Event Horizon: a retrospective

Okay, i just saw the film again after the last time when it first came out i actually thought it wasn't too bad at all. For a 90s horror movie in space i thought it fit the era perfectly, good acting from a stellar cast, nice visuals, and an interesting storyline as well. Whilst not perfect by any means i did like the amount of effort put in by Mr Anderson himself to give us something different- wait, did i really say that? Yep, i have to admit, doing some research on the movie just now i realised that ol' Paulie isn't as useless as i thought. Like Mortal Kombat, Anderson also added some cool ideas into Event Horizon too, making it original and unique in some aspects. I was pleasantly surprised at how effective this film was and how much Anderson can bring to it once he sets his mind to it. Whilst i didn't think it was particularly great when i first saw it 10 years ago, watching it now was a different story entirely and i really got to admire it as a sort of classic of the era, and in the late 90s was something quite original. I'm glad i got to came back to the movie after so long and appreiciate it for what it is and what it tried to be, it's happened a lot where i re-watch movies after ages and understand what the director was trying to do- i kind of felt EH was blasted and dissmissed as just another loud horror movie when it came out but looking back it's quite a gem.

First there's the great cast (which in my view would be perfect for an Alien movie; Jason Isaacs, Sean Pertwee, Laurence Fishburne, Sam Neil and Joely Richardson would have been perfect had an Alien film happened in the 1990s instead of AR) along with the epic visuals which reminded me of Alien even more, especially the gravity dome chamber thingy. When i saw that i thought that maybe Anderson could have done a better job of AvP had the film been made in the 10 years ago with this kind of cast. The directing was fast-paced which made it entertaining for a movie like this which would typically be slow, making it a different kind of sci-fi space horror movie- one for the Sony PlayStation-cool mid-90s.

Then there's the music, i love techno music and Orbital is one of my favourite bands, and it was Anderson's idea to have them on the soundtrack but Paramount was against this so he was forced to use composer Micheal Kamen instead combined with Orbital, who only got a few tunes to mix. Whilst this is interesting i feel Orbital would have been better if they had the majority of the music here. The movie starts off some kick-ass music and ends with The Prodigy's excellent "Funky Sh!t", and the vibe that produces with the film works brilliantly it's a shame it wasn't like that all the way through. So i admire Anderson for having the idea of initially putting techno music in the movie as it would have produced a unique effect with he film.

-According to IMDB: The original script by Philip Eisner depicted the Event Horizon as more of a science lab for an unknown alien race, part of the reason why it disappeared for seven years. Anderson immediately discarded that idea, going for a "Haunted House in Outer Space" plot line.

Now i think that Anderson's haunted house plot line is way more effective than an unknown alien race, it makes EH seem more like Hellraiser in space which i love the idea of and it worked great (even more so than Hellraiser 4: Bloodline which actually IS Hellraiser in space!) so again i must admire Anderson for taking EH into the horror direction as it works well.

-According to IMDB the movie had to have 20 minutes of violent scenes cut, including a longer and more graphic "Visions of Hell" sequence as well as the film having more blood. This makes me a little pissed off as this is primarily a horror movie so it should have the scenes in there of the gore- and what i saw of it in the movie it looks awesome. Again Anderson made it really horrific but was forced to have it cut out, which makes me wonder how interesting his AVP would have been if he was allowed to do what he wanted. MK was considerable violent for a 15 movie and EH did as much as it could for an 18, AVP really should have been an 18 as well and then i would have been happy for Anderson to give us something along those lines considering he did well on EH.

Anyway i had to bring this to light that although i'm one of the first to bash Anderson because of how much i hated AVP (and i honestly HATED it), though from what i saw of EH (as well as MK which i love) shows me that the man is capable of doing things right as long as he has the freedom to do it- he didn't write EH but he directed it well, which again proves that it's his directing and input of ideas which can help make a better movie. He's not a lost cause after all.

As much as i hate Anderson i'm not going to refute a movie which has merit in it, and MK and EH both show me that he is capable of giving us some truly entertaining films if he doesn't get bitchslapped around by ignorant and arrogant studios. But's he doesn't stand up to them. It's odd- AVP and RE should have been great after MK and EH, but i just don't know what happened to him. He's got some talent that's for sure- it seems the studios are to blame here for hampering his vision and ingenuity, of which we have clearly seen that he does have.

So i gave Event Horizon 6.5/10, but it would have been more had the film been Anderson's full uncut vision.

