Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Chris Columbus, 2001) Review

It all starts here. It's finally time that we take a look at one of the biggest film franchises of all time. Not big as in that it's long (it's only 8 films long) but that's insanely popular. It lasted exactly 10 years (2001-2011) so there is quite a lot of ground to cover...okay, this review will be as long as any other one but I was just trying to make things special. So, has this giant film franchise aged well...after 11 years (does anything even age after that long?). Let's find out!

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is an 11 year old boy who is stuck with his horrible Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths) and Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw). Harry discovers that he is actually a young wizard and is sent invitations to attend Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. Vernon tries his best to get the letters away from Harry but the groundskeepers of Hogwarts, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), is sent to retirieve Harry and the two of them depart to Hogwarts. After making new friends, Ron Wealsey (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), Harry discovers that a villain named Voldemort is out to get revenge on Harry for something Harry doesn't even remember. Now Harry and his friends must surive their first year at Hogwarts and stop Voldemort from returning.

We all know this film. If you haven't heard of Harry Potter...I don't think even living under a rock would suffice. Everyone has. It's impossible not to have. Does that mean it instantly has to be good. No, of course not. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone earns it's goodness. It introduces us into an amazing world with lots of great magic and creatures that are seen. Hogwarts is an amazing place and the use of special effects and some amazing sets and make up really help bring the world of Harry Potter alive. The characters also help this as they fit in with the world. The headmaster, Dumbledore (Richard Harris), looks like a wizard should and Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) looks like a witch should (you know, a witch that isn't an ugly hag). It's so cliché that it's not cliché (yeah, that's not totally confusing at all).

Normally when you have child actors who haven't really that much experience they are really, really annoying...or bad. This is not the case here. The three stars are excellent, especially Daniel Radcliffe who clearly was into the role (and who wouldn't be!) especially in the climax. I was surprised at how good this film was when I went back and watched it, especially with the child actors. Whoever the casting director was, you done good. Congratulations.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a great introduction to the Harry Potter franchise. It's full of so many good things such as the magic aspect and the actors that protray some very iconic characters. Harry Potter has become one of the biggest franchises of all time (books and films included) and this film does the source material justice. If you haven't seen this film yet...what the hell?

Verdict:
8.5/10
A great start to one of the biggest film franchises of all time. The actors are great and the magic that is shown is juts wonderful.

WALL·E (Andrew Stanton, 2008) Review

Ehh, Boxing Day. Christmas has come and gone and I hope you enjoyed it (I certainly did) but it's now time to unwind and relax. I was originally going to review The Fighter for boxing day but I realised that I haven't actually seen it. Maybe next year. So what other bad pun could I do? How about a film about a box. That was terrible, I apologise. Anyway, let's get on with WALL·E (Yes, I managed to get the dot).

In the distant future, Earth has been evacuated and there is no life left. Earth is full of garbage and a robot called WALL·E (Ben Burtt) who was designed to clean up the rubbish. WALL·E is facinated by objects from our time such as lighters, rubix cubes and, his favourite, a VHS of Hello Dolly. One day, another robot called EVE (Elissa Knight) is sent to Earth in order to find signs of life and WALL·E falls in love with her. WALL·E finds a plant and gives it to EVE but EVE is then transported to a ship called the Axiom with WALL·E in pursuit. The Axiom is home to the humans who are now obese as a result of easy living and no need to move. EVE has to get the plant to the Captain (Jeff Garlin) but the ships auto pilot, AUTO (Macintalk), has other plans.

Other than the Toy Story trilogy, WALL·E is probably my favourite Pixar film...well...was. I went back and re watched it recently and it wasn't as good as I remember it. The first half hour set on Earth is really, really good. We get to see Earth in the future and there is little to no talking and leaves it up to the visuals. Things get a bit worse when WALL·E and EVE get taken to the Axiom as it gets pretty boring which is ironic considering they're on a space ship. While characters like the Captain, AUTO and MO (Ben Burtt) are good, everything else falls flat.

