Reviews

Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is back in action for his latest Impossible Mission; to track down arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and rescue his new wife Julia (Michelle Monaghan). He is aided by his old buddy Luther (Ving Rhames), Zhen (Maggie Q) and Declan (Jonathan Rhys Meyers)...

Tom Cruise has not had it as easy as he'd like these days, has he? That infamous "out of the closet" South Park episode, in addition to his blatant showboating of his relationship with Katie Holmes, has left him looking less like the dependable low-key leading man he can be, and more like the smug, insufferable wannabe scenery-chewer he also can be. Alas, the third incarnation of Ethan Hunt, his Mission: Impossible alter ego, comes closest to the latter. It's not that the performance is awful, but let's just say that all that publicity has not helped his cause at all.

It also casts a huge shadow over Mission: Impossible III (hereafter M:I III). The film is loaded with problems, and they don't just exist within the film itself - a change in director and the loss of the likes of Scarlett Johansson from the cast didn't help the film's production. Nevertheless, I had good reason to be optimistic - the final, credited director was none other than J.J. Abrams, the man behind my current favourite TV show, Alias.

For those of you uninitiated with the world of Alias, let me briefly bring you up to speed with what it offers - complex characters, excellent acting (Melissa George excluded), numerous plot twists and brilliantly staged action sequences, all topped with elements of suspense and intrigue.

Abrams' skill with some of the above elements help to redeem M:I III to an extent. Some of the action sequences towards the end of the film are quite gripping, if not breathtaking, there are plot twists (even if a couple are preposterous), and most of the second half of the film is suspenseful.

And, of course, that terrific theme tune is all over the place. (What would the film be without it?) Unfortunately, something else is all over the place - the first half of the film, which is incoherent as well as being uninvolving.

Also, being his first film, it seems that Abrams is frustrated at not having the additional time you get in TV shows to develop your characters. It shows - both Davian and Julia are written as little more than plot devices. Yet Philip Seymour Hoffman (who's always good) and Michelle Monaghan rise above the material to make these people interesting. In fact, thanks to Hoffman, Davian is the best of the M:I villains to date (ahead of the slightly irritating Jon Voight and the low-key Dougray Scott). His Almost Famous co-star, Billy Crudup, is also impressive, though Ving Rhames and Jonathan Rhys Meyers are both underused.

Now if the problems I've discussed so far were the only problems the film had, then I'd recommend it. But there's more. If you thought the shakycam was overused in The Bourne Supremacy, you ain't seen nothing yet; every single one of the fight scenes is very difficult to follow.

And is it just me, or do Simon Pegg and Laurence Fishburne bring certain characters from Alias to mind? Are the IMF headquarters reminiscent of the Alias' CIA offices? It only shows a lack of imagination on Abrams' part when he seems to be cannibalising from his own show.

I understand that M:I III will probably be more appealing to those who haven't seen Alias. But I suspect that even they will be underwhelmed. I know from seeing his TV work that J.J. Abrams can do much better than this cobbled together, recycled effort.

J.J., you have the potential to become a good film director, but you've a long, long way to go. As for this film's position in the M:I series, well, it's an improvement over the last one, but that's not saying much. I certainly won't lose sleep if there isn't another entry in the series.

The Mirror's Jim Shelley was right.

Not - well at least not ENTIRELY - about classic UK Gameshows ("Popular, but rubbish") but this.

I watched just one of the specials, The Price Is Right, and right from the beginning I knew something wasn't right.

I get the feeling that those who were born at the beginning of the '80's or thereabouts (like myself) were unaware of how horribly tacky those gameshows of the past were.

Nostalgia, the abominable standard of most TV today, the overuse of modern technology (Satellite TV, DVDs, etc) and the large audiences of the past have allowed us to look back at Sale Of The Century, The Price Is Right, Bullseye, 3-2-1 and the rest through rose-tinted glasses. We grew up with them, so whether we like it or not, they are etched into our memories. And I will be quite happy to watch a repeat of one of those shows - even though sitting through 3-2-1 on Challenge TV recently was more of a chore than I thought.