Hollywood sticks the knife in agian- a possibility of remaking 80s classic "Predator"

That's it, i've had it with Hollywood! The incompetant idiot chairman of 20th Century Fox says that if Arnie doesn't return for Predator 3 then Fox may plan to remake Predator:

Davis told Collider.com that he’d decided to let the “Aliens Vs. Predator” franchise rest for a while and was instead developing a third “Predator” remake – one that may bring back Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character ‘Dutch’.

Rothman suggests that if Schwarzenegger doesn’t return as Dutch they could remake the original 1987 film.

- http://www.moviehole.net/200816099-predator-3-news-to-me-says-rothman

If Arnold doesn't return to reprise his role as Dutch then we are in fear of that dreaded rumoured Predator remake finally coming true, supposedly starring John Cena! I'm literally outraged at the absoloute pointless absurdity of this notion.

Remaking Predator is the worst idea in the history of bad movie ideas. The film simply does not need to be remade, it's barely 20 years old and still stands up as a perfect example of an action classic. It's not like it's an old film where this new younger generation has no clue about it, Predator is still as fresh and fun as it always was and i know loads of kids who have seen it and love it, in fact when i went to see it in the cinema last month the theatre was packed with fans both young and old, male and female ranging from ages 16 to 60!

There is absoluotly no reason to re-make the movie for a younger audience when the film is popular enough already and is still as strong as ever in media consiousness. The original is not a "forgotten" movie in any way whatsoever and still holds up today- if they want to make a new movie with a Predator in it then Predator 3 or AVP3 are the most logical choices, why they need to reboot the series is beyond me. Does that also mean they will contemplate remaking Alien becuase it's even older and they think it might not be hip enough for this generation to see? Pathetic!

Fox really need to get a hold of themselves becuase the amount of stupidity that is spraying forth from their idiot studio is staggering and i'm finding it hard to keep it cool when utterly preposterous and insultingly pointless ideas threaten to spit on flawless and classic peices of cinematic history in order for them to potentially kill as well as at the same time make a quick buck out of their now fleeting franchises, which is something that is entirely their fault anyway.

It doesn't even need a franchise "reboot". The Predator movies are a stand-alone series of films anyway which only lightly connect to each other if at all. They can easily make Predator 3 as their brand-new version without having to remake the original in any way. Both Predator 1 and 2 are set years apart so there is no need to remake the original in order to reboot the series. Predator 3 will in effect be rebooting the franchise naturally by itself anyway, so a remake is not needed when the movie is still in the hearts of fans as is the Predator character itself due to it's now largly successful comeback via the Alien vs Predator movies (however unsuccessful they were, they still managed to bring back awareness and kick-start both creature's careers agian).

Iv'e seen utter stupidity and incompetence before but never on a scale like this. I don't seem to understand, 80s classic franchises like Rambo, Die Hard and Rocky have all had contemporary sequels, why do they feel the need to remake Predator when it was a blockbuster in it's own right with the world's most famous actor in it in the first place anyway? Everyone knows Arnie and becuase of that everyone knows Predator, it's not like it was just another generic monster movie from the 80s that has aged so badly it needs to be redone. Predator is still the epitome of 80s action nostalgia. What next? Remaking The Godfather becuase it's old and it's time for a new version? How stupid are these people?

God, some people really do get me angry. Fox well and truly stink of rancid shit.

Review: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Rob Cohen, 2008)

Mummy 3: Unoriginal, uninspiring and completely pointless

I was pretty adamant to see this after hearing that it got almost universally slated but i'm afraid the reviews are true- the film is pretty goddamn awful.

Now, I love the first two films of the trilogy, and enjoy them for what they are: pure nonsense/ no brainer adventure movies with great dialogue, lovable characters, fun action scenes and inventive set pieces. However, this film is unabashedly focussing on those selling points, resulting in an empty product.

The plot is the epitome of cliché, the characters are all stereotypes and the dialogue and comedy it tries to do is dire and cringe worthy. Not that the previous Mummy films were any different, it's the same old thing here except this time it's half assed and rushed, so much so that this film comes off as a sort of Mummy "best of" clip show as everything the film does we have all seen before, albeit done a hell of a lot better. In fact this film is nigh on identical to The Mummy Returns, just replace The Rock with Jet Li, shorten the running time and get rid of everything that made the originals fun and cool and there you have it. Rob Cohen takes over the director's chair over Stephen Sommers and though i think Sommers is a hack, i wish he came back to do this one to finish his films off as a trilogy as there's a definite charm in his over-excessiveness and uber-CGI prostitution use that's missing. Not to say that there is none of that in here as there is, it just felt rather empty, that's all.