That's it for the bad stuff, the rest is good. The story is great and it is good to see the contrast of the future of Earth and the Axiom as well as bringing in the idea of what would realistically happen to humans in the future. All the characters have great personality and are likeable (especially WALL·E and MO) and AUTO may be cool, in terms of villains, it's a bit boring. The rest is good though

WALL·E features lots of things that are really good but also a lot of bad things too. It's sad because this was my favourite Pixar film but...not any more  So to those you think this is the best Pixar film...err... re watch it. It's nowhere near the worst, probably in the top five but it's not the best. Join me next time where we dive into a VERY popular film franchise.

Verdict: 

8/10

A little bit worse tan I remember but still a great film. One of Pixar's best...not the best but ONE of the best.

The Muppet Christmas Carol (Brian Henson, 1992) Review

Well, It's Christmas Eve (and for those who don't celebrate Christmas, Happy Holidays!) so I thought I would share you the definitive film that I watch every Christmas Eve night...followed by the Blackadder Christmas Special, just because. Now I know what you're thinking, "The Muppets...doing A Christmas Carol?". I'm sure you think it's stupid and that it could no way be a Christmas classic. Well, is it or isn't it? Let's find out!

In Victorian London, Ebenezer Scrooge (Michael Caine) is a hated man by all the people in town because of his cheap and cruel personality. One night, he is visited by the ghosts of his business partners Jacob and Robert Marley (Waldorf and Statler) who warn Scrooge about three more ghosts who will visit him in on Christmas Eve night. He is visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past (Jessica Fox), Present (Don Austen) and Future (I...don't even know?). Scrooge must learn about the spirit of Christmas and try to change his life for the better.

To me, this is the film that just SCREAMS Christmas. I love this film and watch it every year. Michael Caine is one of the best Scrooge's to hit the screen and strangely works well along side the Muppets. Kermit the Frog acts as Bob Cratchit with Miss Piggy as his wife. It surprisingly works and, while this film does contain typical Muppets humour mostly supplied by Gonzo and Rizzo being the narrators, is surprisingly touching. I guess it's par for the course when people adapt 'A Christmas Carol'. This is a good film to bring the family together.

If there were any problems, I guess it's more for other people than me. I for one love The Muppets but those who don't will probably not like this film. They'll like some of it (Michael Caine as Scrooge for example) but there are a lot of Muppets in this film. But on the plus side there is...a lot on the plus side. I mentioned the themes and characters but there are other great things like the musical numbers, which are memorable and catchy, and the original characters.

The Muppet Christmas Carol is easily my favourite Christmas film and also my favourite Christmas Carol adaptation. While it isn't the most accurate version of A Christmas Carol, there's still alot of great moments in this film that will easily wash over the flaws of the film and is surprisingly heart-warming  Do yourself a favour and watch this film this Christmas.

Verdict:
9/10
The best version of 'A Christmas Carol' though not the most accurate (for obvious reasons) and if very heart-warming

2012 (Roland Emmerich, 2009) Review

GET IT! BECAUSE IT'S A THING! END OF THE WORLD IS A THING SO IT'S THEREFORE RELEVANT! Don't worry, my caps lock isn't stuck, I'm just emphasising the point as to why I am reviewing this film. Because on this very day, we are all supposed to die but I cannot confirm this considering, you know, It kind of hasn't happened yet but hopefully by the time you read this, you'll know,. Because...you'll either be alive or dead...screw it IS THIS A GOOD FILM OR NOT?! Let's find out!

Dr. Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has found that unpredictable solar storms are on the way which is causing the Earth's core to heat up. Helmsley warns the US President (Danny Glover) about the oncoming disaster and that they need to make preparation or else everyone will be killed in the disaster. Writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) learns about the news and that arks are being made to keep select humans safe. Jackson manages to convince his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), her boyfriend (Thomas McCarthy) and his kids to join him as he tries to escape across the world.

Well, guess what. It sucks. Yeeaahhh, this films REALLY sucks. Now I'm sure you all think it looks cool and, yeah, it does look pretty cool but that means nothing when the rest of the film is just bad. There are only a few engaging characters, it's predictable (what do you think happens to half of the characters. Go ahead, guess!) and was just use as paranoia fuel for people. The characters wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't focus on the one character who lacks any personality and the rest of the film just comes off as generic.