But we don't have such tacky prizes today. Not in the era of Millionaire. And audiences seem far more - how do I put it - reserved. The screaming audience on the '80's TPiR was natural. The screaming audience of the 2005 revival seemed false.

And then we have Ant and Dec. A winning formula on kids' TV, they haven't really been as successful in the adult arena for me. Dec's attempt to host the classic TPiR game "Cliffhanger" made me cringe more than ever. On this stage, he didn't have the touch of either Brucie or the late Leslie Crowther. In a sense, I pitied him - he looked like he was trying to make the show as exciting as possible.

But it wasn't. And why? It was too long. And the producers weren't doing the show with ordinary people who truly cared about what they won, but with celebrities. Carol Vorderman looked like she'd rather be anywhere else.

Yes. Those classic game shows were junk, but they were still perfectly watchable pieces of junk that will live in my memory permanently. The Gameshow Marathon revival was junk that I'd rather forget.

The writer of Traffic, Stephen Gaghan, digs even deeper into corruption with this much ballyhooed political thriller.

Like Traffic, there are several plot threads that all eventually weave together into a whole. Whereas Traffic's central theme was the corruption that resulted from drug trafficking, Syriana's is the corruption that springs from large corporations and the battle for control of the world's oil supply. One subplot involves CIA operative Bob Barnes (George Clooney) and his efforts to discover the truth about the whole situation, which brings about rather gruesome results. Another subplot involves the merger of two oil companies, Connex and Killen. Then there's the prince (Alexander Siddig) who has plans to carry out liberal reforms that will help his country obtain full value for their oil. He forms a partnership with a troubled energy analyst played by Matt Damon. On top of all this, Syriana also takes time to focus on the trials and tribulations of a group of Pakistani teenagers, and some laid off Middle Eastern workers.

I personally regard Syriana as a brave and complex motion picture, and for those reasons it stands out among 2005's motion pictures.

As I hinted in my review of Munich, however, bravery and complexity are not enough when it comes to making a great movie. A film such as this one needs to focus more clearly on what it is dealing with. For a portion of its running time, Syriana is - quite literally - all over the place. (Traffic shared a similar flaw; Gaghan tried to fit so much into his screenplay for that film that the director, Steven Soderbergh, had to fight valiantly to keep it under control.) At times, Syriana plays like a more adult, less violent version of Three Kings (which, incidentally, is no bad thing, considering how highly I regard that film). There are many moments where it is really effective at being the Very Important Message Movie that it wants to be, with regards to not only oil and government, but also family values. Unfortunately Syriana treads a fine line between conveying a serious message and being liberal propaganda - I didn't believe that Gaghan was ambiguous enough in his treatment of the material.

At least his cast don't put a foot wrong. Any cast which includes George Clooney, Matt Damon, Christopher Plummer and William Hurt is an impressive one by me. And there are many surprises here. No, I'm not talking about Clooney's weight gain and beard - he'd have been almost as effective had he been slightly less unkempt (although I'm not knocking his performance). Rather, Matt Damon, who eventually won me over as a family man despite his interminably young features. Amanda Peet and Jeffrey Wright (recently seen in Broken Flowers) do their reputations no harm either, and Alexander Siddig (impressive in the underrated Kingdom Of Heaven) continues to enhance his.

It's very difficult for me to put a finger on Syriana. On one hand, it's intelligent, it asks questions and leaves plenty of food for thought - on the other hand, it's incoherent, at times blatantly one-sided and occasionally reliant on cheap tricks to keep the audience interested. It's like a lesser Munich, the difference being Spielberg has a better grasp of how to keep the audience involved. However, I admire Syriana's subject matter and general refusal to compromise, and for its artistic value alone, I recommend it.

The Olympic village, Munich, 1972. Eleven Israeli athletes are taken hostage and murdered by a group of Palestinian terrorists known as the Black September group. The Mossad strikes back by launching a team of Israelis led by Avner (Eric Bana) to hunt down and kill those responsible...

Before anyone starts asking if Steven Spielberg's Munich really is better than his "crowning achievement", Schindler's List, I think I'd better get to the far more important question - is the film a valuable artistic experience? To that, my answer is an emphatic "Yes".