Brendan Fraser is back but it seems he's only there for the paycheck, he puts no effort into his character whatsoever and just runs with it. Mario Bello now takes over from the sublime Rachel Wiez and although i have nothing against her, her acting just plain sucked in this film- forced and pointless. Her English accent was at times terrible but it was the dialogue she was given that worked totally against her. Though everyone's dialogue was pretty damn pathetic to be honest. Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh was of course the only good things about the movie, Li is wicked as the evil Mummy emperor (though he is a CGI effect for the majority of the film) and Yeoh, whilst cliché to the max, still holds amazing screen presence to the point that i don't care what she does or she says- as long as she's on screen i'm happy to bask in her awesomeness. Newcomer Isabella Leong is sweet in her ultimately clichéd role but she does hold some talent. John Hannah reprises his role but he's there for nothing but "comic" relief (did i mention this film has none?) and one only has to see his face to understand that even he doesn't know why he is in the film. Rachel Wiez turned the role down after seeing the script and one can instantly see why just 10 minutes into the film. There is no character progression, no reason for anything and really no point to it all.

Action sequences are okay but again we have seen it all before in the previous movies- a chase through bustling streets, encounters with creatures of some sort and a massive undead army battling another massive undead Mummy army. CGI ranged from pretty decent to terrible, and creature designs were amateur at best. The music was awful and completely uninspired- no Alan Silvestri or Jerry Goldsmith returning to reprise the original theme; instead Randy Edeleman takes the lead and churns out an instantly forgettable score.

All in all a short rehash of The Mummy Returns minus everything that made it so much fun, the film is entertaining at times (some of the set pieces are nice) but mostly we have seen it all before. The only saving graces are Jet Li, Michelle Yeoh and a couple of cool action scenes, otherwise nothing in here to run home about. A generally disappointing film which is unoriginal, uninspired and a monotonous chore to sit through and then, once finished, instantly forgettable. Shame really, the first two were great fun whilst this seems like a cheap homage of best of clips.

Not the worst film of the year by any means or one of the worst i have ever seen, it's just tired rubbish that really is rather pointless. I recommend a rental.

4/10

Review: The Wrong Door (2008)

wow, how original! /sarcasm

Hmm, a new BBC3 comedy show in the vein of the "black" and "surreal". It called my name, i had to check it out- this was right up my alley. So i watch it..and carry on watching...and force myself to carry on watching.... the verdict? A disgrace! Terrible. Honestly, who comes up with this rubbish?

Unoriginal, unwatchable, unfunny, badly written sketches with pathetic badly designed "trying to be cool and funky" CGI animation thats neither smart or clever to try and lure the viewer in thinking it might be some mad surreal comedy- which it clearly isn't. What it is, however, is crap.

The people who came up with this show (the worst kind of pretentiously bland art/film/animation student graduates, i expect) need to be booted from the media industry altogether and never allowed to step foot near it again, as if there isn't enough rubbish on TV to deal with already. The lack of talent showcased in this programme astounds me to the point of sheer annoyance- just random ideas floating around trying too hard to be funny, yet blissfully unaware of it's utter failure and just being a waste of time to everyone that unfortunately bears witness to it.

Fortunatly I've seen funnier sketches on YouTube- with no flashy animation, zero budget and in less than 1/4 of the time. Honestly BBC3, what happened to you? As if Phoo Action wasn't bad enough, you manage to get even worse with this trash?

Do yourselves a favour and avoid, and hopefully it will disappear and we'll forget it ever happened. There are much better sketch shows out there to enjoy, which actually deliver on the premise of the creative, imaginative and surreal. Oh, and they are funny, too.

Review: Black Sheep (Jonathan King, 2006)

Taking it's cue from early Peter Jackson movies such as Bad Taste and Braindead, Black Sheep takes a similar turn in it's low-budget "splatter-fest" horror premise. Genetically modified sheep terrorise a small New Zealand farm, and only a rag-tag crew (made up of a gun-toting farmboy, a city lad and an eco-warrior) can save the town and uncover the terrible secret behind the blood-thirsty sheep intent on causing havoc as they bite victims which in turn transform into monstrous and even more bloodthirsty human/sheep hybrids.