...any good points? Errrr, it looks good? Well, okay, I did say there were some characters I did like such as Jackson's ex-wife's boyfriend, Gordon, and Woody Harrelson's role...even though he was wasted on this film. Come on, this is the same guy that was in No Country For Old Men. That film was amazing and then we get...this film. Not a good step. Did I mention that I hate this film?

2012 is just a stupid film. The writing is crap and based on an uninspired event (THEY DIDN'T EVEN COME UP WITH ANYTHING!!!), the characters, for the most part, are generic and lack personality and the film is very predictable. Do yourself a favour and spend your supposed last day (which I still call 'bulls**t' on") watching a much better film. What film? ANY FILM!!!

Verdict:
2/10
A crap film. Predictable, poorly written, uninspired and full of underdeveloped characters. Sure, it looks cool but looks aren't everything if everything else is...you know, bad.


The world better not end. Why?
BECAUSE WE JUST HIT 20,000 PAGE VIEWS!

I just wanted to say thanks and I hope we're not dead....doesn't seem like it so far though so....yeah....

Love Actually (Richard Curtis, 2003) Review

We had a bad Christmas film, an American Christmas film so I think it's time to look at a British Christmas film. There were many I could pick but I decided to go with this one. This is going to be a rather obscure review as the plot synopsis is going to be a bit weird. Anyone who's seen this film would know why and, for those who haven't, this is why. The film is telling multiple stories that are connected through the relationships of the characters so...errr...let's go?...Ok...

So these stories are simultaneous and are as brief as I can get them:
1) The new Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) has officially started his work in 10 Downing Street and meets the people who will work for him. Among them is Natalie (Martine McCutcheon) who the Prime Minister is quickly smitten for her.
2) Harry (Alan Rickman) is an office manager who manages to catch the attention of his employee, Mia (Heike Makatsch), who begins to fall for him. Harry's Wife, Karen (Emma Thompson), begins to grow suspicious and fears the worst for their relationship.
3) Karen's friend, Daniel (Liam Neeson) has just lost his wife and his step son, Sam (Thomas Sangster), is feeling depressed. Daniel learns that Sam is in love with one of his class mates (Olivia Olsen) and the two band together to try and win her over.
4) Ageing pop star, Billy Mack (Bill Nighy) is trying to get his song 'Christmas is all around' to be Christmas Number 1 despite not giving to craps about the song (he did it for the money).
5) After his girlfriend cheats on him, Jaime (Colin Firth) leaves England to live in France so he can continue his writing. He is introduced to his Portuguese housekeeper, Aurélia (Lúcia Moniz), and, despite not speaking the same languages, the relationship between the two grows stronger.
And many, many more...

Well that was a mouthful. Anyway, one thing you may have noticed is the amazing cast. All the stories have at least one famous actor and they are all great. It's also good to see actors not being type cast such as Alan Rickman who is surprisingly a torching character and this film has one of my favourite Liam Neeson roles. This film makes me appreciate the tremendous British cast as well as the genius of Richard Curtis. He managed to create some great characters as well as balance the multiple stories at the same time. Truly a great feat.

It is a Christmas film so it's a good film to watch on the build up to Christmas as this film takes place over the five weeks before Christmas. I'm not spoiling anything by saying that Rowan Atkinson's role as Rufus was originally supposed to be a Christmas angel and I wish they went with that idea as it really pushed the Christmas message. Well, despite that idea cut out, it's still a heart-warming film that is a great family film. Seeing all the different families and the way they celebrate Christmas is a great thing.

Love Actually may not be an original idea since I'm sure the idea of having multiple stories isn't entirely new but it's mastered here. The amazing cast only furthers improve the film and leads to a great climax, especially in Daniel's story. Well, that's Love Actually and there is one more Christmas film left for this year and that will be on Christmas Eve. What film is on Friday then? Look at the date, I'm pretty sure it's obvious.

