Reviews by SJMJ91

This is coming from an Englishman but over the years, most foreign animated films don't spring to mind only until awards are coming in especially the top ones (for example: Persepolis, The Triplets Of Belleville (which was also directed by Chomet), Waltz With Bashir and others. I think that could be because some of those are quite adult and do look it when you look at the posters or trailers as well as speaking in a foreign language. Anyway, when I found out that this was nominated for Best Animated Picture alongside How To Train Your Dragon and locked winner Toy Story 3 and having really liked a lot of animated films in 2010, I had high expectations for this one but I actually came out quite disappointed with this one.


There are some reasons which I will explain later in the review but I think the main reason was that the plot just felt empty and I don't think there was very much inspiration, humour, beauty or emotion involved although I will confess that it was beautifully made and it is certainly is a very artistic film. Most foreign animated films aren't 3D animated like we have seen from Pixar and DreamWorks animations but I think the animation in The Illusionist is really like one on its own because it is 2D animation but is quite dark and has a slight addition of animé to it despite it is in fact a French animated film.


Now that the theatres and large performance venues have been taken over by rock bands and pop singers, the illusionist has been forced to ply his trade at small gatherings in bars, cafés, and basements in order earn a living. One day, while performing in a small Scottish pub located on a remote island that has only recently been wired for electricity, the illusionist encounters a young girl named Alice, who is captivated by his otherworldly abilities. Alice believes that the downtrodden performer possesses genuine supernatural powers, and agrees to accompany him on a trip to Edinburgh, where he's scheduled to perform at a modest, out-of-the-way theatre. Her affection and enthusiasm inspire the illusionist, who in turn uses his talent to lavish her with a series of extravagant gifts. Unable to muster the courage to tell his starry-eyed admirer the truth about his trade, the illusionist continues giving until he's got nothing more to offer.


Well, I haven't got a lot to say about the performances because the majority of it doesn't feature very much speaking but when there is speaking; I don't really have a clue what they're talking and I seriously and literally had to rewind it about 3 times to understand what they were saying and I still had no idea; unless I am either going deaf or the actors involved are making bad attempts at speaking English. I found the illusionist character rather weak, to be honest, and on a few occasions I got quite confused with what was going on and what he was trying to achieve. I think the only thing I did sense was the possible love between him and the girl who he was living with.


Until now, I hadn't seen anything made by Sylvain Chomet although I do intend to (need to see The Triplettes Of Belleville, though). Anyway, despite this is the first time I have experienced a film from this guy, I will not criticize him too much but I will say that this film felt empty and, quite frankly, quite heartless. This film really could have been great if there was solid character development, great music and a proper screenplay that adds beauty to the great animation. I think that is the only bit of credit I can give the entire film anyway.


Overall, The Illusionist is perhaps for me the most disappointing film of 2010 and despite I didn't find it awful but not good either, I cannot understand how it beat Despicable Me, Tangled or even Shrek Forever After to the third Best Animated Picture nomination. The Illusionist is something that I don't think everyone would love and I did want to like it but there were too many flaws that made me not like it. For those who prefer softer films, I would tell those specific people to give this one a miss but it really does take either a deep thinker or someone with an open mind to like it while watching it. See? There's a tip for you when you watch it.

Even before I saw the first film, I didn't think it was a good idea making it and even when I did watch the first film and then the sequel, I didn't even think it needed to be made because some films seem better when they are alone and leave open questions to the audience. Despite this, I actually did enjoy it and I would call it a film that surprised me a lot. I knew what my immediate problem was with it and probably what most people's problem was with this film: Shia LaBeouf's involvement. However, despite that, I actually enjoyed this sequel more than I was expecting to so for me, it is one of the most surprising films of 2010.


In 2001, corporate raider Gordon Gekko completes a prison sentence for money laundering. No one is there to meet him. Jump seven years: Gekko is promoting his book, his estranged daughter Winnie is a political muckraker engaged to Jake Moore, a hot-shot Wall Street trader, and an old nemesis of Gekko's, Bretton James, devours the firm Jake works for. When Jake's mentor takes his life, Jake wants revenge and Gordon may be the perfect ally. With the fiscal crisis of September 2008 as background, can Jake maintain Winnie's love, broker a rapprochement with her father, get his revenge, and find funds for a green-energy project he champions; or will greed trump all?