What should be a ridiculous and entertaining premise is completely marred as the film fails to deliver on pretty much all accounts. The comedy here is pretty bad and predictable. The acting is even worse off and the pace so confused that it becomes just plain boring to watch. Granted this is a movie which relishes in it's crapness but i've seen far better features which make a point to be "crap" but still entertaining and inventive. Whilst Black Sheep probably tried to be different i felt that the end result showed none of this. The plot is silly yet (ludicrously) original in it's idea of killer zombie-sheep but again there's not enough of it in there to warrant a watch. Granted the gore effects are good and the animatronic/prosthetic effects of the sheep/were-sheep are well done (courtesy by the talented Weta Workshop) but in the context of the film i think it just came across as wasted, some good sequences could have been made with the models but everything is shot in the dark so you really can't see much of it when we would have liked to.

Everything here is set up to be entertaining in it's absurdness but it just didn't work out in the end- the film is a mess and what it was trying to convey (not much) didn't turn out well. I guess, in time, the film might hold enough charm to become a "cult classic" much like Jackson's Braindead and Bad Taste, but right now i can't seem to see anything in here that i haven't already seen before, done better.

If you want a low-budget and entertaining comedy horror from New Zealand then i'd recommend you stay away from Black Sheep and just watch any of Jackson's films prior Hollywood, as even the idea of killer sheep seems trifle here when there's not really that much on offer. It promises hilarity and fun but sadly fails. If you want a truly great New Zealand comedy horror that sets out and delivers on all accounts then watch any early Peter Jackson film or Shaun of the Dead, and avoid Black Sheep at all costs.

Verdict: A pointless "horror comedy" that's neither remotely funny or scary. 3/10

Review: Interview (Steve Buscemi, 2007)

An interesting drama based around the dysfunctional relationship between two seemingly opposite people, played expertly by Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller. Buscemi plays a journalist who normally deals with war and politics, but tonight he has been asked (much to his dismay) to interview New York's most infamous B-list celebrity, played by Sienna Miller. What follows is an entertaining and unpredictable dialogue-driven 2 piece play focusing on both character's opposite, but, as we learn later, striking similarities revealed to us as they, during the course of the night, tell each other their most intimate secrets regarding each other's pasts.

Buscemi, who also directs the film, keeps the film focused, tight yet surprisingly free and un-claustrophobic considering the majority of the film is shot with close-ups and inside a dimly-lit apartment at night. Acting is terrific and Sienna is on top form, possibly her best performance yet (even though her portrayal of Edie Sedgwick in Factory Girl was terrific, she goes one step further here and is completely believable, she could almost be playing herself as her character shares many similarities). Buscemi as always is a pleasure to watch and his trademark neurotic style is more than welcomed. Some of the acting is also ad-libbed here to give it more authenticity as well as show off both actor's expert talents, which works really well.

Overall an entertaining character study with a fair few surprising twists and turns along the way and boasting some fine, convincing performances from both actors. Small and simple but highly fascinating.

Verdict: A Simple but fascinating character study. 7/10

Dracula (1931) - a contemptible cult classic?

I finally saw this movie yesterday for the first time ever and i can honestly say that i was really disappointed in it! I'm a huge fan of the novel and have seen countless other versions of the film but never this one which many people define as the ultimate "classic". But honestly, i don't see any of it's merits.

For starters the film is so far removed from the original novel it is unrecognisable. Shouldn't be too much of a problem then, as long as the film is entertaining- but i found it to be one of the most boring, laborious and monotonous films i've ever had to sit through. There is no artistry involved whatsoever. The editing is a mess- scenes go on far too long with nothing happening and if it's not that then they are inter cut sloppily with hasty edits of close-ups. Gather the fact that the DVD i had was one with no music recorded and i really couldn't stay awake for it- it's just all over the place. I changed the audio to a new soundtrack by Phillip Glass which made it slightly more watchable but still, the film is just a grand mess of murder mystery and lame if not no attempts at horror and zero suspense. When something interesting starts to happen, the scene fades quickly away to another- it's as if nobody had a clue on how to make a movie at all!

Next, Bela Lugosi- the only other reason to be watching this movie as i wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So he "defined" cinema's Dracula? Apart from the accent, i think his performance was terrible. Unnecessary close-ups of eyes don't do anything, and when he's getting ready to do something his expression is that of a little kid just having tasted something he didn't like- as well as being akin to sitting on the toilet. It just looks really bad. And this is supposed to be the best version of Dracula there is? I just didn't see it. The world famous image of Drac in tuxedo and cape is legendary, but i still think that was a pretty awful decision to make considering there is nothing Transylvanian or marginally scary about him other than the accent. He just looks like a cliche magician minus wand, top hat, and white bunny.



