hughie522

Statistically speaking, Hallmark should be able to make a decent action film once in a while. It doesn't have to be high art, but anything would top this turkey.

A group of stereotyped terrorists (possibly the same ones from 'Nowhere To Land' and 'Executive Decision') hijack a passenger plane (wow, really?) and threaten to detonate a nuclear device over L.A. (also pinched from 'Nowhere to Land' and 'Executive Decision') unless there white supremacist leader is released (also like 'Executive Decision') and only an FBI agent who just happens to be aboard (ooh, like 'Passenger 57') and save them.

Hallmark have dragged out every cliché (terrorists somehow get past security, there's a bomb on board, the FBI agent's wife coordinates things from the ground, an FBI agent just happens to be aboard, a passenger has to land the plane at a small airfield...) and injected a very, very small amount of originality (but it's so little, if you blink, you won't notice it).

Someone tell me how your VFX team can present THREE different liveries on the same CG plane? Someone hit the wrong key back there or something? The gunfights are boring and routine, the action is minimal and the plot is so contrived and copied that it hardly entertains. It's not a patch on RCI's 'The Poseidon Adventure' (2005), and that's saying a lot. Forget this movie, and watch something else. Like the grass grow.

I must admit; I'm a little biased. I've yet to see a zombie flick that I didn't like and I'm generally drawn to air disaster movies. However, I will try to stay as impartial as possible.

First off, the good: zombie effects are brilliant, you have all the cheesy dialog and overacting a film of this caliber demands, there are a couple of surprises along the way and the film leaves room for a sequel (I won't say how though :P).

The bad: if you have seen the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake and 'Airport 1975' you've probably already seen 90% of this film, it's hardly going to be a world-beater and the film's last fifty minutes seem a little rushed.

The film is sort of slow paced for the first fifty minutes and then it feels as if the production crew realized this and hurriedly pieced together the second half. I realize that there is only so much you can do with a group of trapped passengers on a plane infested with zombies but surely it shouldn't feel so rushed? Overall, I give this film seven stars: not because it is good, not because it is bad, but because it is entertaining. And definitely worth the wait.

I suppose (continuing on the whole humorless pun thing) it's not 'Mission: Interesting III' or 'Mission: Exciting III' or even 'Mission: Enjoyable III'. No, it's 'Mission: Impossible III', a film - like its predecessors - with enough star power to sink 'Titanic' and a budget greater than that of the GDP of most second-world nations.

And it's not really interesting. Or enjoyable. It's like a less interesting version of Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Eraser', or a Steven Seagal film without Steven Seagal. We have a WMD (I suppose it's a WMD...it could be a very flash martini shaker for all I we're told...), a kidnapped fiancé (the staple of a few Jean-Claude van Damme films funnily enough, apart from the, '...they killed his family...now he's OUT FOR REVENGE!!!' which is the staple of all the other JCVD films...), crooks in the agency (wasn't that in 'xXx: State of the Union'?) and all sort of useless, boring action scenes and gloss special effect that are...amazingly...used as FILLER between the even more useless, uninteresting character building scenes. And the worse part is, after plodding along for all this amount of time, it seems as if the directed check his watch and though, "Ooh, better rap this up!" and thought up some gimmicky way of ending it all (and THANK GOD it's not longer than two hours like 'M:I 2').

Overall: A B-grade script (Seagal would probably jump at it, actually), A-grade 'talent' (Oxymoron #1,156) and some of the most boring, 'seen-it-a-hundred-times-before' action sequences ever filmed.

If you're looking for an engaging, exciting and CLEVER (as CLEVER as action/thrillers are in this day and age) piece of entertainment, forget this - and rent Keifer Sutherland's '24'. You'll thank me later...

At last, a film to rival 'El Padrino' and 'Darkness Falls' in terms of sheer and utter dullness. This is actually the first film I've ever given 1 out of 10 for on IMDb, and with good reason.

