Reviews by SJMJ91

Let's face it, over the past 10 years, how many times have we seen a film with a romantic story that has a visually colourful background to it? Having said that, Water For Elephants really looked just that, but the fact that it involves a person I can't stand: Robert Pattinson, and a person who I am really idolizing as of late: Christoph Waltz, it really was going to either be really rubbish or be a surprisingly enjoyable film.Water For Elephants really surprised me and it was actually a really pleasurable and heart-warming story. It is a personal story that did bring back memories of Tim Burton's Big Fish that mixes us with the modern world and meeting different kinds of people and taking us on different adventures.


Water For Elephants is a really delightful film to watch as well if you are an animal lover! Sure, there are some hard to watch moments but the elephant within the film, has a mind of its own and its own character, so you can easily fall in love with the elephant. Although, it doesn't fit for all families, it is perhaps suitable more for adults who have strong stomachs and like seeing films that features a lot of beauty and love. A key quality that Water For Elephants has which not many recent films have that are set in the early days of the world (especially around the war), is the reality of going back to history and making it a thought-provoking film. The production was just splendid (especially the settings and costumes) and from one's perspective, Water For Elephants deserves the Academy Award nominations for Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design.


After his parents' death, Jacob Jankoski is left penniless and homeless. Events lead him to joining the circus as their vet, working under their unstable boss August whose violent tendencies give everyone reason to be cautious around him, including his beautiful and quiet wife Marlena, whom August is very possessive of and who Jacob finds himself soon falling in love with.


Guilt was running through my veins watching this seeing as I'm one of those people who cannot stand Robert Pattinson, but all levities aside, I took a step back and simply tried to enjoy it. However, despite that Pattinson still isn't a top-notch actor, he actually wasn't that bad at all in Water For Elephants, so credit goes to him for the leading role and making it sublime enough to enjoy. He portrays the young Jacob, who in many ways has similarities with Edward Bloom in Big Fish (even young Jacob looks and dresses like young Edward did). Just to make Water For Elephants an even more pleasurable film to watch, there was the beautiful and talented Reese Witherspoon who took the role of the romantic interest of the protagonist (but also the wife of the antagonist). Witherspoon fitted the role really well and looked great. As for the romance between her and Jacob, it had similarities with Baz Luhrmann's Australia and perhaps even James Cameron's Titanic, so it did have its passionate and heart melting moments, but had its heartbreaking segments at the same time.


Despite being in his 50s now, Christoph Waltz really is becoming a Hollywood star after his Oscar winning role in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds and out of his most recent roles since then, he has portrayed the villain, but all three are totally different kids of characters. It is a shame that he wasn't as recognised then like he is now. He provides a side that we hadn't seen from him before, and that isn't like the villainous murderer like we've seen previously, but a rather romantic side in the scenes with Reese Witherspoon. So, I think Waltz could perhaps pull off a strong hero as well as a strong villain in the near future.


Back in 2007, director Francis Lawrence gave us I Am Legend but this time, he gives us something totally different. The direction was a bit like in Big Fish and Australia by mixing a lot of beauty and artistic design with a very deep, personal and affectionate story. He manages to make it perhaps easy enough for young people to watch, but it is definitely an adult's story as well. At times, it even felt like it really was a film made in the 1930s seeing as the background design was fantastic, and there was strong character development so, the producers and the crew members behind the camera deserve credit.


Overall, Water For Elephants is a surprisingly beautiful and genuinely heartfelt story that will perhaps be the most surprising film of 2011 that I will see. It has what a romantic tale should: the charm, the drama and strong background stories within that could lead to tears. The film in a nutshell is basically Big Fish mixed with Australia/Titanic film. So, if you're looking for a heart warmer in 2011, Water For Elephants is the film for you.

Quite frankly to start off with, there were mixed feelings about Grown Ups seeing as it looks like a fun film to watch, but looks a bit stupid at the same time. However, after seeing it, it certainly is a stupid film and it really wasn't even anything fun to watch. Of course there were going to be one or two moments that were going to make you chuckle, but most of the time it was laughably silly. The trailer made the film seem very fun, entertaining and hilarious but unfortunately, the characters, performances from actors and just the rest of the story in general, made it too cheesy to be fun.


There is one minor note in Grown Ups that could have made this film really great. Because the story involves a group of childhood friends and now that they have been reunited and are now married and have kids, this could have really been something personal. So, unfortunately they selected the wrong writer and director for this film to be able to achieve this. It could have sent out a great message such as knowing that your true friends are the ones who stick by you, always treasure your childhood and to make the most of it while you can and not to mention a few others. So, Grown Ups is in a word; empty. It really lacks heart and that is annoying about films that try to be emotional and exciting to watch.


In 1978, five 12-year-olds win a CYO basketball championship. Thirty years later, they gather with their families for their coach's funeral and a weekend at a house on a lake where they used to party. By now, each is a grownup with problems and challenges: Marcus is alone and drinks too much. Rob, with three daughters he rarely sees, is always deeply in love until he turns on his next ex-wife. Eric is overweight and out of work. Kurt is a househusband, henpecked by wife and mother-in-law. Lenny is a successful Hollywood agent married to a fashion designer; their kids take privilege for granted. Can the outdoors help these grownups rediscover connections or is this chaos in the making?