Verdict:
9/10
Does the 'multiple story' idea well and is one of the most heart-warming films I've ever seen. One hell of a cast, too.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson, 2012) Review

I knew it was a good idea to watch The Lord of the Rings trilogy this year. I knew that my friends wanted to see this film so I thought "eh, might as well catch up" and, in case you missed my reviews, I loved the trilogy. Now it's time to go back 60 years before the events of the trilogy because...it was a book, I guess. Better than forcing sequels I guess. Anyway, is this one as good as the rest of the series? Let's find out.

So 60 years before the events of Lord of the Rings, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is greeted by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) who wishes to find someone to help the Dwarves reclaim their land from Smaug the Terrible who is...a giant dragon. Kind of hard to fight off. That night, a group of Dwarves enter Bilbo's home and are joined by Gandalf. They try to convince Bilbo to join them but is reluctant until he finally agrees and the group go off to fight Smaug. On their journey, they have to face the Orc army who are out to stop them. Now Bilbo, Gandalf and the Dwarves must make it to Erebor in one piece so they can reclaim their land.

Now I know that the Tolkien fan boys will love this film and think it'll be the best film of the year. Yeaaah...nooo...maybe? I went in wanting to see certain things and, while I got what I wanted, there were a few things that left be thinking "Oh...that's a bit stupid". Certain character such as Radagast the Brown (Slyvester McCoy) were just annoying and it does start off too slowly and drags a bit but once they get to Rivendell, things REALLY pick up!

I make it sound like it's a bad film. NO! No, of course not. It's a great film. Martin Freeman is great as the new (er...old?) Bilbo Baggins and it was nice to see old Bilbo (Ian Holm) in the prologue. Gandalf is my favourite character in this film because we get to see more of him here than we do in the first trilogy which means he gets some really amazing moments. Speaking of amazing moments, this film has them. Two of my favourite scenes are the 'Riddles in the Dark' scene with Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis) and the EPIC ROCK GIANT FIGHT!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a good film but it's a little bit underwhelming at times. I think there have been better films this year such as Skyfall and Looper but this is still a good watch. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend it but it's not a must see. It's just a good time. Now, how far should I run to escape the Tolkien fan boys because I'm sure they'll be mad that I didn't give this the utmost praise? I'm sure I'll be around to review another Christmas film for you.

Verdict:
8.5/10
A LITTLE bit underwhelming but the rest was exactly what I wanted to see. Martin Freeman is great as the lead and the things seen on the journey are pretty damn amazing.

The Polar Express (Robert Zemeckis, 2004) Review

More Christmas. It's always a good thing, right? So anyway we have The Polar Express which was a film that was made during Robert Zemeckis' obsession of using motion capture suits in order to make his films as opposed to using real actors...kind of. Well, It's time to take a look at another Christmas film that I watch every year. Does that mean It's a good thing? Let's find out!

On the night of Christmas Eve, a young boy (Daryl Sabara) is woken up in the night by a train that stops right out side of his house. He is greeted by the train conductor (Tom Hanks) and is told that the train comes to those who doubt in the existence of Santa Claus (Tom Hanks) and are taken to the North Pole to meet him. The boy decides to go on the train to see if Santa is really real or not. He is joined by a young girl (Nona Gaye) and a nerdy kid (Eddie Deezen) who also have their doubts about Santa and from there, the journey to the North Pole begins.

This is Tom Hanks the movie. Why? Because Tom Hanks plays the majority of the characters in the film. He plays the conductor, Santa, the hobo on the train, the boy's dad and so on and so forth. I have no idea why but he is his good old self and therefore is pretty good. The other actors are alright. Eddie Deezen brings his usual nerdy self (you might know him as Mandark in Dexter's Laboratory) but the other kids are...tolerable...just.

Sure, it looks amazing and there are some great looking scenes but this film has some problems. The first two thirds of the film are really good (well, except the spontaneous and pointless musical number) but once it hits the last third, things really slow down and start to drag...and it's stupid because elves are introduced. Oh god do I hate elves but these ones are especially bad. It's a shame too because normally the climax is the best part of a film...not this time.