For one, the cast is nothing special. That's usually not a problem for me except that the only character that's in anyways interesting or different from all the rest is Grand L. Bush's Harrington. Secondly, the production values a substandard - television sci-fi such as 'Stargate' has more convincing sets, and all of the underwater scenes NOT handled by the SFX teams are filmed on dry sets with 'falling particles' that aren't very convincing. This film is literally 'drydocked'. The worst part though is that this film is BORING. For the first 45 minutes, I felt as if we were going round and round in circles: "It's a prehistoric shark." "Bullsh*t." "No really." "Bullsh*t." "I'm not making this up." "Bullsh*t." "There it is now!" "I didn't see anything." "Let me guess?" "Yup. Bullsh*t." After then it picks up ever so slightly for about twenty minutes or so. Then we're back to the dialog run-around. Dialog is not a bad thing, but that's all this film has. Characters talking. That too, is not a bad thing, except this film isn't very good at it. The dialog is often contrived and clichéd, and is not very interesting to listen to. I don't see any point slandering the special effects; this film has worse qualities.

The sets are small and unrealistic. The acting is sub-par. The script - oh Lord, the script - is worse than a garbage of sci-fi television has to dredge up. It makes you wonder where the budget of this film is or was.

Yet another awful, awful addition to the 'Megaloadon' (there's about four) series of films. Bring on Steve Alten, please...

There's no pleasing some people, I suppose. Everyone seems to agree that 'The Day After Tomorrow' is a good film (despite an unimaginative script, stock-standard characters and a dull story) but '10.5 Apocalypse' is rated below 'Epicenter'. 'Epicenter'!!! '10.5 Apocalypse' is, in some ways, better than the original '10.5'. There's a little more action, some of the special effects work is better and the camera work isn't as distracting. It's an enjoyable film and has characters we can actually care about. There's a little less drama and a little more action. The set pieces are good. Some of the special effects (most notably the dam scenes) are top notch to boot.

The biggest problem people seem to have with '10.5 Apocalypse' are the technical inaccuracies. Unless you're an earthquake expert (let's be honest here, very few people are) you probably won't even notice. It's all about the suspension of belief anyways.

Am I to believe there are millions of people watching this film and thinking, "Wait on a minute, that building didn't REALLY collapse!" Am I to believe that I'm the only person that expects a TV disaster movie to be anything BUT hugely accurate? It's entertainment, that's all. A little human drama, a little tragedy, a little mass destruction to spice up your Friday night. There's no disclaimer at the start that says, "WHAT FOLLOWS IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE." It's not a documentary and it's not based on any actual events. So what's the problem? I think this film's rating of 3.6 is hugely unfair. It deserves better than this. It's not the next big budget disaster film but it's better than 'Epicenter'. This film deserves at LEAST a 4.0. Maybe even more.

If it were a documentary, I'd agree that this film is bad for being inaccurate. But the acting is better than half the TV dramas I've seen, the script is easy to chew and the special effects are better than average. See this film, and judge for yourself.

In Australia, the three major commercial television stations (Channels 7, 9 and 10) have always tried to match each other with similar shows to vie for the viewer's attention.

Channel 10 has always been home to 'Law & Order' (and its subsequents like 'SVU'), where as Channel 7 has been home to Jerry Bruckheimer's series including 'CSI' (as well as 'CSI: Miami' and 'CSI: New York'), 'Cold Case' and 'Without a Trace'. And then there was Channel 7...with it's re-runs of 'Blue Heelers' (an Aussie crime show) in the afternoons.

Well, 7 (now yahoo7) had to get in on this action, of course. And so Australians were treated to 'Criminal Minds'. As much as I like Mandy Patinkin the show wasn't anything special so I quit after the first episode. The same went for 'Bones'. And then 7 had the insight to put 'Standoff' on Monday nights, head-to-head with 9's 'Cold Case'.

Let me tell you, 'Standoff' is one entertaining show. The two leads are fun to watch and the show is interesting enough. I was hooked from the first episode. A must see to fans of crime drama, and, in my opinion, the best new show since 'CSI'. 7 out of 10.

Yes, I know this is just one person's opinion, and I'm sure you'll disagree and radda radda, yadda yadda etc. But hear me out.