From the moment you are transported back to Munich, you are "in the moment". That, to me, has always been the key to Spielberg's success. When his methods succeed, you are genuinely immersed in the experience. He can even handle sentimentality better than any other director. Unfortunately, when it goes wrong for him, it really turns nauseating; consider, if you like, the endings of A.I. and War Of The Worlds as examples.

Consistency isn't one of Steve's greatest strengths either. How many times have you seen him try to force an over-emotional moment into a dark film, even if it does work? (Key example: Schindler's List.) However, there are times when he manages to reign in the emotion successfully, resulting in more consistent works like the underrated Empire Of The Sun and Catch Me If You Can. Munich is worthy of inclusion on that list of works.

Yes, there is sentiment and "shocking moments" (which he is especially good at) but he carefully sprinkles them throughout, never letting them get in the way of the story. Rather, they assist the story brilliantly. In fact, remove them and the all-too-recognisable (if admittedly superb) camera-work of Janusz Kaminski and you'd find it hard to tell that Munich was a Spielberg film. It is a remarkably controlled, brilliantly staged and very well acted work. Of course, it helps that he has (once again) chosen a talented multi-national cast – Eric Bana, Mathieu Kassovitz, Ciaran Hinds and future 007 Daniel Craig all stand out. Bana especially; there is nothing remotely exaggerated or forced about his performance.

Perhaps most striking of all is Munich's moral ambiguity. Spielberg has been constantly under attack over the years for his "black and white" view of the world. (The way he treats the Nazis in his films, with the possible exception of Amon Goeth, is concrete evidence of this.) Avner doubts the rationality of the revenge mission early on and the rest of his team soon follow suit – unfortunately, some of them don't find out what is really going on until it's too late. The tables are eventually turned on Avner and the group. Once hunters, they become the hunted. They realise what it is like to be the "enemy" and wonder why they weren't more opposed to the movement he joined in the first place. A Spielberg detractor once said that the director could never make a film that showed that "potentially, we are (the bad guys)"...well, he may not quite have made it, but with Munich, he's come as close as you ever can expect him to. The scenes that show the dying "targets" are deeply affecting.

The only serious problem with the film is the length. For all of its strengths, it just isn't taut enough for me to regard it as a masterpiece. That, my friends, is what prevents it from reaching the heights of Schindler's List. But that is irrelevant. Since when was Munich about topping the earlier film anyway? With Munich, Steven Spielberg has given us a thought-provoking history lesson that may, eventually, have more valuable historical impact than any of his previous serious films.

Even in an age that includes such highly regarded fantasies as The Lord Of The Rings, C.S. Lewis's Chronicles Of Narnia are still beloved by many. Not that I would know, having read very little of the books (shame on me, I know), but I enjoy a good fantasy as much as the next person, and with Harry Potter and LotR successfully reinventing the fantasy genre in the 21st century, The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe seemed like an adaptation to look forward to.

Especially at Christmas. Last Christmas, we'd had the very entertaining Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events. Alas, it has not lingered long in the memory, and I fear that this adaptation, despite being entertaining, will follow suit. Like Lemony Snicket, it wants to be a young children's fantasy, and succeeds on that level to a greater extent. After all, it has a higher pedigree. The problem only begins when director Andrew Adamson (of Shrek fame) starts trying to emulate Peter Jackson.

This, the first of the Chronicles Of Narnia (there should be many more to come) begins with the four Pevensie children - Peter (William Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) sent to the house of Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent) during World War II. While playing a game of hide and seek, Lucy decides to hide in the wardrobe, and while moving towards the back, finds herself in the kingdom of Narnia. Many surprises and adventures follow, not just for Lucy, but for all the Pevensie kids.

I think there are many treats in store for those who haven't read the book. Now I knew that Narnia was "in the wardrobe" (who didn't?) but I didn't anticipate the several interesting characters and remarkable visuals that were to be seen in Narnia. Not that they eclipse the young leads - all four are credible, and I'm sure they will go on to even bigger things. The biggest names in the cast - Jim Broadbent (in a cameo) and Tilda Swinton, don't disappoint, with Swinton being especially chilling as the White Witch. Recognisable voices are all over the place, from Ray Winstone to Dawn French to Liam Neeson.