I know it was the 1930s and times were different then, people had never seen anything like it, right? But i still can't see where all the popularity comes from when it is just a man in a suit- nothing horrific about that at all when you compare it to Nosferatu, a truly horrific creature. Considering we also had King Kong just a few years later- an absolute masterpiece of cinema, effects and horror, this movie is, i feel, unworthy compared to the lashings of praise people give it. I just didn't see anything good about it whatsoever.

I know this movie was based on the popular stage production at the time (which was in vein of murder/mystery, which is why Universal went with the same thing for the movie version)but it could have been a lot better, and i just can't help but feel that it is getting just too much praise than it deserves. Nosferatu is far better as the true definite original Dracula film than this mess.

Saying that, i also managed to catch a glimpse of the Spanish version of this production- and i can say that it looked 10 times better than Universal's- more stylish, more horror and actually directed well, rather than just putting a camera there and leaving it on.

Being a huge fan of Dracula and the novel i had very high expectations of this, as i rightly should have. But i was really gutted watching it, it fell flat on it's face and i could not believe how bad it was- i did not want to believe that this "classic" was not as great as people said it was but i thought it was truly awful. I really wanted to appreciate this film as a legendary classic but this movie isn't. I don't know what people see in it to give it that high status- i don't think Bela Lugosi can make the film all it is. Sure the image is classic, but everything else fails. If i had to recommend a good classic Dracula movie i would say Nosferatu, if not the Spanish version of this film.



All in all, i was very disappointed with this film, i had expected great things and i was gutted that i didn't see it as this legendary classic everyone else sees it as.

Review: Penelope (Mark Palansky, 2006)

Nice little movie this is. Another modern day take on a traditional fairy tale given that extra coolness from brilliant performances, good humour and a wonderful script. Christina Ricci plays Penelope, cursed with a pig's nose for eternity unless she finds someone of her own kind who loves her for what she is. Forced to stay only within her home as she is deemed too "ugly" to be seen outside, she must find her true love through carefully arranged visits from suitable suitors of a similar heritage. Cue some hilarious mishaps and incidents which the rebellious Penelope has to deal with in order to be free and live her life normally as she is, regardless what the world thinks of her.

Performances here are nice from a whole host of British and American actors (like Stardust, this film as loads of cameos from well known British celebrities, try to spot them all!). Catherine O' Hara is wonderfully manic (as per usual!) as Penelope's mother as is Richard E Grant, playing her father. Reese Witherspoon, who produced the movie, is also good as an outspoken biker chick who befriends Penelope in the outside world, as is James Mcavoy who plays the eventual Prince Charnimg in this story. Mcavoy, like Grant and many of the other British actors, sports an American accent here to give it a pseudo Brit-US "fusion" feel.( the movie, it seems, was shot in what looks like London's Notting Hill "jazzed up" to make look Americany-Englishy to give it a very interesting and magical look).

A nice little warm movie with a simple moral and good intentions at it's heart. I thought it was pretty good.

Verdict: Sweet warm fun. 7/10

Review: Bee Movie (Steve Hickner, Simon J. Smith, 2007)

Another CGI movie, this time by Dreamworks SKG, makers of Shrek and Madagascar. Yes there are lots of them and they do seem quite repetitive, this one however is actually pretty good, and plays of more like one long joke than anything else, and deservedly so as it is conceived and penned by the comedic genius that is Jerry Seinfeld.

Seinfeld plays Barry B Benson, a Bee in a hard working Bee society (which is typically unoriginal, yet again being American working life/suburbia in animal form, in this case Bees) who breaks free from his own world and ventures into the human world, only to discover his species' hard work at making honey is being exploited at the hands of greedy corporations. Befriending a kooky florist called Vanessa (voiced by René Zellwegger) they join forces to try and overcome the total disregard against nature and sue the corporations of their infringement which Barry calls "stealing", as well as to teach the world more about bees and get rid of common misconceptions (bees are friendly insects and will not hurt anyone, it's the wasps that are the evil ones that give them a bad name)! Part satire, part social commentary on the legal system as well as just being plain silly, zany and always consistently funny, this is essentially Seinfeld playing himself in his own show in animated form.