The Polar Express is an amazing looking film and the idea of children's faith in Santa is actually quite a good idea although it's not exactly an original idea. Tom Hanks is clearly having fun with the role and there are some memorable characters. There are problems with the film that do almost kill it but there is more good than bad. I watch this every year just because of how great it looks! I would recommend that you watch this at least once.

Verdict:
7/10
An interesting film that, while has some stupid moments, looks amazing and has more Tom Hanks than you can handle!

Jingle All the Way (Brian Levant, 1996) Review

So here's the plan. A Christmas film today, Friday, next Wednesday and Christmas Eve. Four Christmas films for you? 'Tis the season, after all. You would have thought that I start with a classic such as It's A Wonderful Life but nope, I decided to be unconventional and begin with one of the stupidest concepts for a Christmas films...ever: it stars Arnold Schwarzenegger...is this actually as bad as it sounds or is it a nice Christmas surprise. I think you know the answer to that and if you don't, well, let's find out....was this seriously the best film I could start with?

It's coming up to Christmas so Howard Langstom (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a workaholic family man, wants to make up for missing his son's (Jake Lloyd) sports game. Howard asks his son, Jaime, what he wants for Christmas. He wants an action figure of his favourite hero, Turboman, but there is one problem: it's sold out EVERYWHERE! Howard goes everywhere to try and find it with no hope and ends up competing to find the last one with a postman named Myron Larabee (Sinbad) who also wants it for his son. Howard now has to find the toy, get it before Myron and also make it to an annual parade with his family just like he promised.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is in a Christmas film...what more can I say? Really? I honestly have no idea where to go from here...uh...he does deliver some good one liners like...er..."PUT THE COOKIE DOWN, NOW!". Okay, let's ignore Arnie and move on. Sinbad initially starts off very annoying and a bit over the top but you get used to him and he does supply one of the funniest moments of the film but on the other end of the scale is Jake Lloyd. God do I hate this kid. He ruined Star Wars after all. While Sinbad got better, Lloyd...did not. Phil Hartman plays the Langstom's neighbour and is his usual self but, you know what, it works. Hartman was good at playing the cocky yet seemingly perfect guy and doesn't dissapoint here...except the fact that he's in this film.

So how Christmassy is it? Well, it focuses more on the materialised aspect of Christmas as well as focus on family but really it's all about one toy so it is really just a kids film. It's a stupid, stupid movie which is clearly evident at the climax (seriously, how stupid can you get?!). There are some good and funny moments but this isn't the film for you if you're looking for a heartwarming family film. It's good for a quick laugh though...mostly laughing at how bad it is.

Jingle All the Way is, I'll be honest, a guilty pleasure. Despite all I've said, I do stick this on every year mainly because it's a fun film. Does that mean it's good? Of course not. It is a bad film but there are just some films that are so bad that they're good. This is one of them. I think it's mainly down to "what did I expect? It's Arnie in a Christmas film!" but if you're up for a quick laugh, check it out but otherwise, avoid it.

Verdict:
5/10
What can I say except....Arnold Schwarzenegger in a Christmas film.....

Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009) Review

Well, everyone is going mad over the sequel actually getting some promotion and I would be lying if I said that I wasn't excited. Sure, it's not top of my list but just the idea of Benedict Cumberbatch of being a part of it has to account for something, right? With that in mind, I thought it has high time that we take a look at the film that brought Star Trek back into the public eye. Is it truly that good or just overrated? Let's find out!

After the birth of James Kirk, his father (Chris Hemsworth) is killed in an effort to stop an unknown alien enemy while on the search for Ambassador Spock who is also a child on the planet Vulcan. Did I not mention the alien enemy, named Nero (Eric Bana), could time travel? Twenty Five years later, Kirk (Chris Pine) is now a trouble maker  however he is challenged by Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to join the Starfleet in order to see his potential. He is joined by Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhara (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin) but trouble brews when Nero returns. Now the Starship Enterprise and it's crew must save the galaxy from Nero.

First, let's be honest, this wouldn't be that great if it weren't for the Star Trek licence. It would just be another Sci-Fi film with explosions everywhere. What makes it good is the characters and what they go through. Okay, Nero is a bit of a bland villain but characters like Kirk and Scotty (Simon Pegg) are actually quite funny. That wins points in a film like this. I don't like it when they take themselves too seriously so having characters with great writing helps make things better. Not a fan of Quinto though...

