Film reviews

Whatever You Want

Hear you can see how good a film looks before you go and spend money to go and see it in the cinema

Review

Open water is a film about to deep sea divers that get left behind in the middle of the ocean and they end up drifting into some trouble.

I would give this film 3 out of 5

Other reviews

"Open Water" is based on a true story, and it's a tense, if threadbare, tale of survival. But the finished film is bound to be overshadowed by the tale of how it was made. Actors Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis wore sharkproof chain mail under their wet suits, but that didn't cover their hands. Or their heads. They also weren't covered by insurance. "We just signed waivers saying that we wouldn't sue each other," Kentis says. "There was no way anyone would insure this movie. No way." Both actor give terrific performances in what was going to be, one way or the other, the role of a lifetime. But the gold star for bravery goes to Ryan, who was bitten on the hand by a barracuda on her first day. "And she still stuck with it!" Kentis says. "She's absolutely fearless." Or absolutely nuts.

- Devin Gordon, Newsweek

Cronicles of riddeck

Date: 13 June 2004
Summary: In the words of a once great Secretary of the Treasury, "I knew Luke Skywalker, Luke Skywalker was a friend of mine, and you, Mr. Riddick are no Luke Skywalker."

Alannis Morrisette had a hit not too long ago called "Ironic." She warbles through a litany of awful things that might happen to you or me and refrains them as ironic. When a fly lands in your Chardonnay, when it rains on your birthday, when you hate flying and your plane crashes, etc. etc." Now I'm certainly no accomplished songwriter but I can look up ironic in the dictionary and a fly in your wine isn't ironic. Irony is "...a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used." Now a fly in your wine is bad but not ironic. This was running through my head when the Necro's repeated their mantra - you keep what you kill. I saw an armadillo on the way home from the movie and thought about taking it home but then it really belonged to that guy in the Ford F150 than ran over it. I think what the Necros mean to say is, you inherit the things that belonged to those you kill. Not exactly British common law but then whoever said the Necros were law abiding? Actually, the Necros, short for Necromonger (Universan Latin for death advocate) are on their way to the fabled Underverse. Underverse, as Dame Judy Dench explains, is the place where the Lord Marshall, as the only one to go and come back, gained his superhuman powers. Those powers seem to consist of moving really fast and sometimes speaking in a really deep echoey voice. He has a really cool helmet but the actor, Colm Feore, doesn't seem up to the role. He seems more the embezzling type but then even Darth Vader wasn't so tough without his helmet.

As everyone surely knows by now, Riddick (Vin Diesel) originally appeared in Pitch Black as an evil prisoner type that helps a few fellow travelers escape some carnivorous crickets with night vision. Riddick has night vision too and we learn in Chronicles that his unusual nature is attributable to his origin species, Furian. Furians are the only folk the Necros are afraid of as they are this universe's version of the US Marines. One of the people Riddick helped escape from the cricket planet summons him to his home world to stave off the impending invasion of the Necromonger. The Necros arrive in a comet like apparition and their ships descend through the atmosphere like giant darts, stabbing the victim planet at five hundred mile intervals. In the opening credits we see the point of such an arrangement as they do a sterilization thing when they leave. They are visiting to draft recruits who are then Necromized by two tiny electrodes in the neck. You now know everything you need to know and can go see The Chronicles of Riddick for the only legitimate reason, the very cool special effects. Not that the dialogue is bad, it's not. It is utterly superfluous, though. This is an action film with a sufficient variety of action settings to relegate the story to the background. It didn't have to be that way. The filmmakers decided to mention some things in passing and then focus on the action sequence. Like the Furians, for example. We don't hear what happened to them or how Riddick came to be one of the last wondering Furians. Or what Underverse is about, or lady Dench's people, the Elementals, or even the Lord Marshall's history. But then if Universal is looking to make this the next Star Wars they want to generate more questions than answers. If this is the master plan, they better get busy making Riddick someone we care about. Hunkness is not enough to carry a franchise, we need to fall in love. With the character, the story, the cute little robots or their equivalent. In the words of a once great Secretary of the Treasury, "I knew Luke Skywalker, Luke Skywalker was a friend of mine, and you, Mr. Riddick are no Luke Skywalker."
My review

I would give this film 5 out of 5 its one of the best films ive seen in a long long time if you get the chance to see it do so you wont be dissaponted

This is the main charector called riddick who is played by Vin Diesel

Alian VS preditor

During an archaeological expedition in Antartica, a team of archaeologists and other scientists find themselves caught up in a battle between the two legends. Soon, the team realise that only one species can win.

Billionaire Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen, riffing off his famous role from 'Aliens') has discovered a pyramid buried 2000 feet below a sheet of ice in Antarctica that might be a key to the origins of human civilization. Assembling a team of experts (including Sanaa Lathan. Colin Salmon, and Ewen Bremner) to venture down beyond the ice, the group quickly gets trapped in the maze-like temple. Once the team figures out the pyramid's true purpose as a hunting ground for the linebacker-like Predators to stalk the slimy aliens, it's too late for the humans as they race against time to save themselves while the two beasts declare war on each other.

'Alien Vs. Predator' is a film made only for those who are gluttons for punishment. Who else in their right mind would want to see writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson take not one, but two healthy franchises with unlimited potential and make a mockery of them both for 90 minutes? Well, maybe 12 year-olds, which this new film is aimed squarely at. All others should just stay at home and save yourself the heartbreak.