Admittedly being one who has never been a huge admirer of Adam Sandler, but do like some of his films, I actually thought he could deliver and lead something quite interesting here. Boy, Adam, you really need to get your act together and stop being in these kind of films because you just haven't got it anymore. He just lacked the humour and the emotion that the character he portrayed needed. Chris Rock hasn't been in my good books either over the years, but he was actually alright in this one. Rob Schneider gets on my nerves in every film he has been in, and he manages to succeed at that once again. I don't even fully understand why the film is called ''Grown Ups'' because, yeah the actors within the film look grown-up obviously, but do they act grown up? I think not. Even the kids acted more grown-up than the five guys did. The five guys were like big kids, so character development and acting all around just failed miserably.


Dennis Dugan, I am surprised at you because in the past you have made a great Adam Sandler film: Happy Gilmore (which is my favorite film from Sandler). So, I know he can do a lot better than this. This isn't only incredibly boring, really ridiculous and just not funny at all, but it was poorly directed and it just miserable failed. Grown-Ups could have been something personal and moving, but it just totally went out of hand especially with the lousy actors and the real lack of character development. The script was absolutely atrocious and is perhaps one of the cheesiest scripts that I have had to listen to in a film so pretty much the entire production of the film failed.


Overall, Grown Ups is basically an ultimately failed comedy that is neither funny nor fun. It lacks literally everything, but there have been much worse films than this. Adam Sandler really will have to climb up to the top of the ladder again after this one. This could have been something really good, but it was almost nothing! A true grown up wouldn't fall for this film and would have more sense to see this film for what it really is: empty and heartless.

Being one who read all of the books and the fact that Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire is my favourite novel out of the six novels that were released before the film (Deathly Hallows is favourite novel overall), the excitement of the film adaptation were immense! Goblet Of Fire really is perhaps the most fun Harry Potter film that does take the series' twists and turns to another new level even more than Prisoner Of Azkaban. This means that we saw darker magic and the wizarding world in a more expanded way by showing us the likes of Bulgarian and French wizards.


Just like Prisoner Of Azkaban, Goblet Of Fire is a Harry Potter film that changes the course of the series around completely into something new. Well, it opens the inner story even more anyway and makes it a lot darker to watch. This fourth one became the first Potter film to receive a PG-13/12A rating and every other film in the series after Goblet Of Fire received a PG-13/12A rating as well. So, we all knew this was going to be the start of something different. This is perhaps the most fun out of all the films because it perhaps features the most action, features some modern life segments and a much wider range of characters and magic.


Harry's fourth year at Hogwarts is about to start and he is enjoying the summer vacation with his friends. They get the tickets to The Quidditch World Cup Final but after the match is over, people dressed like Lord Voldemort's 'Death Eaters' set a fire to all the visitors' tents, coupled with the appearance of Voldemort's symbol, the 'Dark Mark' in the sky, which causes a frenzy across the magical community. That same year, Hogwarts is hosting 'The Triwizard Tournament', a magical tournament between three well-known schools of magic : Hogwarts, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. The contestants have to be above the age of 17, and are chosen by a magical object called Goblet of Fire. On the night of selection, however, the Goblet spews out four names instead of the usual three, with Harry unwittingly being selected as the Fourth Champion.


Daniel Radcliffe is a disappointing Harry Potter, let's face it. His acting was pretty flat in this one and his acting was just too forced! Naturally, you are going to have a lot on your shoulders by playing Harry Potter, but you at least need to act properly and have a strong stomach on-screen. So, that is one's opinion of what Dan really lacks when playing Harry, although on small doses he has improved. Harry has ANOTHER different hairstyle? Dan should just stick to one hairstyle when playing Harry, like Emma Watson did as Hermione. Rupert Grint does the same. Dan and Rupert seem to copy each other! This was the first film we saw where Harry ends up falling out with his friends (even Ron and Hermione) because they suspect he cheated into the Triwizard Tournament when he was really mysteriously entered by someone else. There is even a moment of bad language, but the ironic thing is that it doesn't happen again in any of the other films up until the very last one in the series.


Yet another Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher comes into it, and perhaps the most unorthodox and scariest-looking one thus far: Alastair 'Mad-Eye' Moody, who is portrayed by Brendan Gleeson. His role is perhaps the most underrated performance of the series and is amongst the best roles. Gleeson's performance as Mad-Eye was just fantastic and perfectly expresses Mad-Eye's character and nature, just like in the novel. However, there is a twist in stall for you as you watch the film. Robert Pattinson, an actor who I personally cannot stand thanks to the Twilight franchise, makes an appearance in the much-better series as Cedric Diggory before he resurrected into Edward Cullen. He actually wasn't that bad in this one, but still not a memorable performance. Because Cedric was a character that made a very crucial part especially as far as Voldemort is concerned, Cedric could've perhaps been involved in this film a bit more. Michael Gambon perhaps had a bit more involvement as Dumbledore in this one than he did in Prisoner Of Azkaban, but still didn't have a huge role in the film. This is the first time we see Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort aka You-Know-Who himself, and of what we see of him in Goblet Of Fire, he delivers a great, sinister performance that ultimately picks up the Voldemort character for the rest of the series.


The decision of changing director has occurred for the third time now in four films. Mike Newell, the only film in the Harry Potter franchise that he directed, and perhaps the only well-known film that he has ever made. His work on the Goblet Of Fire is at least satisfactory, but I think he perhaps made this one a tad bit too much like a Hollywood film. This means that he uses too much colour and doesn't make it quite as dark as the book really was. Don't get me wrong, the dialogue, the characters and effects are splendid, but they perhaps gave the duty to the wrong person. Alfonso Cauron should have returned as director. For the fourth consecutive time in the series, Steve Kloves pens the script and, although there are some cliched moments within the film, he still wrote it pretty well.


