Another of M. Night Shyamalan’s films, which of course one is drawn to go see. He set a high-standard in “The Sixth Sense”, which is difficult to follow, as viewers of “Unbreakable” are quick to point out. “The Village”, though, comes quite close.

The film centers around a group of villagers, who exhibit some strange beliefs and behaviours. As the story progresses, things start to make some kind of sense. And then the final part of the film takes place, which makes you look back at everything that you saw before, in a different light.

A good film, worth seeing.

Had heard that the film had got quite good reviews, but I personally was quite disappointed when I saw it. The wiseass cop character that Will Smith portrays is possible some attempt to represent Elijah Bailey. True, both Elijah and Will are extremely paranoid cops, but that’s where any resemblance ends. The story itself is an amalgation of concepts picked from an assortment of Asimov books, so for those of you who already are Asimov fans and have read the books, there’s really nothing at all new.

See it if you must, but you don’t miss anything if you don’t.

4 out of 10

You need to go see this movie with an open mind, and remember to take everything that you see in it with a pinch of salt. It was far less scathing and biting than previous “Bowling for Columbine”. Centered completely on GW Bush, with whom he doesn’t seem to agree at all (but then, many people don’t).

See it if you must - but not a “must-see”.

Had really been looking forward to this, as it had got really good reviews in the US, so actually managed to go watch it on the first day - and boy, was it worth it!

The second installment has done so much better than the first - good story line, good character development, amazing effects and sounds. Dr. Otto Octavius, when he’s first introduced, is just too nice. You really can’t picture him becoming Dr. Ock. But the transformation and the personalies of the tentacles - the way everything is brought together - it’s done really well. It’s a film I really enjoyed seeing, and would definitely not have a problem seeing it again.

IMDB

Brilliant …. absolutely brilliant. It’s always a dubious thing, seeing a “Version 2″ of a film coming out. We’ve all heard about “Lion King 2″, “The Little Mermaid 2″, etc., etc., so it was with a very wary mind that I went to see this.

The film certainly lived up to the first film, and then some. Plenty of laughs, and lots of story. The magic of Shrek still lives. If you’re in to animated films, then you’ll love this.

Puss-in-boots seems to be the favourite of many viewers, as he is of mine.

IMDB

This film, though entertaining, will be disappointing to anyone who has in fact read the actual book, by Jules Verne. If you want a few laughs, do go watch it. But prepare to have the image of the book spoilt.

The actual Phileas Fogg was a almost a human robot, with an idiosyncrasy for precision and punctuality. Although this trait has been kept, he has now been turned into an inventor, who can almost be labelled crackpot, though efficient. The French, bewildered, but ever loyal Passepartout, has been replaced by a Chinaman played (of course) by Jackie Chan, connecting up the story of a Chinese Buddha being stolen, and Chan being tasked with returning it to his village. The film makes Chan be the cause of Phileas Fogg actually embarking on his famous voyage around the world, as it is supposedly the fastest way for Chan to return home (after having stolen the Idol back again from the Bank of England). Of course, a film produced by Chan wouldn’t be complete without the opportunity for him to display his martial art skills - which we see a few times throughout the movie.

My rating for the movie: 3.5 out of 10

IMDB

Well, this was a film I was looking forward to for quite some time…., and they’ve actually managed to keep the magic working. They don’t seem to have chopped off too much of the story - but there’s still things lacking, and things have been re-arranged.

The characters themselves have matured into their roles quite well, but the new Dumbledore simply doesn’t have the regality and magnificence required of the head wizard. The ring in his beard gives him more the appearance of a vagabond than that of a world-altering personality. He simply isn’t strong enough.

Small, little things, which might have made the story a bit more complete, were unfortunately dropped. For example, Lupin immediately knowing what the Maurauders Map was. He never mentioned to Harry that he was one of the people that WROTE the map. Or the significance of Perriwinkle and Black being Animagus, and that James Potter was one too. And that the shape of the Patronus - it was the shape of James Potter’s Animagus.

The “romance” between Hermionne and Ron is only emphasized in the movie - I can’t remember these awkward moments taking place in the books. Which explains why Emma Watson thinks that Hermionne will end up with Ron at the end of the 7 books.

The film moved too quickly - especially the end - with each step almost happening every 5 minutes.

IMDB

Yet another Jim Carrey film taking him away from the traditional “humour” films one tends to associate him with. Interesting story-line, which reminds one of Memento perhaps. Very touching and very well done.

IMDB

Finally saw Volume 2 of Kill Bill…, wasn’t as good as Volume 1, but was still a good movie.

Well, this surely isn’t a film I’ll be going to see again too soon. I’d read before about all the commotion this film was causing, and was curious to see for myself what it was all about. Suffice it to say, the brutality displayed in the film puts "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club" to shame.

The scourging literally makes you cringe as you see flesh being ripped off of His back. And the same group of people that abhor violence and nudity and say parents should be be more responsible about what kinds of films they take their kids to, are ENCOURAGING parents to take their kids to see this?!