I was a fan of Adam Sandler's earlier movies. 'Billy Madison' and 'Happy Gilmour' were funny films, and you weren't expected to take them too seriously. '50 First Dates' is different though.

Let's have a run down of what I didn't like (it's my prerogative, after all). Adam Sandler isn't really suited to the part. He's a bit of a goof, and I find it hard to take him seriously (in 'Anger Management', okay, but I was rooting for Jack Nicholson the whole time :P). Same goes for Will Ferrell and 'Bewitched'. Secondly, the script is uninspired. Mundane. Average. There's nothing special about it and it sort of teeters between the outrageous, over-the-top comedies like 'Billy Madison' and 'Happy Gilmour' that I liked Adam Sandler in and the more serious romantic comedies. It's like it can't decide what it wants to be. Drew Barymore is Drew Barymore. She's just a character, and her role could be filled by anyone, really (ie. Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz, Tea Leoni etc.). Rob Scheider is really, really bad comedy relief. He's like Adam Sandler's on-screen stand-in, and it gets old really fast. The concept is, half the time, taken far too seriously and the other half not seriously enough.

'50 First Dates' wants to be like 'Blind Date' (one of Bruce Willis' first films, and also featured Kim Bassinger). In fact, they are very similar films. But in the end, '50 First Dates' comes off more like 1) a TV soap (it's mushy, it's clichéd and we've seen it all before) and 2) like 'Scary Movie' (it's all tongue-in-cheek, we're not supposed to take it seriously etc.). And it just can't make it work. I like Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, but even their presence can't save this movie. It's too muddled, too divided to be enjoyable.

Why is it that when you use a phrase such as "worthy successor" you sound like a 'Lord of the Rings' fan??? 'Throttle' (or 'No Way Up' as its been released in Australia) doesn't answer this question, but it does provide 90 minutes of good, wholesome entertainment.

Part remake, part tribute, 'No Way Up' shifts the action away from the empty expanse of the highway to an cramped, claustrophobia of an underground car park. Dennis Weaver, our intrepid, glasses-wearing traveling salesman is replace with Tom Weaver, our intrepid, suit-wearing junior executive; his Valiant with a Jaguar. The menacing truck from the original film is replaced with the 21st century equivalent - a 4WD (or 'SUV' or 'generic Jeep' or whatever).

The story remains very much the same: simple premise (a man being stalked by a maniac in a truck), simple execution (the maniac in a truck stalks the man :P). I quite enjoyed 'Duel'. It stands as one of the better "faceless man in a truck stalking hapless person" (we really need a name for that genre) films, and 'No Way Up' is about on the same level. The little in-references to the original film were a nice touch (including a scene with a Dennis Weaver-look-alive and a very familiar looking Valiant :P), and at least show the director appreciates the source material.

A good, enjoyable film, certainly on par with the original and a step above some of the other films of its ilk (ie. 'Octane', 'Roadkill' and 'Black Cadillac' but not quite as good as say 'Dead End'). A must see for fans of the original, though it is best to keep an open mind. I don't usually like remakes, but this film is more of a "tribute" than anything else. Six stars.

I've always had a problem with 'immortal' characters. 'The Matrix's' Neo, for example, is one such 'immortal' character. Unstoppable, unhurtable (I doubt that's a word), indestructible. You can't associate with these demi-Gods, and that's one thing that lets down 'Underworld: Evolution'. Michael is one such character, and whereas I could root for him as a fairly average human being thrown in amongst vampires and werewolves, only to become something greater at the end of the first film, but as this immortal werepire/vampwolf...

On the other hand, 'Underworld: Evolution' does offer some impressive scenes, critters and SFX. It's quite a visually stunning film (I know we shouldn't use that sort of terminology but I can't help it - I love the look of this film) but it feels as if the novelty of the first 'Underworld' has worn off a little. As a fan of the first film it's hard not to like this film, and I admit it's good, but it's just doesn't have the magic the first one had. Five stars.

Is it too soon for a film about September 11? Maybe. One thing's for sure, though, 'United 93' is definitely a good thing.