Overall, Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire is an admittedly flawed Potter film, but it still remains one of my favourites from the series. Prisoner Of Azkaban became the build-up due to the personal story, but this one is a very crucial one too due to the events that occur towards the conclusion of the film. Pretty much the whole series has been reborn again.

Two years after the release of The Chamber Of Secrets, the third instalment in the franchise Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban is here. Even after seeing the trailer back in 2004, there were many thoughts about this film being very different in comparison to the previous two films. Plus, there is a new director so there was going to be at least something a bit different about The Prisoner Of Azkaban. If there is anything that this third film has shown us, it has shown us what the true nature of the series really is, seeing as it is a lot darker than the previous two films, it is more intense and things really begin to get personal from this film onwards.


Unlike the first two films, Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban somehow manages to NOT feel slow or drag on at times and it manages to get the majority key moments that were in the book without feeling rushed. There are a few moments in the Harry Potter books that weren't in the films, but I would say that The Prisoner Of Azkaban is perhaps the most accurate to the book out of all 8 films. So, you seriously need to read the books before watching the films! In one's honest opinion, I think only 4 out of the 8 Harry Potter films are classed as dramas (Prisoner Of Azkaban, of course, Order Of The Phoenix, Deathly Hallows: Part I and Deathly Hallows: Part II so this third instalment picks it up.


Approaching his third year at Hogwarts, Harry Potter has had enough of his muggle relatives. He runs away from them (finally) and enters his third term facing trouble from more than one side: for using magic outside the school and from the news that a notorious criminal, serial killer Sirius Black, has escaped the wizard's prison at Azkaban and apparently is headed for Harry. The school calls in supernatural help against Black in the form of Dementors, but unusual things continue to put Harry in peril. He is thrown into a confusing panoply of shifting alliegences and shifting shapes where nobody is who or what they seem. Who is the real criminal? What is the real crime? Who is telling or knows the truth?


After Dan's poor performance in The Philosopher's Stone and a slightly better one in The Chamber Of Secrets, there was only going to be another poor performance along the way! However, despite Dan did fail at acting quite a few times (one scene when he really did where he really needs a slap across the face), he acted in other ways that he could actually really improve playing Harry. I guess, he is just getting used to the character a bit more and knowing how to play such a crucial and important character. So, out of the first three, this is his best performance so far. After reading the book, Dan's appearance as Harry in the film is Harry's exact description in the books. There was a slightly different Ron Weasley in The Prisoner Of Azkaban. Why? Because he was less cowardly and less funny, but a lot more serious so I think Rupert played a more mature Ron in this third instalment. The Prisoner Of Azkaban changed Hermione Granger a lot, just like Ron Weasley, seeing as she is going from a little girl to a young woman. There was, still however, some little girl moments from Emma as Hermione, though. Emma was good once again as Hermione and apparently, her favourite novel out of the Harry Potter books is The Prisoner Of Azkaban so there must have been some dedication to this film. Then again, she did act a bit forced at times so, perhaps acted a bit over the top.


The sad passing of Richard Harris struck the cast and crew deeply and the question was, who could possibly replace Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and could there be a better one? When Michael Gambon was cast as Dumbledore, it was good news but at the same time, there were some uncertainties. Although, still preferring Richard Harris as Dumbledore, Michael Gambon was perhaps the best choice to replace him. The Dumbledore character wasn't really involved in this one all that much and wasn't really involved with Harry very much at all, but despite that, he was still good. David Thewlis, the new addition to the cast, as Remus Lupin was brilliant as well! Up until then, he became the closest to a father figure to Harry than anyone. Lupin was my favourite new Defense Against The Dark Arts Teacher because he was the most groundbreaking and controversial character.


Alfonso Cauron, a Mexican director, of a pretty much all-British film? They must know what they are doing then! I am really glad that Cauron was selected as director because he bought something new and extraordinary to the series, when it was really needed anyway seeing as this is a very crucial film! The most surprising thing about this one was that it didn't feel a typical colourful and magical Hollywood film. The Prisoner Of Azkaban is perhaps the only one out of all of the films within the series that manages to do that, so at times it felt like a film on its own rather than a third film in a series. It is also the least grossing film in the franchise so that is where it is a rather unique one. So, it is a shame that he didn't direct any of the other Harry Potter films because no, it isn't my personal favourite of the series but it is definitely the best directed (perhaps the best written too).


Overall, Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban is another fantastic Harry Potter film that is throughout most of the time, a film on its own. It proves itself to be one of the darkest of the series and it is the breakthrough film in the franchise. So, after such a deep and personal story with twists and turns, business has damn sure picked up!

After 10 long years of filming, and 10 long years of charming all of the men, women and children all around the world, the time has come for the final film in this legendary franchise! Words cannot describe the expectations from every single Potter fan for the final instalment, and after how Deathly Hallows: Part I turned out, expectations were exceedingly high. As expected, Deathly Hallows: Part II had all of the great action scenes with all the suspense and exciting segments within. However, there were a few things that were quite surprising in this film. The novel itself is quite emotional but Deathly Hallows: Part II really is a very emotional film to watch and it could lead you to bursting into tears. It isn't just emotional because it is the last film in the series, but it is a very gripping conclusion that truly shows the difference between good and evil. It is also a fine demonstration of a film about love, friendship and bravery so pretty much everything that the film details is pure inspiration.


