Reviews

Okay, here is he awful truth:

1. Apparently a Stone Mason wrote the Magna Carter (Robin's Father) 2. Although a humble archer, Robin within a matter of weeks becomes the King's right hand man in battle 3. Apparently in 13th century England, the French had 20th Century warefare technology 4. Apparently French soldiers can row their way across the channel in canoes and then jump out and fight(although earlier in the film the channel is so perilous that a big English boat barely makes it across and it took overnight to cross) 5. King John never signed the Magna Carter 6. Russell Crowe can do a number of English accents - unfortunately, he just couldn't choose one 7. Cate Blanchett is very good at channelling Katherine Hepburn 8. Apparently Marion is psychic because she recognises the man who killed her father-in-law in battle without having ever laid eyes on her 9. Marion although having worked on a farm in Nottingham for 10 years is a skilled soldier and killed wield an axe better than most of the French and British soldiers 10. Everyone in the town of Nottingham is so stupid that they don't realise that Robin is impersonating Robert of Loxley who is about 20 years his senior, blonde and looks nothing like Russell Crowe.

Don't see it - it's not worth your coin. I'm so disappointed because I love Cate Blanchett and Crowe is usually very good. But this is just bad story telling.

I've read the reviews on the IMDb database and was shocked to find that many US reviewers found this racist and stereotypical. As an Australian, it never occurred to me that the depiction was stereotypical or that it was degrading to African-Americans.

Instead, I found it depicted an individual's story - she could have been portrayed as a poor Hispanic, Irish, Italian etc.

The movie is flawed - but unlike other films in this genre, it actually ends on a positive note.

The story centres on Clarice - better known as 'Precious'. Her name of course being a slap you over the head with irony name. Precious has been the subject of sexual abuse by her father since she was 3 - the film does not shy away from this - and physical and mental abuse from her mother.

When we first meet Precious, she is pregnant with her second child to her father and is promptly suspended from school (though it was never clearly explained why). She ends up at a school for illiterate children where she meets an assorted group of teenagers in similar situations to her. After giving birth to her second child, Precious returns from the hospital only for her mother to physically abuse her child and Precious. Precious leaves with her child and later discovers that she is HIV positive.

However, Precious is portrayed with dignity and this is where the movie really comes into it's own. Mariah Carey as the councellor is particularly good. She's quietly empathetic as is Miss Rain - Precious' teacher. Neither play the sympathy card or wallow in excess grief at Precious' story. Instead they actively encourage Precious to take what little action she can.

Overall, the performances were excellent. Mariah Carey was excellent and Monique was outstanding. The last scene, with Precious walking down the street with her two children will perhaps be regarded as one of the most powerful endings in film history.

This is not a film for the fainthearted - it is challenging, but it's worth the effort. Is it worthy of an Oscar for Best Picture - probably not.

Nine is a 30 Rock in-joke - it's a film based on a musical based on a film. I kept expecting Jenna Marone to pop up somewhere! This film is a mess. It really has no storyline other than Guido (and just in case you forget the protagonist's name every song has the following line: Guido, Guido, Guido.... Guido, Guido, Guido... Ugh!) is a film writer / director who has a nasty case of writer's block.

Guido, played by Daniel Day-Lewis is a miserable misogynist who illicits very little sympathy. And this is the problem with the movie. It's hard not to compare it to 'All that Jazz' - given that the story lines are almost identical - but there is something lovable and redeemable about our hero in that film. Guido is thoroughly unlikeable.

All of the actors are good - that's not the problem. The problem is that the film is boring, Guido is not likable and most of the other characters have little to do.

Most of the musical numbers are too long and are really boring - the Kate Hudson and Fergie numbers are the only exceptions.

Nicole Kidman and Marion Cotilliard are also good but they have so little to do.

And then there is the way they dressed Nicole Kidman - what is it with the really bad padding (since when did the women of the 60s wear square shaped padding for their behinds? Weird). Judi Dench seem to lack purpose and then Sofia Loren who is absolutely beautiful is absolutely wasted. The only two characters of interest were Cruz's Carla and Fergie's Seraghina. But Seraghina went nowhere. Why bother? It felt as though there was no purpose for this character or for the Kate Hudson character.

Nine totally misses the point of a musical. Every musical number is supposed to drive the story along - not Nine. It's 2 hours I'll never get back. I can't help but compare Nine to Bran Nue Dae - which was full of exuberance and every number had purpose. Go see that instead.