After his outstanding Oscar winning performance, Michael Douglas reprises his role as Gordon Gekko and, no his performance in the sequel wasn't as fantastic as in the first film but I did think he did deliver a performance that does deserve a few nominations in the top awards. During the time of filming, Douglas was suffering from that throat cancer which now he is cured of and during that time, I deeply admire how committed Douglas was into the film especially the fact he previously won an Oscar for playing that character. There was one thing that mostly disappointed me about this sequel was that Shia LaBeouf was in it more than Michael Douglas was. I will say that not only does Michael take off his dad Kirk by looks but he also does by quality of acting! They are both legends of two generations. I think Shia LaBeouf was what was doubting those who liked the first film whether they would be pleased with the sequel or not but now that Shia has been involved in two franchises (Indiana Jones and Transformers and I guess I would now call Wall Street a series; a duology), he does something in this that perhaps would please viewers but wouldn't. For me, he is the one actor who I have a mixed opinion about despite he is a wildly overrated actor. I think it's mostly, because despite he does star in blockbusters that are mostly just for entertainment, I do think he could pull off a performance in the near future that could be worthy of an Oscar nomination. Carey Mulligan is on a great role at the moment after her fantastic performance in An Education which almost gained her an Academy Award win but did get her, her first Academy Award nomination. Her performance as Winnie Gekko was great and she really did play the character really well of an almost broken woman so to speak due to her father's imprisonment and whether he cared about her at all. Despite, we don't see him in the trailer or any of the posters, there is a mild cameo appearance from Charlie Sheen who was in the first film who reunites with Gekko for a few minutes so that made me smile. Josh Brolin was good as well.


In the past decade, Oliver Stone hasn't done very well at all with the films he has done (except World Trade Center which I really liked) and I think Stone wanted a breakthrough in his career so he decided to make a sequel to one of his most successful films which I do think is the real reason why Stone decided to make this although, quite frankly, he really didn't need to at all. However, I thought it was decently directed but it is no was a breakthrough in his career but we really do need one from him badly otherwise his career will go even further downfall. We need the old Oliver Stone back who did the first Wall Street, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK and Natural Born Killers. Sometimes, I figure it is hard to judge a script for a film like this but there were a few no-no scenes that I didn't really approve of especially some of the Shia LaBeouf business scenes and the lines that come out.


Overall, Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps is a pleasant surprise that I did enjoy but perhaps wouldn't watch again just to save the good experience of it first time. It is a hard film to recommend because if one loves or at least likes the first film, they either will or won't like the sequel. I, on the other hand, like them both. No, this film perhaps didn't need to be made but after watching it and being overall pleased by it, I am glad Stone did come up with the idea. As I said, we need the old Oliver Stone again!

This was randomly on television one night a few months back and seeing as I hadn't watched it yet and was meaning to watch it anyway, I decided to give it a go and I am certainly glad I did decide that. I wasn't expecting loads from Wall Street like I have done for other films in the past but, quite frankly, I pretty much got everything that I wanted. I think a lot of people who are about to watch this would say that it just looks like another mafia gangster film and yes, it is but it goes deeper than that. It isn't just a film about people getting shot all the time but it is a rather personal film about greed, bravery and commitment.


Bud Fox is a Wall Street stockbroker in early 1980's New York with a strong desire to get to the top. Working for his firm during the day, he spends his spare time working an on angle with the high-powered, extremely successful (but ruthless and greedy) broker Gordon Gekko. Fox finally meets with Gekko, who takes the youth under his wing and explains his philosophy that "Greed is Good". Taking the advice and working closely with Gekko, Fox soon finds himself swept into a world of "yuppies", shady business deals, the "good life", fast money, and fast women; something which is at odds with his family including his estranged father and the blue-collared way Fox was brought up.