The film is, among other things, interesting, gripping, physically and mentally draining and frighteningly realistic. Though it lacks the emotional impact I expected (with the exception of the film's sudden and quite subdued ending), it certainly provides a great insight into at least one part of the September 11 tragedy. The acting is consistently good and convincing, and the whole film is very believable. So believable, in fact, that it often feels more like a documentary than a movie.

Not wanting to be overly critical (as this is a sensitive subject), I couldn't help but feel, as I watched the film, that I was watching a group of extras. Not because there are no 'big name' stars or because the actors are unconvincing; quite the opposite in fact. The problem is, I felt as if I was watching 'background actors'. It's very hard to associate with any of the characters (or rather people) because of this, and as such a lot of the emotional impact is dulled.

The film is not so much enjoyable as interesting, and with its high production values, believable characters and shocking realism should satisfy those who believe it is not too soon. For me, personally, the most shocking and emotionally devestating part of this movie is the footage of the Twin Towers burning. That affects me more deeply that any Hollywood film ever could, no matter how good.

Six Stars.

The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.

That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.

Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.

Yes, I have Windows XP on my computer. So what? For the uninformed, there's a common held belief in geekdom that Microsoft == bad, that Bill Gates and his evil, evil products are ruining the world and that the only way he got rich was by stepping on the little guys (which I guess it partly true...but besides). So, "Anti-Trust" is essentially a geeks wet dream: single handedly take down the largest software company in the world while getting the girl (in so many words).

Problem is, the film is just that: fantasy. I mean sure, it's a movie, but if the fictional N.U.R.V. was anything like the real Microsoft then they would deny everything, cover the tracks and scream, "HOAX!" from the rooftops. And they'd be cleared. Easy. I mean, the film sets you up to believe that N.U.R.V. and Gary "Bill Gates" Winston (Robbins) are virtually untouchable. They cover their tracks, they have moles everywhere, even in the Department of Justice. Yet one nerd brings them down. They made no contingency plans? I would give the film 6 stars for the first half. But I only give it a 4 for the second half. Because, let's face it, the end is PERFECT.

Milo (Phillipe) even says, "This is the real world, not a game!" at the end. He should have added, "Because in the real world, the little guys always triumph over the evil corporations!" He he, sure kid. Keep dreaming. The ending was terribly contrived, and Robbins repeated, "GARGH! WHO TOLD YOU? WHO TOLD YOU?!?! GARGH! MY PLANS ARE RUINED! RUINED!!!!" spaz attacks really started to pain me at the end. This could have been a good film, but the ending lets it down. What a shame...

...one last thing. 'PEPSI' must have had a Hell of a marketing deal with this movie :P.

I've never been a big fan of Tarantino films. I watched 'Jackie Brown' a few years back, heard good things about 'Reservoir Dogs' and watched the first half hour or so of 'Pulp Fiction'. Enough said.

I came to 'Kill Bill Vol. 1' primarily as an outsider. I had sort of an idea who was in it, what the tone was and that it was meant to be a homage to '70s Hong Kong martial art flicks. And as an outsider I thought it was really good; it was enjoyable. So, I'm expecting the same for 'Vol. 2'. Because I figure 'Terminator 2' wasn't a 120 minute talkie, and in fact built upon the action and the violence of the first, and 'Vol. 2' will be the same. How wrong I was. As a non-Tarantino fan, you can enjoy the first film. As a non-Tarantino fan, you'll be falling asleep in front of 'Vol. 2'. There's 30 minutes of talk...just talk, mind you...and Bill is dispatched very easily at the end (I'm glad that actually happened, otherwise I would have given the film a 0). I'm willing to give the first film an 8 (yes, I'm that generous. Though I don't think I can give the second more than a 3. It was a waste of time, and nothing like I thought it would be.

But, apparently, this is how Tarantino makes movies. He makes Tarantino movies for Tarantino fans. He's a great filmmaker, I'll give him that and the first film was spectacular. But the second film felt more like an episode of 'Days of Our Lives' with one decent fight scene. Don't waste your time, I say. Fortunately for Tarantino though, he can do no wrong, and unlike Uwe Boll fans will continue to flock to his movies and praise him. Non-fans, however, will probably be tuned out for good after 'Vol. 2'. What a waste...