Friends of mine have told me the film is very faithful to the book. That seems like another huge plus point, and in a way I suppose it is. But it's worth pointing out that what works so well on the page does not always work so well on the screen. I discovered this when watching Tim Burton's attempts to recreate classic moments from Charlie And The Chocolate Factory; however well he did them technically, they lacked a spark.

It seems that Adamson realises this, and it's at that point he enters LotR territory. Before long you will see (POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING) birds soaring from overhead in a key battle, the "resurrections" of important characters, a "crowning" moment - it's all been done before, and done better, by Peter Jackson. Even the effects were better in LotR - just compare some of the computerised animals to Gollum and you will see what I mean. Additionally, there's some blatant blue screening on more than one occasion.

It's not that the battles are bad. They do have their effective moments, such as a memorable duel between Peter and the White Witch, but they sometimes border on tedium and confusion. And the film is not without its moments of unbearable cheese - just watch, for example, how some characters are "resurrected".

Despite the best efforts of Andrew Adamson and his crew, the order of things in the fantasy world hasn't changed. The Chronicles Of Narnia have got off to a satisfactory start, but Harry Potter and The Lord Of The Rings are still - clearly - in front.

Rating: 7/10

Until a few weeks ago, I hadn't watched this show for nearly twenty years (and I'm in my mid-20's now).

I still have vague memories of the last ever show, the 1988 Christmas special. It had a panto theme, Linda Nolan was in it. That's about all I remember.

Yet somehow - SOMEHOW - I got the urge to watch it on Challenge TV recently. Possibly because I've just discovered the fine TV Ark website and ITV's 50th birthday celebrations have made these old gameshows part of primetime again.

And...well, it really made me cringe.

The one I watched was from the last full series, in 1987. I struggled to sit through a couple of the entertainers (the infamous Brian Rogers connection and yet another rendition of I Will Survive) yet the sight of a then unknown Shane Richie, an amusing Ken Dodd and Kenny Baker (yes, R2 D2) made the entertainment a little more bearable.

Add the quiz round (possibly the most interesting part of the show, and that's saying something), the mildly amusing Dusty Bin, Ted Rogers and his 3-2-1 hand movement, some tacky prizes, some pretty decent prizes, some pretty clueless answers to questions, the puzzling cryptic clues...

Why did I watch this, even as a child? I think, in spite of everything it had going against it, there was something...well, welcoming, probably endearing about it. After all, you had prizes, entertainment (if you could call it that) and a money-winning quiz in one. That, and in its prime, most of 3-2-1's entertainers were really appreciated.

But I'd have to agree with UK Gameshows here and say that Ted Rogers was the one who really "carried the show off". He pretty much summed up 3-2-1 to a T; harmless and kind of likable, with several funny moments and not ashamed of what it was.

It's the kind of show you just don't get nowadays.

That said, I hope they never resurrect it. It's more than had its time, and I think Ant and Dec are doing more than enough "resurrecting" of old gameshows at present...

With so much computer animation around today, Nick Park and his clay figure movers at Aardman were bound to find it difficult to prove themselves in the cinematic world. Nevertheless they managed it five years ago with Chicken Run - a great escape inspired romp that, while entertaining, seemed just a bit too bland and mainstream. And it lacked something.

Or should I say some THINGS? Two things, in fact. Two characters. Yes, after five years in the making, Aardman have finally brought the names that truly put them on the map, Wallace & Gromit, and placed them in a cinema near you. And the result is everything you could hope for. Well, almost everything...the plot isn't particularly strong or unique (you will be reminded of King Kong, An American Werewolf In London and The Hulk, among others). Additionally, the humour doesn't seem to be quite as cutting edge as it was in the Wallace and Gromit short films. But the film does keep you completely involved from beginning to end, with the extended running time passing rather quickly. So yes, it can be said that the transition from small screen to big one has been a success, despite those aforementioned minor complaints.