Michael Douglas is one fantastic actor and certainly does take after his Dad, Kirk Douglas. His performance as Gordon Gekko is perhaps the best performance he has delivered in his career and probably always will deliver! He certainly proved that by gaining the Best Leading Actor Academy Award in 1988 (as well as earning a shared one in 1975 for being a producer of Milos Forman's One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest). Anyway, what I really liked about Gekko was that he was a despicable schemer who is a deep-down psychopath. He rightfully deserved that Academy Award and has shown us one of the most powerful cinema villains of all time. That is normally why I prefer villains over heroes because they are more powerful and have a deeper personality and take things a bit further which makes them more interesting. Charlie Sheen already rose to shine in Oliver Stone's Vietnam war film Platoon and starred alongside a group of fantastic actors but this time, he works alongside another fantastic actor: Michael Douglas who is also the son of a very famous actor (Kirk Douglas) just like Sheen is a son of a famous actor. Anyway, Sheen didn't deliver as spectacular as Douglas did but he certainly wasn't far off from that level of quality acting. It is sometimes hard to fit in two leading characters without making it too much but it worked very well with Douglas and Sheen in their roles. Daryl Hannah was very good as Darien Taylor and Martin Sheen portrays Carl Fox who is Bud's father so it is father and son in both the film and in real life.


Wall Street was one of Oliver Stone's early films but despite that, he still has already earned top Oscar glory not once but twice (Platoon and Born On The Fourth Of July) and it is an extremely underrated work of Stone's that I think deserved more recognition and credit for than some other directors did that year for the films they did. Stone is a director like the late Stanley Kubrick and the great Steven Spielberg in terms of making films that are part of pretty much every single genre there is but Stone is slightly weaker especially from the films that we see of it nowadays in comparison to the films he did earlier in his career. Wall Street was a tribute by Oliver Stone towards his late father Lou Stone who was a stockbroker during the Great Depression in World War II and that made the film rather special but at the same time, quite extraordinary. The script was fantastically written! I have always admired at how people write scripts about this sort of thing about crime, money and gangsters and this is one of the finest screenplays of that genre I have listened to.


Overall, Wall Street is an absolutely brilliant film that should be up there with some of the very best crime and gangster films that have ever been made. It is perhaps a film that I think Martin Scorsese would be proud of and would enjoy watching. I think that they should have left this film alone and not made the sequel even though that was still enjoyable. It's a great film for those who at least like crime films but those who don't, they won't be so lucky with liking this one. Basically, it is a hard film to not like but it is also one of those films that you can't rave about.

My expectations for RED were really high after a very satisfying trailer and unfortunately at the time, I didn't manage to check it out at the cinema. However, when it was released on DVD, I watched it and, quite frankly, I was pretty disappointed by it especially with its great trailer. Why? Well, I think the main reason is I couldn't fully understand why the five of them were being attacked in the first place. Also, you really would expect something badass out of this film with such a great cast and the fact it is about middle-age to elderly people coming out of retirement and are 'extremely dangerous' as suggested in the film, it just didn't work! Also, the fact that the trailer showed loads of action as well as dialogue and the film itself didn't show either of those all that much, it just failed.


Over the years, we have seen films that do have pretty awesome trailers but the film themselves became major disappointments (The International, Body Of Lies and Quantum Of Solace are examples) and they just have to include the best bits in the trailers, don't they? Just really gets on my nerves! I mean, there was action involved, yes, but none of it was crucial, gripping or even entertaining for that matter! I mean, the first 15 minutes were quite good but after then, (shockingly from when John Malkovich came into it (not because I don't like him)) the film really went downfall after that part. Another thing I really do not understand is how this is classed as a comedy because there is literally nothing funny about it at all so how this was nominated Best Picture Musical/Comedy at the Golden Globes instead of Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and Four Lions, I will never know.


Frank (Willis) is retired, bored and lonely living off his government pension in a nondescript suburb in an equally nondescript house. The only joys in Frank’s life are his calls to the government pension processing centre when he gets to talk to his case worker Sarah (Parker). Sarah is as bored and lonely as Frank and marks her conversations with the unknown Frank and her spy novels as the only things fun in her life. When something in Frank's past forces Frank back into his old line of work and puts an unwitting Sarah in the middle of the intrigue, Frank and Sarah begin a journey into Franks past and the people he used to work with. Like Frank they are all RED ... Retired Extremely Dangerous.