Well I might as talk about the action since that's what 3/4 of the film is. It's a bit generic. All it is is space ships exploding most of the time. Unlike other bland sci-fi films, there are some interesting scenes such as the orbital skydiving scene. It was pretty damn cool especially when seeing it in the cinemas. The biggest problem is just how unoriginal it is. The main reason that this isn't a bad film (other than the Star Trek) is the characters and anything OTHER than the bland action (you know, excluding those exceptions),

Star Trek was a nice attempt at breathing new life into the franchise and while it does seem a bit generic at times, it was still a blast. Sure it's not perfect but, despite it's flaws, I still enjoyed this and am excited for the sequel....mainly for Cumberbatch but...still.....okay I'm done here. You want some Christmas reviews? I might get on that...

Verdict:
6.5/10
An enjoyable film but has many flaws. The good things include the characters and some great scenes.

Strangers on a Train (Alfred Hitchcock, 1951) Review

I think it's finally time to review a film from Alfred Hitchcock, don't you think. He's one of the most iconic directors of all time (and a film based on him with Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock) so it only figures that I finally get round to one of his films. Which one? One of the first Hitchcock films I ever saw, Strangers on a Train. How well does it stack up compared with his more famous ones? Let's find out.

Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) has a plan to finally get rid of his father but it involves tennis player Guy Haines (Farley Granger) who Bruno met while on a train ride. They agreed to 'criss-cross' murders so that there would be not connection between these two strangers....on a train.Naturally, Guy thinks that Bruno is joking and simply humours him. Turns out thought that Bruno was serious and goes through with it. Now the police grow suspicious of Haines and now has to prove that Bruno had a influence on a murder...go and guess who the murderer is...no really.

It's a bit of a simple idea but it works well. It leads to a suspenseful film which is par for the course with Hitchcock. This is mostly down to the two characters. Guy Haines is a very naive person who is just trying to get on with his life while Bruno Anthony is an insane person who has no problem with murder. That contrast is excellent and is the main driving force of the movie. Grant Walker is excellent as Bruno and, while Farley Granger is a bit bland, he's still a good character.

There are some excellent scenes, especially he action scenes. This is both a dialogue driven and action driven film so it's fine for a general audience. It's a very good looking film and Hitchcock clearly knew what he was doing when making this film (considering he has a cameo appearance as always) and is a better film for it. Sure the secondary cast is a bit bland but everything else is good.

I think that this is one of the better Hitchcock films but is sadly overlooked. Most people just watch Psycho and The Birds. The idea is great, the actors are pretty good for the most part and it's full of suspense. If you haven't seen this film, I would recommend that you check it out especially if you're a fan of Hitchcock or just suspenseful films in general.

Verdict:
8/10
A suspenseful film with some great acting. There are a few aspects that seem a bit bland and dated but nothing that will sour the film.

Click (Frank Coraci, 2006) Review

Today we're looking at an Adam Sandler movie. No, wait, COME BACK! I can assure you that this one isn't like his other ones. Yes, I agree he has done some terrible films (Jack & Jill being the worst...*shudder*) but can you believe that he actually made some entertaining films. Waterboy is an example of an Adam Sandler film done right but some people think that the character is stupid. So let's look at a film where he's being as normal as possible. Is this one of the good ones? Let's find out!

Michael Newman (Adam Sandler) is a workaholic family man who puts work before family in order to please his boss (David Hasselhoff). Because he lacks time to cover both work and family, he wishes that he had a remote that controlled his life. Enter Morty (Christopher Walken), a bizzare man who gives Michael a universal remote. Michael simply believes it just controls devices but quickly learns that it can control his life too. He can fast forward, skip, mute and even change the language of his life. He enjoys every moment of it until the remote goes horribly wrong.

