema could fail to draw thought, benefit and pleasure from a film of this quality.

Anyway, if you don't agree, feel free to slug it out via the site or email! Yours in film, Roger

This is a really hard call when it comes down to a mark out ten.

Firstly, for it to have been made at all, it deserves 10/10. The quality of the camera work deserves (in my opinion) around 8.5/10. If you are one of those 80% of Americans who don't even own a passport, I'd strong suggest you never bother to waste 92 minutes of your time seeing how the majority of the planet works.

I reckon there's only a tiny, tiny percent of that 80% to whom this film would make any impact. And also, I guess, even widening the horizons of a tiny percentage of that 80% would make a difference.

Alternatively, if you agree with the concept that "No man is an island", it's 92 Minos of chill that allows you to re-focus on the fact that we all travel on the spaceship earth.

At this level, there are several problems. Mainly that Coppola/Reggio/Glass/Fricke have already covered much of this ground - with the "Koyaanisqatsi" trilogy, which if nothing else was one of the originators of this concept, and with Glass as the composer, has a unique and ground breaking (and now much copied) sound track.

Also, there are more recent concepts (eg "One Giant Leap") which move the original idea forward.

So, in summary, I'd rate this as about a 6.5 on IMDb, but a five star on Amazon to encourage anyone who had ever really considered the concept to get involved.

Anyway, preaching over - would love to hear from anyone who agrees or doesn't!! Merry Christmas to everyone, Roger.

There's always the problem of "the making of xxxx" in reality being a long extended trailer for the film - and this is no exception. Anyone truly interested in the making of this film would be better served my buying the DVD and listening to the extended commentary of the deleted scenes, and for what reason they were omitted. Some were cut because they were below standard. Some because the limited budget meant that the scenes lacked the scale that the makers felt was appropriate. Others to keep the film within it's running time.

Bearing in mind this was a medium budget film, the extended discussion on the DVD of the result focus groups had on the ending is a real insight into the pressures that are imposed on artists even of the caliber of Boyle and Garland.

All this apart, the main failing of this documentary is the constant attempt to draw a comparison between the fictional "Rage" of the movie, with the real life "threat" of an actual outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease which actually occurred in the UK and resulted in the premature slaughter of around 5 million farm animals, and their subsequent destruction in huge burning pyres across the country.

Although this makes great media news, it ignores some important scientific facts. The most important of which being that a simple alternative to mass slaughter of herds of animals would have been the slightly more expensive alternative of vaccination. Sadly, this proved to be an impossible solution because of the political pressure placed upon the UK by its "partners" in the EU who insisted on immediate elimination of the problem to maintain farm prices across the rest of Europe.

This apart, I can't understand why the maker didn't focus on the airborne transmission of far more scary problems - BSE and AIDS to name but two, both of which would argue their case much better.

And finally, when you cut and cut again to "Medical Experts" in slightly grainy shots, why not use the true exemplars in the field you could have found, rather than people who some would call maverick doomsayers?

Hey, what's going on?

I've been reading the reviews of this film, and can't understand the (over) reaction to it.

This is a children's film. For children. Adults watching it who are not amused must have hearts of stone - even though it does not follow the current trend of having a subtext directed at the adult audience.

And yet, other reviewers are comparing it to Monty Python, Pink Floyd, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, John Majors pre 97 UK - et al. This is ridiculous.

It's a light hearted representation of the story which does not stick to the original text. I'm sure the author would have laughed in the right places. I've seen (a few) better films of the genre - I've seen many, many worse.

The low points?

• the songs

• the pet food factory plot (Why??)

The high points?

• the fact the songs are very short

• the costumes (an eclectic mix of modern, Victorian, Edwardian, and Middles Ages which I think work really well).

• Toad's green face paint

• The steam train.

Anyway, my children, who can be deeply cynical of films like this, loved it. I laughed. End of story.

There are few films that can endure until version IV.

Alien Resurrection works on many levels. Given that after the three previous films we all know what the monster looks like, and what it can do, the new world we are asked to confront concerns relationships - involving humans, aliens, clones, robots, clone/alien hybrids. Maybe most importantly it examines the relationship between mother and offspring in a world of warped genetic engineering.

The complexity of the plot might at first seem a weakness, but our previous knowledge of the concepts from the other three films allows the film to encompass many ideas that might otherwise be too confusing.

How does it compare with the previous films?

Alien was outstanding for the concept. Aliens was exciting, introducing the Space Marines. Alien 3, with perhaps the lowest budget and plot lines, still worked because of the ending. Alien Resurrection is by far the most disturbing. There are scenes in this film that will live with you forever - although you'll probably wish they wouldn't.