RED certainly does have an absolutely fantastic cast. In fact, I think the cast selection is the best thing about the entire film. First off, Bruce Willis is in another action film? Now that makes a change doesn't it? (NOT!) We do see many actors who play a similar kind of character in almost every film he or she has ever done (Michael Cera and Jason Statham are examples), but unfortunately it really doesn't work with Bruce Willis especially in the action genre because, quite frankly, most action films like this aren't that much different. I am not saying that Bruce was awful in this film, he just didn't entirely satisfy like he has done in the past. John Malkovich is one fantastic actor and is perhaps one of the most underrated actors of all time and I would say he was the best actor in the film. I do normally like him in films like this (mostly black comedies) but he wasn't exactly amazing in this like I was expecting. Mary Louise-Parker was incredibly annoying in this film and I actually wish her character was killed off! Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirren weren't in the film half as much as I was expecting like the trailer suggested so that is another reason why I was so disappointed by RED.


RED happened to be directed by the same person who made Flightplan and The Time Traveller's Wife so I guess expectations on direction were rather high too. This was perhaps the worst directed of the three major films that he has done and is the cheesiest in terms of screenplay, character development and everything! Pretty much all of the action scenes were quite boring shockingly and it almost felt the direction was clueless. Admittedly, the screenplay wasn't all bad seeing as there were a few good punch-lines involved that did make me chuckle on occasions. However, there were quite a few bad moments within the script.


Overall, RED is a major disappointment that is easily forgettable and cannot understand all the positive reception that it received. Admittedly, I wanted to like it but I really couldn't bring myself to because of all of the deep flaws it had. It may have a rather impressive cast but even that didn't save the film although it is the best quality that the film has. If you're looking for lots of action and badass characters, you simple will not get that from RED. What you will get, though, is a ridiculous story with quite a few plot holes, weak character development and quite weak direction. It's just not entertaining at all.

Expectations were exceedingly high for this one not only because it stars two of my favourite British actors and that the film is their creation but also because Paul really does seem like one of those films that will deliver entertainment at the finest standard and that is exactly what it did! I thought it was entertaining through the first second until the last and it made me laugh all the way through. It was quite moving on some occasions which did surprise me a bit. However, there was one minor fault that I think Paul has is that after that ending, we don't know what happens afterwards; unless Pegg and Frost wanted to make the viewers question what next.


I guess one could say that Paul perhaps would receive negative criticism for an alien who acts like a person but I am going to say this nice and clear: it is called story-telling and there are a lot of segments in Paul where we take a little trip down memory lane. Where it does this is we are easily reminded of the heart melting magic of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and the visual magic of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind so it is roughly enough a love note towards Steven Spielberg. Well, that is what the actors and makers have suggested it is anyway.


Paul tells the story of two sci-fi geeks whose pilgrimage takes them to America's UFO heartland. While there, they accidentally meet an alien who brings them on an insane road trip that alters their universe forever. For the past 60 years, an alien named Paul (voice of Seth Rogen) has been hanging out at a top-secret military base. For reasons unknown, the space-travelling smart ass decides to escape the compound and hop on the first vehicle out of town-a rented RV containing Earthlings Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost). Chased by federal agents and the fanatical father of a young woman that they accidentally kidnap, Graeme and Clive hatch a fumbling escape plan to return Paul to his mother ship. And as two nerds struggle to help, one little green man might just take his fellow outcasts from misfits to intergalactic heroes.


My favourite British duo return for the third time now after the two hilarious comedies Hot Fuzz and Shaun Of The Dead but go somewhere slightly different this time; not only because there is no Edgar Wright as director but also Paul is in fact Pegg and Frost's own creation. It is rather extraordinary how they both came up with the idea but really good as well: during the filming of Shaun Of The Dead when they were under shelter from the rain. Simon Pegg always seems to amaze me and is definitely one of the best British living actors if not ever and he proves that once again with a solid performance as Paul. His role as Graeme Willy is a kind of role that is a first time for him and he did a fantastic job! Nick Frost cracked me up in Shaun Of The Dead and especially in Hot Fuzz but guess what? He did almost the same thing again in Paul. After these three films, we now see that Pegg and Frost can be alongside each other in a film playing different kinds of characters that are part of the comedy genre. You know, now thinking about it while reviewing the film, I am surprised that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost haven't portrayed a pair of geeks beforehand. What I love about the duo is that whenever they are in a film together, they either come up with an idea during a random time or they steal what they have experienced and put it into a film (Shaun Of The Dead for example). Seth Rogen was great as the voice of Paul. Paul really is a typical Seth Rogen character, really, because he is that foul-mouthed, cocky but at the same time rather kind-hearted and damn hilarious alien which is exactly what Seth is like in his films (except that he isn't an alien). I really liked Jason Bateman in this one too and the short appearance of Sigourney Weaver too.