Anyway... (minor spoiler warning in the next paragraph) Our heroes now run a critter-trapping business, Anti-Pesto. Wallace (voiced by Peter Sallis, as always) and Gromit have the unenviable job of keeping rabbits away from their owner's vegetables. With a vegetable competition in the town soon, business is blooming. It'll bloom even more now that Lady Tottington (an unrecognisable Helena Bonham Carter) has a rabbit problem that even Wallace and Gromit seem incapable of dealing with. But they do, much to chagrin of Tottington's fiancée Lord Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes in full on snide and ruthless mode) who believes killing them is the best solution. (Reminds you of at least one of Fiennes' characters, doesn't it?) However Wallace has come up with an ingenious invention that will stop the rabbits thinking about eating any vegetables. Some kind of mind manipulation machine, as he puts it. Great idea, sure, but a minor mistake results in the creation of the dreaded Were-Rabbit. Cue trouble.

What the film lacks in thematic depth it makes up for in good all round entertainment value. Chicken Run showed us that claymation could be visually astounding, but The Curse Of The Were Rabbit is even more impressive to look at. Not that you get much of a chance when the plot picks up the pace, however. For the shorts had the amazing ability to create tense sequences and mix them with fascinating scenes & fine jokes, some more subtle than others. You want those? Well, you've got them. There's even elements of pathos and romance (just like there were in The Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave) and wisely, the filmmakers do not overplay them. Any audience members who haven't seen the shorts stand a very good chance of being won over by what they see here.

I really do think that The Curse Of The Were Rabbit, or any Wallace & Gromit short for that matter, is impossible to dislike in the slightest. If this isn't a huge hit already, it will be, and deservedly so.

Rating: 8/10

Numerous people, including Roald Dahl himself, felt that his highly regarded children's classic, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, was poorly treated in its first filmic interpretation. Mel Stuart's 1971 film (which went as far as being named after Willy Wonka) was indeed flawed and sometimes cringeworthy, yet it has numerous original and endearing moments that leave a lasting impression. Enough, in fact, to make it a cult classic.

But that hasn't stopped the detractors complaining. So with so many remakes around these days, why not at least try and put things right? And who better to do so than Tim Burton, that strange and interesting director who has given us a handful of mini classics in the past? He understands Roald Dahl better than anyone else, or so it seems.

Now, for the few of you who don't know, the story revolves around the enormous chocolate factory of the reclusive Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp). No one has seen him for years, and he has suddenly decided to invite five children - just five, and no more - to accompany him on a tour of the factory itself. Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore), despite his poor conditions, never stops hoping that he will be one of those five. But even he cannot imagine what surprises lie in store for him.

Like The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy before it, everything seems set up for a wonderful modern film adaptation. There's so much acting talent (Johnny Depp, relative newcomer Freddie Highmore, Helena Bonham-Carter, Edward Fox, Noah Taylor, Christopher Lee), so much wonderful production design (courtesy of Alex McDowell, who did an equally impressive job for Minority Report) and numerous brilliant moments. And yet...and yet...it all feels so rehearsed. There's a lack of spontaneity, there's little feeling. As Shakespeare would put it, it's "all sound and fury, signifying nothing." Let me make it clear that I love the book. As a result, one of the things I personally found dissatisfying about Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was its tendency to leave out many of the book's classic early moments. Burton and screenwriter John August overcome this flaw by ignoring the earlier film and successfully re-imagining some of the best scenes in the book in their own right. Unfortunately, these scenes are all too literally replicated, so while fans of the book will be happy to see them, they lack inspiration and leave little to the imagination. Which, it should be said, was one of the key themes of the original story.

I could also argue that the pre-chocolate factory section of the film is rather rushed. This is more costly than you'd expect, and it leaves us with a poorly written leading protagonist. Freddie Highmore does his best with Charlie, but there is little in the film that suggests he will become the truly deserving winner of the prize that Wonka has in store for his favourite child.