Visuals and animation here are grand (Dreamworks explains in the making-of documentary that there are more things going on here than all the Shrek films), dialogue is funny for the most part as is the voice acting as Zellwegger and Seinfeld are essentially playing themselves, as is Mathew Broderick who plays Barry's law-abiding Bee buddy. The stand out voice talent here, for me at least, is Patrick Warburton who plays Vanessa's almost psychotic friend- everything he said (or rather yelled, as that's all he does) just made me laugh out loud. An extra special mention must go to Chris Rock who is a brief but worthy addition and has some choice hilarious lines. Other honourable voice talents in this movie worthy of a mention are Sting, Kathy Bates, Megan Mullaly and Ray Liotta in an almost insane role playing himself- but still really funny.

A simple yet very entertaining story where young kids can also learn a whole lot from- there's stuff in here for literally everybody. Whilst not as polished or exquisite as a Disney Pixar movie, this is still good clean honest fun for the whole family. I may have rated Ratatouille low too but that movie is actually better than this, I just found this one to be less heavy on the deep morals and just straight to the point fun light entertainment. It's not original in any way but it is good at what it does. Funny, silly, even intelligent and informative- it's Seinfeld the animated movie and that's not a bad thing whatsoever.

Verdict: Good, zany, satirical fun. 6/10

Come Forth the Fourth

When I first heard about Jurassic Park 4, I absolutely hated the thought of it and rebuked the idea, completely. "Why another one?", "They are milking the franchise!", "It's going to be rubbish.", "They've done all they can!" and so on. I got into a lot of arguments in forums becuase I was set against the production of another 'Jurassic' film and felt the JP movies should stop because it's time was over as it was now all about people running away from dinosaurs - the same old thing over and over agian.

But over the years I have learnt that this is not just any old sequel. That this will be something special- they are taking the time and effort to put passion into it, or they would have made it already and we would have forgotten about it. If they wanted to, they would have already made JP4 , and it would have been sub-standard quality. The fact that Spielberg and Universal keep postponing it and asking for script re-writes is a clear indication that they want JP4 to be original, new, fresh and a great comeback for the series, and I am hoping they will deliver. The longer we have to wait, the better it should be becuase as they are producing it for quality and content rather than financial returns (though I am sure that features, considerably, in their mindsets).

The world's fascination with dinosaurs will never end, and Jurassic Park is the only contemporay movie franchise which brings us what we love about the creatures. No other movie series has captured the public's ever-increasing interest with dinosaurs and the prehistoric age, and JP continues to uphold and improve our knowledge of these beasts, both entertaining immensly and educating us at the same time like no other film. It revoloutioned the concepts and ideas of paleontological and scientific discovery and bought something new to the table, as well as revoloutionising cinema, artistry, design and CGI technology.

The JP franchise isn't forever ruined after some not-so-good sequels either, never will be. You can say what you want about the TLW/ JP3 but they still made a ton of money and were very successful. Merchandise, DVD sales, the Universal Studios attraction etc has also been largly succesful and at the end of the day the films bring awareness about dinosaurs, paleontology and scientific education which children and adults alike never tire of. Gather that the films also have loveable characters and interesting storylines (however bad) still make the JP films the forefront of dinosaur entertainment, and nothing else can touch that. Just as when one thinks of space adventure they instantly think of Star Wars, here it's think dinosaurs, think Jurassic Park. It's as simple as that.

Jurassic Park is not relegated to only 1990s cinema either as dinosaurs are creatures that no-one will ever tire of, and whilst the premise may be a bit old-fahioned it still entertains immensly. Dinosaur adventure movies have been around since the dawn of cinema and have continued to be in our presense for decades! Until they can really be cloned and are live and breathing for us to see dinosaurs will still always capture the hearts and minds of childrean and adults, and Jurassic Park will always be our awe-inspiring cinematic escapist route to the world of these fascinating animals which no-one else can do. When the world's fascination with dinosaurs ends, then the JP movies will die. And that won't be happening for a very long time, if ever becuase everyone loves dinosaurs.