No Edgar Wright in a Pegg-Frost film? Wasn't too sure it'd work but after watching Paul, I think it really worked very well. This was directed by Greg Mottola who also directed teen comedy Superbad and comedy-drama Adventureland and it really did make me think a lot about both of those films. As far as Mottola's career is concerned, I think that Paul perhaps became a breakthrough for him because he not only knows now how to make a comedy but he could in the future make a film that is rather enchanting like this one and that would be another breakthrough for him too. I am not too keen on Superbad but now Paul has made up for that now. I thought the script was brilliantly handled especially when it all began in extraordinary and random circumstances (how the idea of the film began, that is; not the script of the film began like that). Anyway, Pegg is a great writer anyway but he works really well writing scripts with Nick Frost now as well as with Edgar Wright like they worked on the screenplays for Hot Fuzz and Shaun Of The Dead.


Overall, Paul is an absolutely brilliant sci-fi comedy that I loved from start to finish. Hilarious, surprisingly moving and a very enchanting experience that I think should be checked out by everybody. I do prefer both Hot Fuzz and Shaun Of The Dead but I still think it is awesome! It is one of the best films of 2011 so far for me.

What my almost immediate impression was of One Hour Photo when I first read about it was simply that it just looks like another psychological thriller with nothing that changes and well, that is pretty much everything that it was but not quite as amazing as I was hoping it to be. Time and time again, we see that one character that meets someone or a group of people and begins to become deeply obsessed with them that take them down a dangerous road and we can almost guarantee what will happen and, quite frankly, there was nothing massively different or anything even really exciting or tense about One Hour Photo I mean, yeah it is decent but definitely not one of the best thrillers out there.


Sy Parrish (Williams), who makes this observation, adversely leads a lonely life, operating a photo lab in a SavMart department store. He escapes his dreary reality through the family photos of Nancy Yorkin (Nielsen) and her family. His admiration of the Yorkins becomes an obsession, as he fashions himself as Uncle Sy to little Jake (Smith). Sy's judgment becomes impaired by his unhealthy interest, causing him to lose his job of 11 years. As his final day approaches, Sy develops photographs revealing an indiscretion on the part of Mr. Yorkin (Vartan). The unstable Sy now develops a disturbing, calculated plan to install family values to the Yorkin clan.


Ok, I will admit that seeing Robin Williams with blonde hair was rather unusual because it really didn't suit him but he played a mad man in Insomnia which was in fact released the exact same year as One Hour Photo and was curious about how Robin would deliver in this one. I did find Sy a good character as well as Robin's performance but he neither expressed anything new to the screen nor bought back memories of great performances by actors in similar films such as this. I am a fan of Robin Williams but I just don't think it was an entirely amazing performance like I have seen from him in the past. I did like the emotional bond between Sy and Jake because Sy really is desperate for affection and he never seems to get it off anybody seeing as he is pretty much alone and because Jake gets closer but begins to sort of reject what Sy tries to help him with, the psychological side of things begin.


Mark Romanek, first of all, who are you? I had almost no recognition of what you have done or what you will do in the future apart from this film. Actually, there is just one: Never Let Me Go. Anyway, your work on One Hour Photo was extraordinary unlike anything that I have ever watched but I will confess that it wasn't all fantastic and unbelievable as many have said about it. The directing was great especially in the lab scenes and I really liked the script too.


Overall, One Hour Photo is a film that I find rather overrated but still a decent film to at least try. It isn't anything special but it isn't anything that should be criticised so heavily so it leans more on good than bad for me but only slightly. One thing, though, if you're a fan of Robin Williams, I think you'll really like this one.

This was released in an era where horrors and thrillers were becoming landmarks and where the older generation of cinema was slowly changing to the modern generation and as I was watching The Hitcher it did bring back memories of the older classic thrillers but also at the same time, was the start of something new and became the dawning of a new era. There were many moments that did give me chills with fright but there were some moments in the film that actually made me laugh in both a dark way and a lightly humorous way.