Deathly Hallows was my favourite novel out of all of them in the series, and this one as well as Part I, they fit more in the book than any other film in the series does. Admittedly, there were some noticeable flaws in this one that weren't included in the books. There were some quotes that were said in the book that were featured in the film (there is one that you really will notice around the end). You will have to see the film to find that out first. However, there were some moments within that weren't in the book but were included in the film, and quite frankly, some of them were needed. After seeing and loved both parts of the final novel, the split between the book to make two films was needed because so much happens in the book and in both films. SO, it just would've been too much to take in for one film. Besides, two parts made it a more exciting build-up to the finale.


Deathly Hallows: Part II begins straight after Part I and now that Lord Voldemort has possession of the Elder Wand which he stole from Albus Dumbledore's tomb, the odds are against Harry, Ron and hermione to defeat the Dark Lord. They still have hope so they are continuing their mission in hunting the rest of the Horcruxes to destroy in order to kill Voldemort and bring peace to the Wizarding World once again. Some of the members of the Order have given up hope, and so have some of the students at Hogwarts. However, when Harry returns to Hogwarts to find another Horcrux, they unite and fight against Voldemort and his Death Eaters. So, a huge battle at the castle starts and the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort begins.


Daniel Radcliffe never gave a breathtaking performance to remember as Harry Potter out of all the films in the franchise. However, in Deathly Hallows: Part II, he still wasn't able to do that, but he delivers easily the best performance out of all 8 films. He made Harry act more of a brave hero than ever in this one, and was convincing enough for the viewers to travel along with Harry (as well as Ron and Hermione) on their long and brave task to find and destroy the Horcruxes and then Voldemort himself. However, despite his performance was better in this one than any other film, he still had his weakness like in every other film: forced acting. Apart from that, he ended seeing Harry Potter on screen in style! Rupert Grint and Emma Watson make one final appearance together alongside Dan to give the teenage trio one farewell goodbye! All three of them together manage to make this truly the epic conclusion that we all were wanting from the very beginning! Ron and Hermione bond even closer in this final film. Being a guy of the early 90s who grew up with these films as well as alongside Dan, Rupert and Emma, it truly was great to see them all in these films for one last time. So, hopefully they'll be in some more great films in the near future.


The rest of the British actors and actresses who have been in the majority of the films over the past decade, reunite one last time for the final conclusion in this cinema-changing franchise (perhaps the most successful series of films that we Brits have created). Ralph Fiennes was just fantastic as Lord Voldemort aka You-Know-Who, and shows exactly what Voldemort's true nature is, like in the books. He and Dan Radcliffe together made the hero and villain story even more personal, heartfelt, exciting and most of all: epic! Now after watching all of the films that involve Lord Voldemort, Fiennes is the only one who could have pulled off portraying him so accurately. Alan Rickman in my opinion delivers the best performance out of every other actor in the series, and even after seeing a very cold-hearted, bitter and scheming Severus Snape in the previous seven films, we learn secrets about Snape that we hadn't known about before (and Harry didn't know about either). So, therefore, we saw a different Snape and his true colours, which makes him my personal favourite character in the series and I would select him as an Oscar contender for Best Supporting Actor. Alan, you portrayed Snape perfectly and you were deservedly the best actor in the series!


David Yates, the fourth director of the Harry Potter films, and the one with so much on his shoulders to make an epic finale to such a gigantically successful franchise, shows his true colours as a great film director! Admittedly, he had some weaknesses as director of Order Of The Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows: Part I, but he managed to fit in all the action, all the drama, all the romance and even some of the jokes without making it too soppy, boring, un-entertaining or exciting! No, he hasn't been the best director out of the four directors chosen to direct the films, but he has definitely directed the best film in the series, and he did it splendidly! After writing the scripts for all eight films, Steve Kloves one last time writes the screenplay of J.K. Rowling's series finale. Although, some lines were a tad bit cheesy (like in the rest of the films), it still made the film feel real by mixing the modern world that we live in now alongside the Wizarding World aka the "Harry Potter world". So, I'd like to see him return writing a series of scripts for films in the future.


Overall, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part II is an absolutely magnificent, epic finale to such a phenomenal franchise! Just like Toy Story 3 last year, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part II is the ending of an era of my childhood (like most people of the late 80s and early 90s) so for that reason, this film really means a lot to me! It hurts to say that the series is now over, but it is easily the best film of the series and they really did save the best film until last. Therefore, it couldn't have ended the series any better than it did. Farewell, Harry Potter!

After The Philosopher's Stone became a huge success there was going to be this immediate impression that The Chamber Of Secrets was either going to be a very disappointing sequel, or it was going to be as awesome as its predecessor. However, The Chamber Of Secrets turned out to be my latter first impression, apart from a bit higher! Just like The Philosopher's Stone, The Chamber Of Secrets became almost like a film for entertainment that gives the viewers more time to understand the characters a bit more before things get more personal.


In this second instalment, this almost becomes completely different, not only regarding characters but the style of the story. The story is admittedly quite slow and does take quite a while to get into the real plot of the story (the longest running Harry Potter film), but that doesn't effect my liking for this at all! One thing that the sequel lacks compared to its predecessor is the charm and magic for all families to enjoy. So, personally, The Chamber Of Secrets is better but that one weakness is where it isn't as good as its predecessor.


Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts School of Wizardry for his second year. After a confrontation with a house elf named Dobby, Harry escapes to the Weasley house with Ron Weasley in a flying car. They are then late for the train and have to ride it to school. When they get there, strange happenings invade the school. "Mudbloods" (people of Muggle families) are "petrified" by an evil monster lurking in the grounds. When every one suspects that it is him, the trio then set out to find the culprit and find out more than they bargained for: the diary of Tom Riddle, why Hagrid was expelled and what the Chamber of Secrets is and why is it so feared in Hogwarts.


After a disappointing performance from Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter in the first one, there were the same expectations for this one as well. However, Dan's performance again wasn't entirely convincing as Harry, but he was at least a bit better in this one. So, I guess he could improve as the films progress, and as Dan gets to know the character a bit more. His acting is a bit forced at times which is the main weakness of his role as Harry. Rupert grint was good oncea gain as Ron Weasley. He perhaps was even funnier in this one because we saw a more cowardly Ron in this one. He is the unfortunate one to be best friends with Harry Potter of all people, but he becomes a hero in this one like in the rest of the films. Emma Watson proves once again that she is Hermione Granger for three reasons: a bookworm, a know-it-all and a girl with a heart. So, that pretty much sums up her character.


Although Robbie Coltrane wasn't in this film as much as The Philosopher's Stone, he still plays a very crucial role as Rubeus Hagrid. We go deeper into Hagrid's personal life in this one. Even after two great performances in the first two films from Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore compared to Michael Gambon in The Prisoner Of Azkaban onwards. I do honestly think that Harris was the much better Dumbledore. He showed stronger leadership, perhaps stronger power and we understand Dumbledore a lot more. Gambon was probably the best choice to replace Harris, but still prefer the older Dumbledore. Rest in peace, Richard Harris. In every single Harry Potter film, there is always one new teacher at Hogwarts (specifically Defense Against The Dark Arts) who are all different kinds of characters in The Philosopher's Stone there was Professor Quirrell and now in The Chamber Of Secrets, there is Gilderoy Lockhart. He is portrayed by Kenneth Branagh. Lockhart is a very likable character for me because he is an idiot who you can just laugh at, and Branagh portrayed that really well. So, it is a shame that he is only in this one.


After a great successful first film, Chris Columbus shines once again as director of The Chamber Of Secrets! I don't think there could've been a better director to start off a franchise so successfully. Out of the 8 films, there have been four directors in total for each of the films, but despite that, they feel a tad bit different every time; not only stories but they just look different and they become more adult as they progress. The script from Steve Kloves was a bit cliched at times and perhaps did last long, but it wasn't bad overall.


Overall, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets is an absolutely awesome sequel that truly lives up to its predecessor but a tad bit higher. The acting was decent enough to like and care for the characters, directing was brilliant and it was just great entertainment to watch! It unusually made me feel proud to be British as well for some reason. Original novelist J.K. Rowling should be proud!

Being a child of the 1990s and having read four of the seven novels that were released at the time until the release of the first film adaptation in the series - Philosopher's Stone, there were excitements tingling all over. This truly became the first installment and a taste of excitement, intension and drama that was coming up in the remaining novels in the series. Many would say that Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone is like a warm-up in the series, that it's just something to not take so seriously and is just a fine piece of entertainment. Quite frankly, that is exactly what I think what I think of this first film.


As the films in the series progress, they get darker and darker so The Philosopher's Stone is perhaps the most child-friendly film in the franchise. It obviously does have its dark moments every now and again but as I said, it was a warm-up to the series so therefore we get to know more about the characters, the wizarding world and the basics of the series before things got really personal. It perhaps is one of the most perfect films for an entire family because this has all that a family film must require: good fun, and a strong story with lovable characters.


It is the tale of Harry Potter, an ordinary 11-year-old boy serving as a sort of slave for his aunt and uncle who learns that he is actually a wizard and has been invited to attend the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is snatched away from his mundane existence by Hagrid, the grounds keeper for Hogwarts, and quickly thrown into a world completely foreign to both him and the viewer. Famous for an incident that happened at his birth, Harry makes friends easily at his new school. He soon finds, however, that the wizarding world is far more dangerous for him than he would have imagined, and he quickly learns that not all wizards are ones to be trusted.


Back in the late 90s when during pre-production of the first installment of the series, the roles of Harry Potter, Ronald Weasley and Hermione Granger were huge and we needed three great child actors who can deeply affect the audience and make them pleasurable to watch. First off, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry James Potter. Although, Dan was a little kid at the time, he delivered a disappointing performance as Harry. His acting was a bit forced and quite flat at times, but there have been worse debut child stars. For example, Jake Lloyd in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. We got used to Dan as Harry as the films progressed and, quite frankly, I think he played the character brilliantly. It just took him a few films to get into the character, that's all. Secondly, Rupert Grint as Ronald Weasley: out of all of the films released in the series, Rupert has always made me laugh as Ron (especially with his quote in the first couple of films ''bloody hell'' and using 'bloody' a lot), and not just with looks but personality as well, he suits the character pretty well. Emma Watson was brilliant as Hermione Granger. In my opinion, she is the best actor of the three main characters. Yeah, she did act a bit overdramatic in this first installment and a lot how Dan acted, but still decent enough to enjoy.