Maybe not quite on par with the original 'Superman', 'Batman' or the two newest editions to each of these franchises, but certainly much better than it's made out to be by the Big Bad World of the World Wide Web. Better than 'Fantastic Four', for sure...

The dialog is full of those witty little one liners you expect from a film such as this, and Halle Berry is suitably brilliant as Patience Phillips a.k.a. Catwoman. But not just any Catwoman, oh no. A 21st century catwoman, complete with the sort of skimpy outfit that would make Stripperella green with envy and a bad-ass attitude that not even Elektra can match. And Sharon Stone...

Well, she's Sharon Stone :P. All in all, a good cast and enough story to keep you awake, if not more. The SFX are fantastic. Sprawling cityscapes and Catwoman's aerial antics are quite literally brought to life. Set design and fight choreography were also top-notch, and it was beautifully filmed. This film's met a lot of criticism from both fans and critics alike, but if you take it as a stand-alone construct you're sure to enjoy it. Certainly not thought-provoking entertainment, but entertainment just the same. Certainly one of the most-overlooked films of 2004.

Ugh. What an absolutely overrated film. Firstly, it's strange. And secondly, it's not funny...except one scene where a motorist throws an empty beer can at John Malkovich's head (that got me laughing).

It's the sort of film that critics rant and rave about, though really I can't see why. A man discovers a 'portal' (it's more like a tunnel really) into John Malkovich's head and uses him as a puppet to, among other things, have sex with this co-worker of his. But it turns out that a group of body-jumping Scientology-types need his body to continue living, and the man may be forced to give it all up...

Or something. Who cares. The plot to this movie was possibly lost in the before-mentioned tunnel. Because, really, there's nothing that memorable about this film. John Malkovich as John Malkovich is rather humdrum (except for the fact he's fun to watch and has a handful of good lines). John Cusack and Catherine Keener are both average actors, and neither of them turns in a particularly likable performance. Charlie Kaufman is a talented writer and did wonders with 'Adaptation', but this film just isn't worth the hype. Original, yes, but funny? No. Rewatchability? Zero. It feels like a porno, and probably wouldn't of even got a mention if it had been, say, "Being Ice Cube".

What a waste...

Oh boy. As if 'Timecop' wasn't bad enough. We have our brief, poorly lit matte painting of the future. 'Futuristic' technology (that looks like it was bought at a two-dollar shop)! And all the trappings of a cop-buddy flick gone horribly wrong.

The budget must have been tiny. I can't imagine a TV series made on this sort of budget; even Star Trek had more convincing set-pieces. At least the two leads ( ) are easy to watch and quite likable (although I can imagine a remake with Craig Sheffer, something that makes me cringe), but everything else...

The science just doesn't hold up. We've never before SEEN such FANTASTIC VISUAL EFFECTS! And what was with the scene transitions? And the zooming? It's it meant to be futuristic or something? It's 1988! The year 'Terminator II: Judgement Day' was released! Are they seriously expecting this to take? At least it has an original idea. But everything else was of terribly poor quality. It's not that the acting (which was average) or the script (which was also average) was bad, but it's the budget that lets this down. It's so cheap. Ridiculously so!

First off, I haven't played the game 'Alone in the Dark' and this is the first Uwe Boll film I've ever seen. From the reviews I've read, the scathing criticism of Boll I've heard and all the message boards on IMDb, my expectations were way low. Game adaptations are inherently bad, the only exceptions I can think of are 'Mortal Kombat' and the 'Resident Evil' movies (yes, I like Paul W.S. Anderson too).

Now that I've killed off two-thirds of IMDb's users by saying the above, let me kill off the rest by saying that I thought 'Alone in the Dark' was quite good. I'm a Christian Slater fan, for starters, and now I'm a Uwe Boll fan too. I reckon, as B-grade movie directors go, the guy's got talent. He handles the sex scene very well (without it being fifteen minutes long and featuring an inordinate amount of nudity and fading in and out all the time) and the film was fastly paced and tight. The visual effects were also amazingly well-done for such a film, the creatures (I forget what they're called) especially.