Driving cross-country from Chicago to San Diego, Jim narrowly avoids an accident when he falls asleep at the wheel. He picks up a hitchhiker to help stay awake, but within five minutes, the erratic John Ryder has threatened not only Jim's life, but also his manhood, brandishing a switchblade to the boy's crotch and ordering him to keep driving. Jim manages to escape, but soon Ryder begins a game of cat-and-mouse across the Texas highways, taunting the lad from the windows of passing cars, then leaving the corpses of his victims in their vehicles by the side of the road for Jim to discover. A sympathetic face arrives in the form of Nash, the waitress at an otherwise deserted truck stop in this bleak, abandoned landscape, but the local police soon arrive, intent on hanging Jim out to dry for the string of grisly murders. The stakes continue to mount in Ryder's little game until Jim finds himself embroiled in a statewide manhunt with Nash at his side.


As far as I recall, this was the first film ever that I have seen starring Rutger Hauer, let alone in a leading role. Rutger Hauer's performance as John Ryder was fantastic! I'll tell you who he reminded me of as in looks: a merged look-a-like of both Sir Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Walken. His scenes with C. Thomas Howell as Jim Halsey reminded me a lot of Sir Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster in The Silence Of The Lambs. I think in a lot of ways besides looks that Ryder had some similarities with Lecter except Ryder wasn't a cannibalistic serial killer but still a serial killer. Despite I felt really sorry for what was happening to Halsey at the hands of Ryder, C. Thomas Howell made me laugh throughout most of the film because he really was that innocent kid who got stuck into such dirty business and is trying to fight for his freedom as well as his life. If there is another film starring both Hauer and Howell again in a partnership like this, I will definitely be there to see it!


I must say, what solid directing! This film reminded me a lot of Steven Spielberg's Duel because it's like a road thriller where a guy is being stalked by a mad man. Harmon directed it really well and I think directors such as Martin Scorsese for Cape Fear and Adrian Lyne for Fatal Attraction felt slightly inspired by this and, quite frankly, I wouldn't really be that surprised. As for Harmon's inspiration, I think he could have felt inspired by Alfred Hitchcock when he did North By Northwest so I think this guy inspired both Hitchcock and Spielberg.


Overall, The Hitcher is a great thriller that I loved and even though that it may be an underrated thriller but it certainly is one of the best thrillers out there that will terrify its audiences and keep them stuck to the film from the first shot to the last. I haven't seen the remake but I can't quite see that it will be better than this one even though most remakes aren't as good as their originals anyway. Highly recommended thriller!

Well, first of all, how many times over the years have we seen films be released that are based on William Shakespeare's legendary play Romeo And Juliet? I have seen quite a few and I haven't loved them that much and when I read about an animated version of the play with rather unusual characters and backgrounds, I was unsure at first but after viewing the trailer, I did think this looked like it could be a load of fun and that is exactly what it was! Without spoiling anything, I was curious about how Gnomeo And Juliet was going to work seeing as it is a child friendly film and the original play ends sadly where it can make audiences cry so I was curious about how the ending worked. I mean, many could say that Gnomeo And Juliet is ripping off the original play and in many ways it is but in other ways, it's not.


The title Gnomeo And Juliet was a really good one and that perhaps made the audience feel suspicious whether it is a film to be taken seriously or not. It was really good how it was made in terms of the events that happen in the original play by using garden ornaments for weapons and other bits. I will tell you what it did bring back memories of and remind me a lot of in a lot of ways was the Toy Story trilogy. Why? Because they are having their own conflicts behind the backs of the humans around them and to them, the gnomes as well as the toys just sit there and do nothing when in the films, they are more important than the people. When you watch Gnomeo And Juliet, you will see what I mean.


The animated tale Gnomeo And Juliet knowingly follows the quintessential star-crossed lovers tragedy Romeo and Juliet, with the unexpected twist of making the characters garden gnomes that can move when human beings aren't watching. Though Gnomeo and Juliet belong to feuding garden gnome families, they meet and fall in love. But the clans' shared animosity is exacerbated when Tybalt dies in part because of actions taken by Gnomeo's to defend a friend that Tybalt was attacking. After getting some sage advice from a statue of William Shakespeare, Gnomeo attempts to set things right, and win the heart of the lawn ornament he loves.