So the years have gone by and still no news, and i understand now that they wanted to nail it perfectly, so i am starting to appreciate them becuase of that. And slowly i've become the biggest supporter of JP4, because i know this is going to be a special movie for the fans, and in know they don't want to dissapoint us. We fans have grown as a community and Spielberg knows this- so i had to give him that credit for aknowledging us. He knows that JP is still the pinnacle in dinosaur action adventure and a lot more can be done with it, and they want to get it right this time. We have expectations and they don't want to dissapoint us, and Spielberg has already said specifically that this will be a film worth waiting for. If it was just another movie in a tired series then it would be, but all the facts so far have pointed that it wants to be something fresh and original; ideas have flown around everywhere and keep getting dissmissed as they are just not good enough, and frankly this attitude is needed as only the best will do. So we now that know JP4 will be a comeback for the series after the so-called "lag" after JP3 and so i have completly changed my view of it and will compeltly support the movie becuase i know deep down this isn't just a cheap and pointless sequel but the greatest comeback of the king of the dinosaur movies; and i can't wait. But i will wait becuase i know this film will be kick-ass!

This is why i will be forever supporting JP4. I say it bring becuase dinosaurs are fucking awesome, and JP always delivers the best.

Review: Blade Trinity (David S. Goyer, 2004)

After 2 excellent films, Blade 3 completely and utterly falls short. I didn't like it at all because quite frankly, it doesn't feel like a Blade movie, it doesnt sound like a Blade movie and it doesn't fit like a Blade movie. Instead of the fast paced, stylish action we have in the first 2, Trinity is just s-l-o-w, in everything, with no sense of pace or direction. The director, bless him, just can't direct. He's a great writer who served well for the first 2 films, but as we can see here he lacks vision and basic directing skills.

Dracula- nothing about him worked. I don't have a problem with him being in the movie as the first Blade comic had Dracula in it anyway so he has every right to be in the film, it's just his character in it. Terrible design, not enough motivation or character, he was just like every other vampire we have seen, there was nothing about him whatsoever to make him all powerful uber-nasty. Wrong choice of actor to play him too- i think Dominic Purcell is great, but he's not suited to play the Prince of Darkness whatsoever. It's just a forgettable portrayal, and by the end it just looks like a B-movie monster suit.

The crappy humour lets the movie down- there is just no need for it at all, yet we are plagued by it all the time. Renold's character spouting crap, Triple H spouting his crap, hell even the cops do it. The dialogue between Danica and Renolds is just cringe worthy and completely screws with the whole credibility of the film- we just don't take it seriously.

Editing- there's a severe lack of it. Everything just moves too slowly, even the fight sequences aren't fast and frantic, it's like all they do is film someone throw a few punches and slap some faux-pas "techno" music over it to make it look cool, when it doesn't work like that at all. There was a complete lack of proper martial arts choreography in this movie, and when compared to the ultra-stylised kinetic ass-kicking of the first two films, you can see why Trinity completely falls short. It's just not exciting. The talking sequences are even longer- Goyer keeps the camera too long on people, there's no sense of pacing, it's like he want us to show everything going on but dwell on each little thing a bit longer just in case we miss it. It gets long and monotonous to sit there, it's like we are waiting and waiting, there really needed to be a stopwatch in place when editing because everything is just too slow for a Blade movie.

The music is another factor. I think the hip-hop beats provided by the RZA was horrendous. It's not that i hate hip-hop music (which i do) its the fact that here it just wasn't good enough; the lyrics were dire and mostly ridiculous (i remember one song where he just repeats the word "blood" all the time) but the music itself had no power to it, no style; just generic "beats" and poor attempts at techno in the fight scenes. There was no style to any of the music, and again compare the music to the first 2 films (Danny Sabre and Marco Beltrami) it's all orchestral fused with stylised techno, different and original; in Trinity it's nothing like that- more simple and amateur, lacking any motifs that would make it stand out.

Jessica Biel, Renolds- the whole Nightstalkers thing: not needed. It was fresh and new once, but by Blade 3, tech-heavy team vampire slayers just gets old, tired, dated and severely cliché. The geek with all the technobabble, the cool young scientist who knows everything about DNA and gene-splicing, the martial-arts girl...i'm sorry, it's just too boring, we've all seen it a hundred times before. Blade works alone and we assume he's the only guy with the gadgets to take vampires down- he has no need for other people to help him, or sidekicks for that matter, no other people should be introduced to rival him.

Danica Talos and all her cronies- really really bad. Instead of being evil villains, they turned out to be annoying, irritating and by the end a complete joke; merely there for the other characters to make fun out of (which they all did). Parker Posey and Triple H just didn't add anything new to the table. She's the wise-ass bitch, Triple H is the meathead grunt. Again, it's boring, dated and cliché, nothing threatening about them either considering they always get their asses kicked.