Anderson comes to 'AVP' with a terrifying track record in genre films, which includes such rotten titles as 'Soldier,' 'Mortal Kombat,' and 'Event Horizon.' His last film, the yeah-it's-bad-but-convincing-junk 'Resident Evil,' understood the genre rules, or at the very least could pull a little fun out of its hindquarters. 'AVP' doesn't even offer that much. Instead of widescreen genre goodies, Anderson cloaks much of his comatose action sequences in complete and confusing darkness, which also covers the lousy sets and the lousy Predator costumes. Anderson's script is equally as irritating, with one character, an Italian archeologist, spending the entire movie explaining every little detail (including an absurdly staged flashback to the origins of the pyramid) as the film chugs along. Anderson doesn't leave anything to the imagination or to chance, robbing the film of the mystery both franchises once worked overtime to preserve.

Anderson's writing enters even more dangerous ground when he decides to alter some critical 'Alien' and 'Predator' lore. The alien chestbursters in 'AVP' only take minutes to properly develop in their human hosts and eventually live up to their name, as opposed to the days in the previous 'Alien' films. The acidic danger of the alien blood is also monkeyed with without reason, making the classic alien defense only really a threat when Anderson needs a way to help end one of his terribly edited fight sequences. Anderson's redesign of the Predator facial make-up is also a disappointment, with the creature looking even more artificial than it did way back in original 1987 film! This is progress?

The only person who comes out of this mess with any type of dignity is actress Sanaa Lathan, who passes muster even with the achingly bad dialog Anderson has provided her. She's a reliable actress, following in the steps of Sigourney Weaver as a strong female action star. She's deserves better than to act in scenes where she makes friends with 7 foot tall Predators.

The 'AVP' set-up takes a good long time to get going, which is probably Anderson's greatest sin. The last horror match up, 'Freddy Vs. Jason,' had a lightning pace and a macabre sense of humor to get it through that icky feeling of studio cash in. 'AVP' isn't as lucky, and is a downright bore for about 45 minutes before it becomes downright offensive. I don't know which is worse. And get this: 'AVP' is rated PG-13! There's nothing like bringing two horror franchise titans together, who have a total of six R-rated films between them, and watering down their carnage so the little league crowd can see the film on a Saturday matinée. Maybe the Predators should spend a little less time hunting aliens, and more time trying to recapture some cinematic integrity. ---- 2/10

This is alien ugly or what

This film is a good film it has lots of action in it and i would give the film 4 out of 5

"Man on Fire" is about a killer who is humanized by a young person, loses that person and then kills again. Denzel Washington plays Creasy, who has been hired by the wealthy Ramos family (Radha Mitchell and Marc Anthony) to protect their daughter Lupita (Dakota Fanning). The film takes place in Mexico City, and has prologue stating the disturbing rate of kidnappings there. And so, logical audience members should be able to deduce what must happen: Creasy and Lupita establish a friendship, and no sooner is she kidnapped, sending Creasy into action.

The best thing about the film is the grim performance by Washington, and though
he's come under fire for being type cast here, he still creates and knows Creasy from top to bottom. He's not sociable. He drinks a lot. He has a mean
streak. The movie implies some awful things in his past with the special forces and wisely doesn't spell out what happened, such as scars and burns on his hands ("…it's a birth defect" he lies) and a speech given late in the film by Christopher Walken: "A man can be an artist at anything…Creasy's art is death." His vengeance takes him everywhere, through the barrios and mansions of Mexico City, picking off bad guys in sadistic ways. His methodology is frightening at times, particularly in a scene where he finds an innovative use for C4. The screenplay by Brian Helgeland is clever in how it makes Creasy seem dangerous with dialogue rather than with action sequences every two minutes. It gives Washington such cold-blooded lines as: "Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting" and the film's "trailer moment": "I'll do what I do best. Anybody who was involved, anybody who profited from it, anybody who opens their eyes at me… I'm gonna kill them."

The supporting cast is hit or miss. The great Italian actor Giancarlo Giannini
makes an appearance as a grizzled Mexican police commissioner, who smokes while
visiting friends in the hospital and does favors for a reporter (the underused Rachel Ticotin) in exchange for (ahem) other favors. Walken and Mickey Rourke play Creasy's old colleague and the Ramos' lawyer, respectively, though honestly their roles are so minor they could've been played by any competent character actor.

Portions of the film make no sense, but are of course necessary to move the story forward. I thought it was strange how Giannini and Walken were able to move a wounded Washington out of a hospital when he's been accused of killing two policemen, and it was rather convenient that Walken had access to a gun-show selection of rifles, rocket launchers and plastic explosives. But the
film does, after all, take place in Mexico, where law enforcement is routinely described as "different." The final revelations behind the kidnapping seem forced, though not contrived. Thinking back on the main arc of the story, it's
unlikely that a Washington's character would be hired at all -but if that happened, there's no movie. And is it a coincidence that "Ramos" sounds at all
familiar with "Ramsey"?

Usually, kinetic photography and editing is used to hide a bad script (a perfect example is "Requiem for a Dream"), and though Tony Scott's visual style
is nice, the photography by Paul Cameron ("Swordfish") will occasionally get in
the way of what's happening. Other sequences of theirs I liked. A scene at a dance club is both funny and jarring, and there's a striking reoccurring image of Washington sinking in a pool of blood. How often does an action film get to
be symbolic? Scott has had some excursions into rawness like this before, with
"The Last Boy Scout" and "True Romance." It is what it is. I liked it for the
lead performance, for Helgeland and Scott going places that "The Punisher" wasn't willing to go, and for their keeping the movie in the harsh action spirit of films like "Dirty Harry" and "Lethal Weapon." Both feature an (anti)
hero whose sole purpose is to fight terror with greater terror. If you can appreciate either of those two films for what they are, you can do the same for
"Man on Fire."