What attracted me the most to this film was the very impressive cast! All of the actors involved are very well known and have given us some good films over the years of different generations and they have all joined together to be part of something that perhaps wasn't praised entirely due to critical response but still got some fun out of it making it as well as watching it as I'm sure they would. I really liked how most of the gnome characters have slightly different names to the ones in the original play such as Gnomeo, of course, Lord Redbrick (leader of Capulet's) and Lady Blueberry (leader of Montague's) but there are also some that have the same original names such as Juliet Capulet, Tybalt, Paris and William Shakespeare (well, Shakespeare wasn't in the play but he, of course, wrote it). In the film, the owners of the houses where they lived were called Capulet (red house with red gnomes) and Montague (blue house with blue gnomes). Every actor gave satisfactory performances in their roles respectively.


The fact that Gnomeo And Juliet was directed by a woman so that is another reason why I really wanted to see it but that was more out of curiosity. The animation was so impressive and just when I thought 3D was dying! This actually was good in 3D and I think deserves to be watched in 3D so that doesn't make it one of those films that are in 3D for an almost pointless reason that is, let's face it, just for the money. This was written by four screenwriters and now after watching it, I'm not surprised because there are so many things that needed to be adjusted and observed in the play and needed to perhaps get the accuracy of it as much as possible. Anyway, it wasn't bad for being something that they were just trying to get a bit of fun out of.


Overall, Gnomeo And Juliet is a film that I really liked for what it was. No, it isn't one of those big films that are to be taken seriously but it certainly delivers its incredibly fun side to both adults and children. It perhaps is the most child-friendly film that I have watched in a long time but I still really enjoyed it despite that. For me so far, 2011 is starting pretty well.

Well, I wanted to check this out for one reason and one reason only: I cannot stand the Twilight franchise and wanted to at least check out if Vampires Suck was only a tad bit better but as predicted, it was shit but not as shit as the films it is taking the piss out of! Where I think this film could have been great as in funny would be if it was actually funny to literally laugh out loud at, not to groan with embarrassment and shame towards. It was like it wasn't spoofing it in a funny way. I wanted to like this but I really didn't.


We all know that pretty much every single spoof is bad even though there are a few good exceptions but what ones like this are weak at, not only the fact that they aren't even laugh out loud funny but also they barely try with making it a suitable attraction for viewers to watch such as the incredibly cheesy make-up, costumes and art direction. Understandably, spoofs aren't really the kinds of films that everyone would enjoy and after seeing this one, it is no wonder why.


The comedy masterminds behind Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, and Meet the Spartans drive a squeaky rubber stake through the heart of the Twilight series with this irreverent satire about a teenage girl who's torn between two supernatural suitors. As Becca struggles to contend with her overbearing father, two fierce rivals compete to win her heart. But Becca isn't the only high-school student having a hard time with boys; her friends are all desperate to find a date for the prom, and as the big night draws near, the rampant tension draws out the animals in everyone.


In every film directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, they have cast actors who I hadn't even heard of until now and, quite frankly, because their acting was so bad, I don't even want to hear of them ever again. Admittedly, I will give some of the actors credit that they did look like the actor and character they were playing and ripping off but their acting wasn't even close to satisfactory but like the entire film in general, I didn't feel half the pain with this one as I did with the Twilight films themselves especially New Moon and Eclipse. Also, I will say that the actors in this aren't ripping off every single vampire film and their characters like a lot of people have suggested but it is just ripping off that series. Where it could have been awesome is that if it was acted and maybe even directed by the same people who did the Scary Movie franchise. I haven't seen them but they certainly received more recognition and credit than anything by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.


Admittedly, in Meet The Spartans despite that was even crapper than this, I did laugh at least once but the rest just made me gag but the entire film of this made me gag and feel pain. Meet The Spartans is mysteriously worse for me but I don't know why. I would have said if I actually found it funny that it was a good script for ripping off such pieces of shit but despite that, it just didn't work in the slightest. It felt a lot like random folks off the street who hate Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner and even Stephenie Meyer decided to write it and then contacted the two directors and decided to make it. I will admit that I am not surprised that they decided to make a spoof of the Twilight franchise especially when it's trying to top the awesome Harry Potter franchise but it is just failing. I can see these two guys directing a spoof of Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings or even a Pirates Of The Caribbean spoof next. Vampires Suck did earn a lot of Razzie nominations as predicted but I don't think it'll win Worst Picture because it is trying to be crap and the directors don't care (which in a way, I admire) so think it'll be The Last Airbender (most likely winner) or The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. *Bitch slap to Stephenie Meyer*, right there!