The arrival of Johnny Depp enlivens things immensely. Twenty minutes inside the factory with this guy, and I thought "He makes Gene Wilder look sane." Unfortunately, Depp's fantastic performance is hampered by Burton's interference, in the form of childhood flashbacks for Wonka. These may be innovative, but they are distracting and forced. It's as if Burton felt he had to justified to give Wonka a personality, when really he should have let Depp do most of the work. (Pretty much in the same way Gore Verbinski did in Pirates Of The Caribbean.) Roald Dahl managed to find the correct balance of pathos and irreverence in Wonka; neither Mel Stuart nor Tim Burton have been able to do so. It's a shame.

Of course, those who have come along just to see their favourite book faithfully and stylishly recreated, with a few twists here and there (and these include the way Burton has staged the Oompa Loompas' songs) won't be disappointed. It even appears, at one point, that he has given the film a remarkable ending; unfortunately, the film ends up closing with a poorly handled, overly moralistic sermon on "family values", that is jarring in the context of the film.

So there you have it. For all that Tim Burton does right with this film, he misses an opportunity. And thus we have another "Hitchhiker's Guide" - enjoyable, but could and should have been much, much more.

Rating: 6/10

Co-written and directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer, Morgan Freeman

I can now understand what David Goyer has been saving his energy for. After the calamitous mistake that was Blade: Trinity, he has teamed up with Memento helmsman Christopher Nolan to try and bring us the definitive tale of Batman's origins. Probably even the definitive Batman collection. And if the latter is the case, then it has got off to a very promising start.

We begin with a young Bruce Wayne watching his parents' murder in an alleyway. His quest for vengeance eventually lands him in a Far East prison, where Bruce (now played by Christian Bale) is rescued and recruited in the art of self-defense by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). He then makes the decision to return to a decaying Gotham City (even more so than the one Tim Burton envisioned), and finds his beloved family business, Wayne Enterprises, now under the corrupt corporate control of Earle (Rutger Hauer). This helps spur him on to create his famous crime-fighting alter-ego, with the help of family friend Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman).

This re-imagination of Batman appears to be taking its cues from several previous comic book adventures. It combines the fun of Spider-Man, the dark style of Tim Burton's Batman movies, the intelligence of X-Men and the tragic elements of The Hulk. However, The Hulk played itself so straight that it failed to grasp the enjoyment factor so crucial to comic book films. Nolan doesn't make the same mistake as Ang Lee did, carefully sprinkling humour throughout and generally investing the right amount of time on characters. Where the Spider-Man and X-Men films lacked depth and ambition, Batman Begins is certainly not found wanting in those areas. It takes a gifted director to juggle the best elements of all the aforementioned films and yet still make everything seem fresh. But Nolan has somehow done it.

As a bonus, Batman Begins is not an overly violent film, as Sin City was. While it contains its share of gripping action sequences, the film never lets us forget the consequences of its characters' actions, on both sides of the coin. An aura of realism and gloom surrounds the whole picture. Again, credit goes to Nolan here.

The villainous plot, set in motion by The Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) is silly (as with most comic book films), but is carried off with the right element of gusto and believability. There are a couple of things that let the film down a little, however; a couple of characters could have been better developed, and why was there so much quick-cutting in a key chase? But those are minor quibbles.

Nolan seems aware that his script is not enough to carry the work, and so he has assembled an incredible cast. The top-billed names aren't just stars, they are genuinely gifted actors. Christian Bale had the most expectations on his shoulders before the film, but he brings out more depth in Bruce Wayne than any Batman in the Burton/Schumacher era. His is the most human and vulnerable, although the vulnerability almost flies out the window when he dons the Batsuit. (Speaking of which, fans, just wait until you see the gadgets...)

As Bruce's childhood friend/love interest, Katie Holmes plays on the adorability factor that she's acquired from TV and previous movies. Liam Neeson, as always, is excellent, and in some ways acts against type here. Cillian Murphy and Gary Oldman also act against type, though Oldman is more successful than Murphy. While I never saw a terrorist lurking behind the glasses of Oldman's Lieutenant Gordon, it was slightly harder for me to accept the more "everyman" Murphy as a bad-to-the-bone villain. Nevertheless, he just about pulls it off. Everyone else, including Ken Watanabe, Tom Wilkinson and Michael Caine, is solid, with Caine getting a chance to enjoy some fine moments, comedic or otherwise.