The late Richard Harris portrayed Albus Dumbledore in the first two Harry Potter films, and is easily the best of the two actors to have played Dumbledore throughout the franchise. Robbie Coltrane's performance as Rubeus Hagrid was just fantastic! He is perfect for Hagrid, and gives a supporting performance that could have been worthy of an Oscar nomination; similar to Alec Guinness in Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope and Ian McKellen in The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. The main thing that they all have in common is that they are the supporter and comforter of the protagonist of the stories and become like father figures to them. Hagrid's involvement in Philosopher's Stone is perhaps the longest time we see throughout the entire series but he still remains a very crucial character in the franchise.


Honestly, there must be a very talented film director to be able to pull off a fantastic start in a film series, especially when the books they are based on received critical acclaim. Before Philosopher's Stone, director Chris Columbus bought us the likes of the first two Home Alone films (so had a bit of experience with introducing franchises) and Mrs. Doubtfire and they were successful, so he really knows how to satisfy a family from the big screen. However, his work on Philosopher's Stone is exactly what was required and hit the nail on the head by achieving exactly what was required out of it. He made it a very dark story despite being precisely suitable enough for children's eyes. Steve Kloves wrote the scripts for every single Harry Potter and he begins with a bang! He makes this first installment something both very modern and in an enchanting world that can capture the audience’s imagination and heart as they watch it.


Overall, Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone truly is a fantastic start to a series of films that has defined a generation. Although, despite one or two flaws (including Daniel Radcliffe's weak role as Harry), it still manages to be a successful film that is a great, great film for all family members to watch. It ended brilliantly that became an outstanding build-up to The Chamber Of Secrets and the rest of the series.

The idea of not the first prequel in the X-Men franchise but the second raised suspicions and X-Men: First Class was one of those films that was either going to be absolutely fantastic or a huge disappointment; like X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This second prequel, we go a tad bit further back in time: back to when Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr were discovering their powers and the birth of mutation, and being a fan of the X-Men trilogy, there was bound to be something great about this one. However, despite the expectations for the film was mixed, it turned out to be an absolutely magnificent film and it really surprised me!


X-Men: First Class truly becomes one of the very few prequels that wasn't your typical Hollywood film that you would normally see nowadays. Even in some of the effects, especially on Hank McCoy/Beast, it really did look like it was set in the 1960s. To be able to achieve the reality of a prequel set in an older generation, especially when the originals were successful, is a very difficult task that only a genius is able to pull off. So, huge congratulations are in order to Matthew Vaughn, the screenwriters and the rest of the crew for making this. This hasn't only revived the X-Men franchise as a reboot. Those who found X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine bad films will probably think of X-Men: First Class as a reboot as well as a prequel (that's what I personally think as well).


Before Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr took the names Professor X and Magneto, they were two young men discovering their powers for the first time. Before they were archenemies, they were closest of friends, working together, with other Mutants (some familiar, some new), to stop the greatest threat the world has ever known. In the process, a rift between them opened, which began the eternal war between Magneto's Brotherhood and Professor X's X-MEN.


The entire cast was totally different from the previous films in the series and this could become the dawning of a new era so to speak. The first impression of James McAvoy as Charles Xavier were that it truly seemed like one of the worst decisions at casting an actor to play a certain character. After seeing the kind of characters McAvoy has played in the past and seeing as they are all very different, it really did seem like he was going to kill the character. However, after watching the film, James McAvoy blew me away and truly delivers one of the most surprisingly sensational performances in a very long time! McAvoy as Xavier worked incredibly well as a whole, but where it worked the best was that McAvoy shows his tenderness and support towards other mutants. He fits the character almost perfectly, like Patrick Stewart did so even when McAvoy's appearance was underestimated to start off with, he proves that only he could have pulled off playing young Charles Xavier. As for the other protagonist (but antagonist in previous trilogy) in X-Men: First Class - Erik Lehnsherr who was previously portrayed by Sir Ian McKellen who gave a perfect performance as Lehnsherr. Michael Fassbender, who hasn't really received any Hollywood recognition at all despite appearing in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, proved that he, as well as McAvoy, couldn't have played a certain character younger after its previous portrayers gave fantastic performances as well! Watching McAvoy and Fassbender together on-screen was like seeing Stewart and McKellen all over again! The bond was so powerful and it became a very moving film to watch at times. Out of the two, Fassbender's performance is more of a breakthrough and if the Academy weren't so biased towards Hollywood blockbusters, I would say that Michael Fassbender's performance could be close to worthy of an Oscar nomination.


Nicholas Hoult, an underrated child actor who was in About A Boy portrays Hank McCoy who becomes Beast and he, like McAvoy and Fassbender, provide a very strong character that honours the actor's (Kelsey Grammer) previous performance. Jennifer Lawrence honours Rebecca Romijn's performance as Raven Darkholme/Mystique. Both January Jones and Zoë Kravitz as Angel Salvadore added a lot of spice into the film as well. As for the main antagonist of the film: Sebastian Shaw, Kevin Bacon portrayed him so brilliantly; perhaps as sensational as Michael Fassbender. Bacon perfectly expresses what villains really are about and how psychotic they really are. In fact, I'd describe Sebastian Shaw as a perfect character that one would call a ''slime ball''. The character development was so strong and the acting was just superb! As far as acting is concerned, the X-Men franchise wins over the Spider-Man franchise but not overall.