Overall, Vampires Suck obviously does suck and is an absolute disaster! This could have been great to those people who hate the Twilight films such as myself but obviously not. Not the very worst film of 2010 but it definitely is one of the worst of 2010. Whether you're a fan of the Twilight franchise or not, you will cringe at this and be embarrassed that you're watching this, trust me!

I saw this at the cinema when I was 14 years old and I wasn't too keen on it seeing as I didn't see any of the other Rocky films. However, only until recently I decided to give it a re-watch. The entire franchise was overall a success for me but Rocky IV and Rocky V were disappointments and seeing as Rocky Balboa became the first Rocky in 26 years, expectations for this re-watch weren't high at all but they weren't low either. It was like I was going to watch this for the first time again seeing as I can't remember hardly anything that happened except Rocky goes into the ring for one last time and that his wife Adrian has now passed away.


When I did re-watch it, I liked it a lot better second time round and appreciated it for what it really was. Many would get the impression that this is a possible reboot of the original Rocky despite Rocky is now about 20 years older but there are many differences that this one has. I found this a deeply emotional film especially the fact that Rocky is almost now all by himself seeing as his wife is now dead, his close friends have all gone and his relationship with his son isn't a very close one but despite that, we see big hearted Rocky once again that we love to see.


Rocky Balboa is a long time retired boxer and remembered by most as one of the greatest boxing champions in the world. He now lives back in the skids of Philadelphia but manages a good life including running his restaurant Adrian's, helping an adult Little Marie and her son Steps, and saying hello at any opportunity to his estranged son Robert. After seeing a virtual fight of Rocky in his prime vs. heavyweight champion Mason "the Line" Dixon, Rocky's interest in fighting sparks again and he plans to fight in local clubs. Mason Dixon and his managers have a different agenda though, with a plan to pit Rocky vs. Mason in real life for a publicity act to regain Mason's lost respect from his fans. Finally agreeing to Mason Dixon's proposal, Rocky prepares to step in the ring for one last time.


Just when we saw Sylvester Stallone at his worst as Rocky Balboa in Rocky IV and Rocky V! He ultimately saves it until the last minute and for me gives a great performance like he did in the first two films. Unbelievably, I still cannot understand why Stallone can be so fantastic as Rocky in Rocky I, II and III, be so awful in Rocky IV and V and then go back to an awesome performance again in Rocky Balboa aka Rocky VI. We see worn and old Rocky in this sixth one as far as appearance but we see have the old Rocky Balboa with the big heart and strong pride like we saw in Rocky and Rocky II when he was younger and still a second-class boxer before he became World Heavyweight Champion. In many ways, this was like the first one all over again because Rocky is once again the underdog against a stronger opponent and it ends and begins in a similar way too. Talia Shire only appears in flashbacks from the previous films seeing as Adrian has now passed away so she isn't really in this film at all but despite that, Sylvester Stallone still made this film fantastic and gave us hope that is as fantastic as the older Rocky films. Burt Young was brilliant as Paulie and was almost the closest person to him now after Adrian died seeing as Paulie is Rocky's brother-in-law. Milo Ventimiglia replaces Sly's real-life son Sage Stallone as Rocky Balboa Jr. but what we saw of him, he was pretty good too.


Stallone, you confuse me! One minute you're fantastic at acting and directing, then you're awful and then you're fantastic again! It was solid directing in the boxing scenes as well as the ordinary calm scenes. I do think that a lot of people perhaps don't give Rocky Balboa enough credit as a final film to the series and like a farewell goodbye. It was still a great idea that Stallone decided to make this especially after Rocky V was a critical disaster. One thing I will say to you, Sly, is that your Rocky franchise as a whole is better than what you have ever done! I think this final Rocky film after over 20 years inspired him to make a final Rambo film after 20 years and that received a good critical response too.


Overall, Rocky Balboa is an absolutely brilliant finale to the Rocky franchise that I absolutely loved! Better than Rocky III, IV and V but doesn't quite beat Rocky or Rocky II. Here's a tip to those weaklings who can't make successful franchises, this is how you end a franchise: with solid character development, a strong story and an emotional farewell ending whether it is an emotional film or not. At least get the audience's attention. That is probably the better way of putting it.