You don't have to be a fan of the Beatles to enjoy this film. I'm a huge fan and already knew the story, but my friend didn't and we both found it extraordinary. I've disliked almost every film about the Beatles - mostly because they're so clichéd and focus on them finding fame. This is not about the Bealtes - it is a movie about a young man reuniting with his mother. The young boy just happens to be John Lennon.

Aaron Johnson is perfectly cast as John Lennon - he may not like like Lennon, but who cares. His performance is near perfect, playing Lennon as brittle, lost, crass, sweet, caring and charismatic - much like the man himself. Kristen Scott-Thomas portrays Aunt Mimi with such aplomb that it's hard not to love Mimi despite her cool exterior and inability to openly show her emotions. Ann Maree Duff plays Lennon's mother with a complexity of spirit and if you know the lyrical references in Lennon's songs to Julia, then you will love her performance all the more.

And those is minor roles also excel. Thomas Sangster as Paul McCartney (again he doesn't look remotely like Paul - again who cares) is simply excellent. The film portrays the early relationship between Paul and John. John teaching Paul not to be such a sop and Paul teaching John to be more controlled. One of the most moving scenes is when the two men embrace at Julia's funeral - a bond between two boys who both lost their mothers. The film implies that although the two deeply respected each other - it was never a truly easy relationship. Sangster lights up the screen whenever he appears.

If you are expecting a movie about the Beatles - this is not it. This is a film about relationships between mothers and sons, sisters and friends. If you like your movies complex and intricately written - then this is for you.

Well, the back of the DVD says it all. One goes home, one commits suicide and the other ends up a drunk addicted to pills. And that's about it. Barbara Perkins is gorgeous, but uninspiring as Anne. Patty Duke is amazingly awful. YOu have to watch it just for her over-the-top performance. I don't think she actually speaks one word - everything is screeched out. Hideous, but truly funny. The more empathetic she tries to be, the funnier she is. Susan Haywoods is truly great. And gives one of the films few but true moments of pathos after her wig is thrown in the toilet revealing her grey hair (although, it looked pretty blonde to all of us - and she looked better without the wig!).

But it is Sharon Tate that is the one to watch. She's not a particularly good actress, but she is luminous and impossibly beautiful. Her character descends into hardcore porn (but of course, there are lace curtains to hide everything). The film is all very twee. It's meant to be a tragedy, but it's best to view it as a comedy. Patty Duke's last scene in the alleyway had us in stitches. Watch on a girls' weekend with lots of booze. You'll be quoting lines for weeks!

Robert Mitchem as Max Cady gives one of his finest performances in the original Cape Fear. It is hard not to compare Mitchem's performance to that of De Niro in the remake. De Niro is good, but in comparison - Mitchem is far more menacing and threatening. Mitchem is incredibly handsome and at his physical peak in this film. Whilst our hero Sam (Gregory Peck) is dressed in dark colours, Cady is dressed mostly in white with a fedora pushed back off his face. Mitchem plays him with a curious mix of charm and menace. This is added to by the score - the typical thriller score filled with strings. However, frequently when Cady is on screen the music changes to upbeat jazz (for example, when Sam's daughter is in the car and spots Cady following her. Every performance from the girl Cady beats up to Sam's daughter is impeccable. Both Mitchem and Peck give quietly restrained performances which sets an atmosphere of high tension. And the cinematography of flat greys is amazing. This is a film where less is more - this should have been the template for the thriller genre. More thrillers like this please!

This is the ultimate musical movie. The makers of DreamGirls need to go and do some homework.

If you hate musicals, it's probably because you've never seen a musical done the way it's supposed to be. And this movie is one of the funniest movies ever to come out of Hollywood.

Gene Kelly makes every dance scene look effortless and Donald O'Connor almost steals the show in every scene that he's in. But Jean O'Hangan as the bitchy but dumb Lina Lamont is the real star of this movie.

By the way, the famous Singin' in the Rain sequence is magnificantly ripped off dance step for dance step in an episode of Padington Bear. If you're a fan of Singin' in the Rain - track down the Paddington Bear sequence. Almost as great at the real thing!

Let's get one thing clear first, Marley & Me is a story about life and death. The movie trailers give the impression that this is either a romantic comedy or a cute kids' film about a naughty puppy.