At last, the Joel Schumacher abominations can be laid to rest and this franchise can start anew. There will probably be better, more serious films than this one in 2005, but it will take one heck of a comic book adaptation to top this one.

Rating: 9/10

Written and directed by George Lucas

Starring Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Ian McDiarmid, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, Frank Oz

In the midst of the generally positive response to the final Star Wars prequel, there are still those that say the new films are just not up to the standard of the original trilogy. They say things like: The spontaneity and the magic have gone, we know what's going to happen, Star Wars is nothing but a cynical franchise now, does this story really need to be stretched out over three films, etc., etc.

Well, after viewing Episode III (aka Revenge Of The Sith) myself, I've concluded that perhaps some of the above criticisms are right, but not all of them. Some of the "magic" is still there. Admit it, didn't the trailer leave you optimistic? And of course it is possible for a film to enthrall even though you know what's coming. Look at the joy we have got from re-viewing the best action and suspense films. The key to these movies' success is not so much what they do as how they do it. And Revenge Of The Sith is implemented well enough to rank as the best of the prequels, even if it is a tiny cut below even Return Of The Jedi.

While Episodes I and II were watchable, their problems were too obvious. Effects had taken over. The bad dialogue was more ever-present than before. The characters and stories just weren't as interesting. Episode III has rectified these errors to a large extent, if not entirely. The result is a crisp, thrilling and occasionally brilliant narrative with some of the best battles in the whole Star Wars saga. It's not exactly the "Titanic in space" that George Lucas said it would be, and I'm thankful for that. I doubt many would have tolerated another big and wooden love story, especially after the mess Lucas made of it in Episode II. Fortunately, he knows how to restrain himself this time. Love is still a prevalent theme in Star Wars (and to an extent, it always has been) but the focus is on, as the opening title card states, "War!" Indeed. The moment the famed scrolling text disappears, we are plunged straight into the action as the Jedi attempt to save Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from his captors, Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and General Grievous.

What the Jedi council don't know about yet are the corrupt plans that Palpatine (or Darth Sidious) has for Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen). These plans will help Anakin obtain power that could preserve Anakin's secret marriage to Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman). Of course, Anakin is taken in by Palpatine's idea, but the likes of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), unsettled by Palpatine's growing influence, are uneasy about this. Of course, they can't prove anything yet, and they still have the matter of attacks on the Republic to take care of.

Signs of Anakin's eventual transformation into Darth Vader appear right from the beginning. Palpatine plays a key role in the conversion, but the triggers for it are different, and rather shocking. So too are the results. There are scenes in this movie that you would have thought were beyond Lucas' ability as a filmmaker. He outdoes himself not only with some of the emotional scenes (yes, even Padmé and Anakin have one genuinely bearable moment together) but also with some of the battles (such as the final light-saber showdowns between Palpatine & Yoda and Obi-Wan & Anakin/Darth Vader respectively). There's good chase scenes too - one between Grievous and Obi-Wan stands out. When Episode III takes off, it really soars. Episode II only postponed the inevitable; the conclusion of this film is especially hard-hitting.

That could probably be because Lucas has better actors here working with him than in the original three films. Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson have nothing to prove here, and to a degree, they transfer the skills they already have (although Portman is criminally wasted). But if I had to give someone real credit, it would be Ian McDiarmid, the most under-appreciated actor in the entire saga in my opinion. His transformation from Chancellor to Emperor is one of the film's standout moments. Watching him subtly lure Anakin to the dark side is eerily chilling.

The jury is still out on Hayden Christensen, however. He has won over critics with his performance in Shattered Glass, and is significantly better here than he was in the shoes of the whiny and sometimes annoying Anakin of Episode II. And the way he handles his light-saber duels has to be seen to be believed. Alas, there are times when his old weaknesses come seeping through. But is this more the fault of George Lucas?