I could overlook the problems with the script and the acting, but only because 'Alone in the Dark' is so suspenseful and genuinely interesting at times. There's never a dull nor slow moment to be found. I reckon 2/10 is rather harsh. I've seen worse films than this; much worse. While it may not sit well with gamers, 'Alone in the Dark' is one of the better B-grade horror films I've seen in years, just as long as you don't take it seriously.

If it's not tidal waves or burning buildings that get you, it's the bees. No, seriously. 'African Killer Bees' are on the warpath and headed for the continental U.S.A.; infiltrating missile silos, terrorizing Texans, derailing trails and blowing up nuclear power stations. This is the premise for Irwin Allen's 1978 film 'The Swarm', and it's an absolute riot! I came in with low expectations, and this film is possibly better than its reputation would have you believe. It's silly, over-the-top and ABSOLUTELY Hilarious! Don't take this film seriously and you'll laugh (at all the MADNESS! THE MADNESS, I SAY!) and cry (there's one very poignant bit where Slim Pickens comes to recover his son's body) and generally have a good time. Despite what people say, this would have to rank up there with the likes of 'The Poseidon Adventure' and 'The Towering Inferno' as an Irwin Allen classic! Few films can even COMPETE with the utter ridiculousness and over-the-top hilarity of this dog! A must see for disaster fans!

This is, quite possibly, Spielberg's best film. 'E.T.: The Extraterrestrial', 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', 'Jaws'; all good films, but as far as family entertainment goes you can't go past this little gem.

The plot is fairly straightforward. An elderly couple, a struggling artist, a pregnant woman and a former boxer are the last few residents in an apartment building on the verge of being bulldozed by a greedy property developer. They need a miracle. Their prayers are answered by these 'little guys' (flying alien robot dudes :P), who like to fix things and have come to Earth to make teeny little robots of their own (hooray!) and generally make life a whole lot better for the residents and bring them all together.

I first saw this film when I was 10, and I've loved it ever since. It's hard to believe that a film like this has been left stagnating for years without anyone knowing about it. This film makes me laugh and cry even today. The characters are likable and both Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy turn in believable (and wonderful) performances as Frank and Faye Riley. You can't call yourself a Spielberg aficionado until you've seen this film. Great fun for all ages. A must see!

'Turbulence' is a daft movie, but a daft movie with good special effects, Ray Liotta/Lauren Holly (which is better than it seems) and - above all - is fun to watch.

'Fear of Flying' (frankly, I reckon they added the 'Turbulence 2' to avoid litigation) is a ludicrous movie, with re-used footage from 'Turbluence', Craig Sheffer - my least favorite actor who has been in TWO other air disaster movies, 'Flying Virus' and 'Cabin Pressure' - and is absolutely humdrum.

This film is not "So bad it's good!", it's "So bad its awful!". For one, Craig Sheffer is not a likable hero. He's a bumbling little weenie! I think I connected better with the bloody hijacker than anyone else! The supporting cast is not even worth a mention, and it sickens me to think that they reused one scene of this movie in Jodie Foster's 'Flightplan' (who keeps writing these bloody clichéd scripts, anyway? Is it the same one guy?!?!). Heck, even 'Turbulence 3' was better than this! Yes, you heard me - 'TURBULENCE 3' is BETTER than this. Craig Sheffer should be BANNED from making movies. Locked up somewhere. He's such an AWFUL actor! And yes, I realize I'm having a whinge - but it's true! The worst part of this movie is HIM, in all his cocky, scaredy-cat 'save the world and my family' glory! I hate this movie!!!