Marley & Me is neither of these things. It's a sweet film about the impact that a dog has on his family. You need to know that the dog dies - so if you plan on taking kids, you need to consider whether they are mature enough to handle this.

Wilson and Aniston give perhaps their best performances ever. Although there are many funny sequences, in reality this is a drama and deals with complex adult issues such as marriage stress, sex, post natal depression, miscarriage etc.

As a pet lover who's lost some special mates over the years, my mind was cast back to childhood dogs and cats. The last 30 minutes was a real tearjerker. Even my cynical sister - who never cries in films - openly wept! And there was some big burly men wiping tears away when the lights went up.

Unlike many other dog films, it talks about the very real consequences of getting a cute puppy. Kathleen Turner's cameo as a dog trainer was a great inclusion and the performances from the kids were fantastic too.

My only criticism is that the various dogs who portray Marley didn't look that much like each other. At least two distinctly different looking and different sized dogs played the puppy. And Marley went from being a very golden Labrador to a much paler Labrador with a much longer snout and darker eyes! But these are minor grievances.

This is a much more sophisticated movie than the trailers suggest. It's what good storytelling is all about. Enjoy!

At nearly 3 hours, this is one long and, unfortunately, boring movie. The problem isn't so much the main story arc - it's the seemingly endless disconnected and meaningless story lines scattered throughout the film.

Let's start with the structure of the film. It copies directly from The Titanic. So we have a dying old woman who shares her memories of her lover with her daughter. And just like in Titanic, she dies and the daughter finds out who her father really is. Boring, been there, done it before.

Then there's nearly 30 minutes devoted to a character who does't propel the storyline along. Benjamin has an affair in a Russian hotel with a woman married to a British spy. This story acr had no consequence to the main storyline of the film. Why was it included? Why was she married to a British spy? Why does she up and leave him? He doesn't even seem to care, and neither did I.

Then there is the hummingbird. The hummingbird is related to the death of Benjamin's captain and appears when the captain dies. It later appears when Daisy dies. Why? What does the hummingbird have to do with Daisy? Then there are the countless other characters who we are told are significant on Benjamin's life by the voice-over but then have no corresponding storyline. Most annoying was the woman with the dog. The dog appeared to be given great significance when it appears - but then disappears without consequence. Same as Benjamin's sister. Same with the clock maker. These vignettes padded the movie to distraction.

And then there's the old man who was hit by lightning 7 times. The first 3 flashbacks are funny, and from then on, it's like groan - what does this character have to do with anything?

Brad's performance is good. It's probably his best role - but let's face it, he's not really an actor's actor. Cate is her luminous best and as always absolutely steals the show. Daisy is the most enigmatic and interesting character. It's her story, rather than Benjamin's that is of most interest. Had the film been edited much more heavily and concentrated on the Benjamin / Daisy story, it could have been an amazing film.

It's beautifully shot, great score, great effects, some good performances - but watching this film is like listening to a story told by someone who continually goes off track. In the end, you just want them to stop talking and you no longer care what happens.

If you liked Titanic - you'll probably like this film. It has all the hokey plot devices and narration, and it's too long with too many characters. As with the Titanic, a great story is sacrificed by lack of editing. And you know it's bad when the audience leaves the theatre too bored to talk about the movie they just saw.

If you've seen 28 Days Later then you've already seen I am Legend. Basicaly, New York has been wiped out due to a cancer cure gone wrong which causes anyone infected to become zombies. In 28 Days our protagonist wakes up from a hospital bed to find London deserted during the day and filled with Zombies at night. In I am Legend, Will Smith is the sole survivor wandering around a deserted New York during the day and locking himself away from the Zombies at night. As in 28 Days Later, Wil Smith miraculously encounters other survivors who know of a 'safe colony' to escape to.

This is apparently based on a novel - but if other IMDb reviews are correct,there is much distortion from the original storyline.

I spent most of the time bored - it felt like a much longer movie than it actually is and the disjointed flashbacks are simply annoying and add no emotional punch to the movie. The only time the movie is scary is when the dog is injured - the dog, by the way, was great. Go Inspector Rex!

There are other annoying touches - like the way there are mannequins in the DVD store... Why? Who puts them there? I'm not sure that I care. I normally like Will Smith - but even such a likable actor can't save this trollop. Perhaps, if you haven't seen 28 Days Later, you may enjoy the movie - if you have seen it, then you've already seen I Am Legend. 28 Days Later was much scarier, better written and much more engaging... Rent that instead...