It probably is. You know how Harrison Ford and Alec Guinness felt when speaking their lines. And dialogue's not the only problem. Lucas has taken these prequels far, far too seriously. Of course they're entertaining, but the playful tone of the originals has been toned down too much. I can't help wondering if only the true, hardcore fans will fully appreciate Episode III, and it's not likely to welcome any new fans to the saga. Those who are expecting it to hit the heights of Episodes IV and V will definitely be a little disappointed.

But let's forget about what Episode III isn't and appreciate it for what it is - a well produced, gripping summer blockbuster that brings this saga to a dignified, if not earth-shattering end. And that's pretty much all that needs to be said.

Rating: 7.5/10

Directed by: Garth Jennings

Starring: Martin Freeman, Mos Def, Sam Rockwell, Zooey Deschanel, John Malkovich, Bill Nighy, Anna Chancellor, Alan Rickman (voice), Stephen Fry (voice), Warwick Davis

I haven't read any of the five volumes of Douglas Adams' five-part "trilogy", the Complete Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, so you could say that my expectations were not matched by those who expected it to stay faithful to the radio show, the early '80's TV show, or the books. To be honest, I was drawn to this by its irreverent look and promising cast.

Now, for anyone else unfortunate enough to be uninitiated...

Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) is having one of those days. The local authorities want to build a bypass through his house, in the country (yes, I know it sounds silly, but that's the whole spirit of the thing). His best mate, Ford Prefect (Mos Def) is an alien. And the Vogons are coming down to destroy Earth! No fear, Ford will get Arthur out of danger - and into an adventure with some more crazy characters, like the president of the galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell) and Marvin the Paranoid Android (Warwick Davis; voice of Alan Rickman). Thankfully for Arthur, there is another human on board - Tricia "Trillian" McMillan (Zooey Deschanel), so you could say that his sanity stays intact to a certain extent.

Sanity's not a good word to use when describing the film. Both fans and non-fans expect the film to be "far out", and the film delivers.

The talent behind the camera knows this. The director, Garth Jennings, was behind that crazy-but-brilliant video for Blur's "Coffee and TV". The composer is long time Divine Comedy collaborator Joby Talbot, and the ironic tone of his score fits the scene perfectly. (As a bonus, he even has Neil Hannon sing the closing credits song!) The talent in front of the camera is exceptional. Everyone - and I mean everyone - is perfectly cast. I don't think anyone but Martin Freeman could have played Arthur Dent as well. On this evidence, he may have a very good future as an everyman. Zooey Deschanel also deserves a mention (although she had one scene where she appeared to be forcing emotion). She may be one of today's most underrated and underused actresses.

Like Doctor Who, The Hitchhiker's Guide has numerous intelligent and innovative ideas, quite a few of which are heard in Stephen Fry's voice-over of the book itself. It also has a strong sense of fun and doesn't rely on its effects. Nevertheless, it uses the budget it has to create some of the most memorable moments in the film. Watch out for the scenes where Slartibartfast (Bill Nighy) literally takes Arthur on a moving tour of another world, or when the gang encounter Humma Kavula (John Malkovich).

It all sounds so good. So why is this reviewer not as satisfied as he could have been? Let's start with the nit-picks. More Marvin at the expense of Zaphod and Ford wouldn't have gone amiss. No disrespect to Sam Rockwell and Mos Def, but their characters do get a little tiresome after a while. Here's a plot hole for you too (POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING) - what exactly becomes of John Malkovich's character? You can be sure I don't know the answer. (Maybe a sequel will resolve things.) The real problem lies where I don't want it to lie - the Arthur-Trillian romantic connection, which apparently wasn't in the first book. I've no qualms with it being in the film, but it is poorly executed. It doesn't have enough feeling to it. Freeman and Deschanel do their best to make it work, but the script lets them down. If these two had even a hint of the subtle chemistry that Freeman and Lucy Davis shared in The Office, the love story may have been special. Instead it seems entirely forced and obligatory. The near cop-out at the end of the romantic subplot was enough to leave me disgusted (and cost the film a mark). I wonder if Douglas Adams would have been that pleased with an ending that feels a little too happy-clappy.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy is a perfectly fine adaptation, but it should have been more considering the amount of talent on board.

Rating: 7/10