My God is this an emotional film. I went in thinking that this was just a stupid comedy film but it's really not. It's a surprisingly serious film (that's not to say there's no humour. This is Adam Sandler after all) that almost borders on depressing towards the end. I'm not going to give it away but this is definetly on my list of saddest films. I think that makes it better though and proves that Sandler can do more than just be stupid. Christopher Walken is his usual zany self and adds to the surreal world o fthe film (well, the remote is the surreal thing). Hasselhoff is surprisingly funny but mostly at his own expense. Michael's parents (Henry Winker and Julie Kavner) are very good characters, Winkler especially. Those two are one of the highlights of the film. Kate Beckinsale as Micheal's wife, Donna, is a bit generic for a wife character but Beckinsale does a good job none the less.

One of the best things abotu the film, and the main reason I like it, is just seeing what things the remote can do and how Michael uses these features. It normally leads to some hilarious moments and it's a clever idea that I dont think had been done before (I may be wrong about that what with living in a world where we get one original film a year). The plot provides some great twists and turns and, honestly, is in my top 10 favourite films. So, yeah, I enjoyed this.

Click was a very suprisingly film. I honestly thought that it would only be good for a quick laugh and, while it is pretty funny, it's much more than that. It's a deep film that provides some excellent emotional moments. The cast do a good job and the writing is very well done. It's not for everyone as there is still some Sandler-esque humour (and those who cry when watching films...) but all in all, it was a good film I will gladly watch again.

Verdict:
7.5/10
An enjoyable film that doesn't a lot of things right. The premise is unique, the cast is good and is surpisingly deep.

Robocop 3 (Fred Dekker, 1993) Review

Oh, what have I gotten myself into. Why is it that every film in the 80s and 90s had to have sequels and most of them were made into trilogies (Back To The Future and Home Alone for example). Okay, maybe this one won't be so bad...that's what I thought until I realised that this film wasn't an 18 like the other two were. It's only a 15...oh boy...does this hinder the film and make it worse. Let's find out.

So OCP is back on the scene again and it wants to rebuild Detroit as Delta City, a place which is pratcially a paradise. Oh, that sounds nice...except that the people won't leave their homes so OCP hires a mercenary group known as the Rehabs to destory the houses and force people out their homes. One family leaves their so-...dau-...child named Nikko (Remy Ryan) behind. Nikko runs into resistance group headed by Bertha (CCH Pounder) and Nikko's computing skills makes them an essential part of the group. In order to further their plans, OCP's president (Rip Torn) has their Japanese invester Kanemitsu (Mako) send someone over (Bruce Locke) to deal with the resistance. It's all well and good until an event happens (I'm not ruining it) that causes Robocop (Robert John Burke) to turn on OCP and join the resistance.

There's something that's just glaring at me. Where is Peter Weller? How can you make a film without the star?! It's all well and good for animated films where an actor is replaced (see Return of Jafar) but a live action film that was released in the cinema. They shouldn't have even bothered. And to answer the question I asked, yes, the 15 rating does hinder this film. One of the main points of Robocop was the violence and if you take that away, it just isn't as enjoyable. It doesn't even acknowledge the second film anyway!

The plot about the resistance is pretty stupid. In fact this is a stupid movie. The jetpack, Nikko's character, the scene with ED-209 (Yay, ED gets more screen time!) and Nikko's character. Yeah I said it twice, that's because h-...sh-..they annoy me! The villain (John Castle) is pretty bland and still doesn't even come close to Boddicker. I can't believe Frank Miller wrote this...it's just so...bleh. I'm not saying it's unwatchable, it's just...poor and ends up becoming the poor man's Dark Knight Rises (no, seriously, go back and watch this again. They are so similar!).

Robocop 3 was a pretty bad way to end a franchise. I don't know what they were thinking and it really shouldn't have been made. The action looks bad, there are some really bad mistakes (Robocop can apparently shatter glass BEFORE touching it), the characters are terrible and is just...bad. I would only recommend it if you want to see how the series end. Well, that's the Robocop series done and dusted. It's not like their remaking it or anything! Wait...Oh God.

Verdict:
4.5/10
A bad way to end the trilogy. The characters are terrible, the action isn't great, there are some terrible mistakes and just ends up looking bad. Skip it if you wish.