Matthew Vaughn already received strong critical acclaim after being the director and co-writer of Kick-Ass, but didn't receive very much credit for his previous directorial films Stardust or Layer Cake. Knowing Vaughn's style of filming and the films that he makes aren't really typical Hollywood films, deep down there were thoughts that Vaughn will make X-Men: First Class a reboot of the series as well as a prequel. In fact, I think he has rebooted MARVEL film adaptations (just like Kenneth Branagh did with Thor). It wasn't all about effects and action with X-Men: First Class, it was the character development and strong dialogue that made it a huge success. Vaughn was going to direct The Last Stand which would've been great. However, if he did that, he might not have directed First Class and it might not have been as awesome as it really is. Vaughn collaborates for a fourth time with Jane Goodman as screenwriter. Together, they were the screenwriters of Stardust, Kick-Ass, The Debt (which Vaughn didn't direct) and, of course, X-Men: First Class and they make a fantastic partnership, just like a lot of actors and directors do. Their script was very un-Hollywood and they bought something new to the screen again. Their next collaboration should be something to look forward to.


Overall, X-Men: First Class is an absolutely fantastic prequel that rightly deserves to be one of the best films of 2011 and one of MARVEL's best creations. In some ways, I think X-Men: First Class is a possible reboot as well as a prequel seeing as it could be the birth of something new. X-Men: First Class is exactly what Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace should have been. Will The Amazing Spider-Man be like this? It could be. Finally, ever since X-Men 2 in 2003, the X-Men franchise has been revived and this is the birth of something huge!

To start off with, this really looked like your vintage alien-invasion film that is just a bit of fun nothing else. However, at first despite that the story is still a rather weak one, I did think that there is something special that Attack The Block will deliver or maybe even surprise the viewers. It really is the perfect film that one would describe as a film that is ridiculously stupid; but at the same time, it is such a fun film to watch! Another way of putting it is that Attack The Block is a film that's impossible to rave about, but is also a film that you just cannot put down and heavily criticise.


There were moments within Attack The Block that were surprising good, such as the plot was quite basic to start off with but as the film progressed, it went more heartfelt and thought-provoking and that is where a film succeeds. It had its humorous moments but I personally wouldn't call it a laugh-out-loud comedy; due to the fact that the film perhaps goes too serious and stops being funny.


A group of London teens find themselves in the middle of an alien invasion, and fight to defend their tower block from some evil extraterrestrials. The film begins with a young woman named Sam, who whilst on her way home, comes across a gang of young thugs as she passes through a South London housing estate. However, while she is in the midst of being robbed, a rampaging alien falls down from the stars and attacks. Later, as the police assist Sam in pursuing her assailants, strange lights start to rain down on the streets, heralding the arrival of a second, more ferocious wave of creatures. With the city under siege, there's no place left to run. Quickly realizing she's going to have to fight if she wants to survive, Sam tracks down the street tough teens that were in the midst of mugging her when the invasion began, and vows to battle alongside them to the bitter end.


Apart from Nick Frost, I don't think one single actor in Attack The Block came to mind that had been seen in a film before. So, I wasn't really sure what to expect. John Boyega, the leading actor in Attack The Block gave a surprisingly decent performance as Moses. Naming the leading character Moses when he's a teenage thug with a hoodie is unique but extraordinarily funny. There are two things that the characters in this film show us that are very important! One: it expresses that only the slightest thing can change somebody's life forever. Two: the film as a whole perfectly demonstrates how badly Britain has become, especially teenagers and what their day-to-day activities involve. Understandably, the gang of boys are easily dislikeable characters, but they do show what a lot of youths in the UK have become. Jodie Whittaker was rather annoying in my opinion as Sam, the unfortunate young nurse who gets stuck in this sticky situation with the gang and the aliens. You know those actors who play their characters really dry with no style and almost doesn't really feel anything? That is what she was like in Attack The Block. Nick Frost makes a great supporting appearance in this film as well as he portrays the tower block's drug dealer, Ron. You just cannot walk out of a film that stars Nick Frost without him making you laugh once or twice. His role in this is a tad more serious than anything he's done in quite a while, but he still does make you chuckle at one time or another during the film.


Joe Cornish, someone who was at the brink of his directorial debut, but perhaps someone who hasn't really been recognised despite being a co-writer of The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn and making a mild appearance in Hot Fuzz. Although I wouldn't call Attack The Block that was ''brilliantly filmed'', it certainly is a good start in Cornish's career where we could be seeing some more fun projects from him in the upcoming future. As for the screenplay of the film, it was a mixed combination of typical British slang and a traditional professional script, but after watching it, it worked really well and is satisfying enough for entertainment.


Overall, Attack The Block is your typical alien invasion science-fiction film that provides entertainment, and entertainment only. There are two ways of comparing Attack The Block with other films is that it's basically like both War Of The Worlds and Shaun Of The Dead but with chavs. It is far from one of the best films of 2011 but it is also far from one of the worst, and it perhaps is underrated, yes, but it isn't really anything special.

Having loved the Pirates Of The Caribbean series up until the release of At World's End, the announcement of a fourth instalment was perhaps a bad idea in my opinion to start off with. However, it could have been a film to have truly made up for the disappointing third instalment but you know what? It really didn't and it really was a disappointment! In fact, it was worse than the third film (even though more was expected out of third so that is more of a disappointment). Why? Well, first of all, the amount of plot holes and confusions were huge. If you read the plot synopsis, it is actually a basic story but when you watch the film itself, the plot just went almost totally different and took us somewhere different. The fourth instalment had a lot of what At World’s End had: quite a lot of unnecessary stops and rather irrelevant scenes. For example, there are action scenes but then like *that*, it stops and there are a couple of lines and then *bang* goes back to action again. In some ways, On Stranger Tides had some of the weaknesses that Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen had was there was too much noise (as in too many action scenes) but not enough story or character development and it just didn't feel like a true magical film from Disney Pictures like we did previously see in the first two instalments.