There's a lot of other stuff too which i can't remember right now, but yeah- the film is just a long, slooow mess of things. Goyer can write well, he just can't direct, and this is where most of the problems are. They should have got someone else, and i'm sure it would have been a lot better. Even if Snipes gave it a go, he would have done a better job.

At is stands, it's the worst of the trilogy and a complete waste of a premise- it was simply not needed at all, and it tarnishes the quality of the series- Blade would have been an excellent trilogy had it not been for Trinity. Oh well.

Verdict: A slow and monotonous chore. 2/10

Review: Hoodwinked! (Cory Edwards, Todd Edwards,Tony Leech, 2005)

Taking it's cue from "Little Red Riding Hood", Hoodwinked! turns the story upside down as it applies real-world ethics, archetypes and rules to the scenario; Red Riding Hood calls for a lawyer against the Wolf for possible harassment over her and her Grandma, The Big Bad Wolf claims he was framed and is merely a simple journalist disguised as Grandma to get information on a possible saboteur of the town, Grandma insists she's not supposed to even be at her home at that time and the Woodcutter is confused over just about everything including his presence at the scene and in the movie. All this confusion then leads to a crime-solving mystery as the inhabitants learn there's something else far more sinister at work here than meets the eye, and it will take all of them to work together to discover the real culprit of the infamous tale. Intrigued? I hope so, because i certainly wasn't. Whilst it sounds fantastic on paper, the end result is largely unfulfilled.

Animation and character designs here are awful but that's not what the film's aim was. The goal was instead to create an original and satirical comedy using simplistic character design that epitomise their literature counterparts to lead the viewer into thinking it's a simple kid's movie/retelling of the traditional story when in actual fact the style, the character's attitudes, personality and motives turn out to be radical and unexpected to throw us intentionally. "What you think you are watching your'e not" is the film's main motto, "Forget what you've seen, and what you think you know" best describes the pitch of the film .Unfortunately, in my honest opinion, it just couldn't manage it. Not by a long shot.

An interesting and what should be a fun and satirical concept which the Shrek films touch upon lightly, and whilst Hoodwinked! is a full-fledged CG animated feature based on this idea i felt the Shrek movies do it justice a whole lot better. I was immensely bored whilst watching this film, more so than i ever have been in a while. The film was so bad in its executions that there was literally nothing in it to keep me up except to try and find something to like in the dialogue and voice acting. Typically in an animated movie these days there's your usual roster of Hollywood celebrities providing the voices and here we have Anne Hathaway, Glen Close and James Belushi all in instantly forgettable roles. None of them did anything memorable and it seemed they were only half interested too.

The only voices worth mentioning here are Patrick Warburton as The Wolf (though nowhere near as good a performance as his from Bee Movie) and Andy Dick who's basically playing himself as Boingo the Bunny; annoying and camp which i always find funny. Original songs sung by the cast (and there's a fair few of them) are also horrendous and horrible, they try to be random, funny and silly but are irritating with no comedic value whatsoever. There's nothing in this film that is original, despite the concept. It tried too hard to be funny when it wasn't, it tried too hard to be original and it wasn't, it tried too hard to be wacky, zany and crazy in its lunacy that it just became embarrassing to watch. There is no sense of comic timing here either, jokes are thrown at you demanding you laugh at them, and it got to the point that i just wanted to turn the film off. It gets to the point where a simple knock-knock joke would be hard for them to tell as they would over-do it with a song and dance number thus taking it out of context, just to make it more entertaining; more excruciating more like. Simple fact is the people who made this film just didn't know how to tell jokes.

I don't care about badly designed and animated visuals, as long as everything else works, but nothing else did here. If the animation is terrible then it's the ideas, comedy and dialogue which have to be the strong aspects. Whilst Hoodwinked's aim was this, it just couldn't pull it off. Looking at the documentary, i learned that the creators didn't want to have the best animation in the world, they just wanted to showcase their "original and funny" ideas. Well, it helps if you have talent first. And be funny.

Sad to say, this is one of the worst animated films i've seen in recent years. I guess iv'e just seen too many comedies/animation to see anything good in this. I recommend South Park if you want something similar yet better. It's badly animated sure, but at least it's consistently competent in its ideas and humour.

Kudos for the creators for trying to do something different, funny and original, it's just that they needed to be different, funny and original in the first place; and silly voices and stupid songs aren't. Instantly forgettable and a waste of time

Verdict: Original in its concept, disastrous in it's execution. 4/10