I've read the book, seen the 1972 original, seen the sequel and seen the NBC miniseries. And now I've seen 'Poseidon', and frankly, I'm impressed. There's very little characterisation, a minimum of dialogue, the characters are wooden and not well explored. The script is uncomplicated and not terribly wordy. Am I disappointed, though? The opening shot told me everything I needed to know about 'Poseidon'. As we perform a 360 degree fly around of a non-existent, modern luxury liner, you realise that the ship is the star. The ship is to 'Poseidon' as KITT is to 'Knight Rider'. We have an assortment of (somewhat clichéd) characters - you have your non-nonsense leader/compulsive gambler, the disgraced father, the single mother and her son, the ageing bachelor who's been unlucky in love, the attractive, younger woman and the young couple deeply in love despite the father's resentment. And then, quite suddenly, everything is turned upside down (literally!).

'Poseidon' never pauses, never relents and refuses to let you catch your breath. Just when you think, 'Things can't get any worse', they do! Everything from flash fires, to flooding, to falling debris - Wolfgang Petersen shows the avid disaster movie lover EXACTLY what he and she wants to see - scenes of grandiose destruction and human suffering! I may be wrong. Actually, a lot of moviegoers want to see Leonardo Di Caprio and Kate Winslet make out in a Renault (if you were expecting something 'sedate' like the first hour of 'Titanic', then think again - you're barely given 15 seconds of 'sedate' before SOMETHING terrible happens).

If you want romance, and character development, and human triumph over adversity may I recommend 'Titanic' and 'The Poseidon Adventure'. If you want something a little more like...say, 1998's 'Deep Rising' ("Now what?!") or 'Speed 2: Cruise Control' (as in a no-brainer, special effects laden, thrill-a-minute action extravaganza (copyright (c) on that statement)) then 'Poseidon' is the film for you!

I remember seeing this film when it first came out, and also remember that is disappeared from the video store shortly thereafter. The special effects are dodgy, the script is poorly-written and the acting is pathetic, but that doesn't matter. No one could seriously pick up this film and think, "Dylan Walsh, Ice-T AND Erika Eleniak? This is going to be good!" It's an average film that's fun the first time round, and may even offer a few surprises (frankly, I didn't expect it to end the way it did). Actually, now that I think about it this film probably kicked off my love-affair (*cough*) with B-grade movies. It's fun if you don't take it seriously, and even then it's painful to watch. Rent 'Beyond the Poseidon Adventure' instead.

The midday movie is a time-honoured tradition. Washed-up soap stars appear in films made on tiny budgets with as many clichés as possible squeezed into 90 minutes of running time. But 'Phenomenon II' is different.

I haven't seen the original, 1996 film with John Travolta but there's something about this that I like. Less of a sequel and more of a remake, there's a fair few enjoyable, 'feel good' moments in this film that make for good viewing. Its an 'everyman' story and the science fiction element is not layed on thick. It may not be as good as the Travolta film and many will not see it as being absolutely fantastic, and while it's not in any way deep or thought-provoking, I found it to be an interesting and enjoyable flick.

The first 10 minutes of this film really draw you in. The thrills and chills are there and you think you're in for a great ride. But instead, the film becomes dreadfully boring. The build-up is completely dull and the ending is mundane and unfulfilling. Forty minutes in and I quite literally fell asleep in my chair.

'Darkness Falls' is the first film to EVER bore me to sleep. I couldn't help but think the film's entire special effects budget was spent for the opening sequence. What an utter waste of talent. The box art promises you something fantastic, but judging this poorly written, tiresome film by its cover is definitely a mistake. Avoid at all costs.

Despite its stereotypes, virtually 'no-name' cast and an obviously low budget I thought this film was alright; much better than I expected it to be. I was skeptical at first - the idea of a computer virus that can also infect people seemed a little ludicrous to me. But in the end, I thought the film handled the concept well (even if some scenes were a little clichéd).

The cast was quite good, and the two leads seemed to take their roles very seriously. I couldn't help thinking, though, that Janine Turner is a bit of a Geena Davis look-a-like. Maybe it's just her face or the make-up, hair and clothes she had in this movie but it just kept nagging at the back of my mind the whole time.

While it's not a 'must see' or a great film by any standard, 'Fatal Error' is an entertaining flick that will keep you watching until the end.