To be honest, it had the plot where it just felt flat very quickly and didn't make it very exciting to watch. It isn't the first time that this has happened in Pirates Of The Caribbean series but unfortunately like At World's End, despite that the fourth instalment is in fact the duration is almost the same as Curse Of The Black Pearl and that the sequels are longer, the story in this one just dragged and got quite boring with some rather unnecessary scenes so they could have cut the film short by at least 15 minutes. However, despite these many flaws that Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the qualities within the film are obviously the breathtaking effects and the way it was filmed just like the first three films in the series. It certainly is a well-directed film and was handled well but even that didn’t make the film entirely convincing to enjoy.


'Captain' Jack Sparrow (Depp) crosses paths with a woman from his past Angelica (Cruz), and he's not sure if it's love -- or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the Queen Anne's Revenge, the ship of the formidable pirate Blackbeard (McShane), Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't know who to fear more: Blackbeard or the woman from his past.


'Captain' Jack Sparrow was already Johnny Depp's public favourite character and is his favourite character to play but a fourth instalment seeing 'Captain' Jack return again was a really exciting one. However, despite that Johnny once again proves that he IS Jack Sparrow, Jack was almost like a different character and wasn't the usual cowardly, humorous and rather dirty character that we saw in the previous three films. As a matter of fact, I wasn't entirely convinced that Jack was even the protagonist of the story. Think it was both him and that priest who falls in love with the mermaid and there are two separate stories going on. I mean, two protagonists simply do not work in a film like this! It is a leading character with a supporting character so, yeah Johnny was good once again but think the character was in a word; muddle. After the announcement of no Orlando Bloom nor Keira Knightley in On Stranger Tides and that Penelope Cruz was going to be in it, that became quite exciting. Penelope starring in it as the sidekick of Jack instead of Orlando Bloom was certainly better but the on-off romantic scenes between Angelica and Jack did get on my nerves. I'll tell you one thing, though: you will probably drool watching Penelope Cruz as Angelica throughout every second she is in the film and that only happened once or twice with Keira Knightley in all three predecessors so yeah, Penelope made up for Keira and Orlando not being in this one so made it slightly better! Also, Johnny and Penelope looked great on-screen together and would make a great real-life couple!


Another villain has arrived in the Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise: Blackbeard. First of all, expectations were high on Ian McShane's performance and the involvement of the character after how disappointing and annoying of a villain that Bill Nighy was as Davy Jones was in Dead Man's Chest and At World's End but the Blackbeard character was really, and I mean really weak! Before Blackbeard appeared on-screen, he sounded like a very terrifying and destructive villain but as we got to know the character as the film progressed, he went less evil and villainous and began to have a soft side. In fact, I don't even think there was one character who was the antagonist, so I don't think there has been a powerful and evil villain in the series since Captain Barbossa in Curse Of The Black Pearl despite he appears in all three sequels to that film. Speaking of Barbossa, seriously what has happened to him?! How did he get there after losing the Pearl and knowing that he is deep-down a pirate? He was once an evil pirate captain who could kill, torture and make others suffer (like we saw in Curse Of The Black Pearl) but now he has become a suck-up and is now the King's captain so to speak. Also, the soft heart-to-heart conversations he has with Jack in On Stranger Tides got annoying because they were once enemies who hated each other and tried to kill each other but now they're almost like friends and allies. Seriously, wouldn't you have thought that either of them would've wanted to kill each other again by now after what has happened? I'm sorry but Barbossa appearing in this was a huge mistake!


Rob Marshall was a rather unique yet a very good choice to direct On Stranger Tides after original director Gore Verbinski. The unique side was that he hasn't really had any experience directing an action fantasy film or even a film for children's eyes but has only really had recognition for directing musicals (director of 2002 Best Picture winner Chicago and 2009 musical Nine which starred Penelope Cruz so he reunites with her again. And he was also the director of Memoirs Of A Geisha). Marshall bought us something slightly different but didn't really make On Stranger Tides a follow-up to the previous trilogy. It felt a lot like it was one on its own, it perhaps looked like it could be called a reboot in the series just featuring 3 of the original characters (Jack, Barbossa and Gibbs), and it seemed like a prequel in some ways (although I would like to see that) or it is simply just totally unnecessary. So I have a mixed opinion about Rob Marshall as director of this one.


Overall, Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a huge disappointment that I think is the worst of the series when I really did not expect it to be especially after how At World's End turned out. There were some good qualities that this had so I wouldn't go as far as to call it awful and that I hated it but it still is a bad film that I might not even watch again. If there is anything that this film has taught us, it is that the more sequels that come out, the worse the series is going to get. In Johnny Depp's words about returning as 'Captain' Jack in a fifth instalment: ''If we can get all the pieces in the puzzle together (as in the story), I would most definitely consider it'' so if they are planning a fifth or maybe even sixth instalment, they seriously need to do that or else the series is going to die very slowly. To revive it, I might even consider wanting Orlando and Keira to return in a fifth instalment (if there will be one) and we need the old 'Captain' Jack Sparrow back! After two weak films in the series, the ship is now very close to sinking completely.