Reviews by SJMJ91

Well here it is! The film we have been waiting for approximately 20 years: how Anakin turned to the dark side and what happens with Obi-Wan and Yoda. After its two predecessors The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones were decent but not brilliant, expectations were high because obviously it is the last Star Wars film and is the most crucial one but expectations were low at the same time because the first two prequels didn't live up to the original trilogy. However, when I watched it I almost instantly loved it! Yeah, there was like one or two flaws but there is no denying that for me it certainly lived up to the originals.


I mean, it is a great dialogue with some great action effects, a lot of emotional drama, mind-blowing music score and even very intense which is something that a Star Wars film hasn't really expressed before until now. Because Episodes I and II didn't really show anything crucial, it was all down to Revenge Of The Sith and with all this pressure on the shoulders of George Lucas and the actors within the film, I think that they pulled it off really well! I mean, it is clever how the story forms together from the prequels at the start and ends where all the characters who were in A New Hope started in that film. Admittedly, there were only two flaws: Hayden Christensen wasn't brilliant as Anakin. I mean, yeah he improved in this one but could have been better. Other flaw being that this was simply overloaded with CGI effects. I don't think there was one shot where there was no CGI involved. Obviously times have changed and there are going to be new effects but not in literally every single shot of the film. Still gets 5-stars from me despite those two flaws.


Set 3 years after Attack Of The Clones and the Clone War is still going on. Revenge Of The Sith begins immediately in action where Chancellor Palpatine has been abducted by alien-robot creature General Grievous and Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker are both assigned to rescue him. They manage to do so and arrive back on Coruscant which leads to him reuniting with Padmé and learning of her pregnancy. One night, Anakin has nightmare visions of Padmé dying in childbirth and fears that this will become real like the last nightmares about his mother came true in Attack Of The Clones. As time goes on and because he is so desperate to save Padmé, he becomes more and more tempted to succumb to the dark side (without knowing that his is really a scheme by Palpatine to turn Anakin over to destroy all Jedi including Obi-Wan).


Well, in The Phantom Menace we didn't really see very much of Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan, in Attack Of The Clones he was good and in Revenge Of The Sith he did a brilliant job! I mean, in the first 10 minutes of the film he was bad but after that, he did really well and I personally think he did reach the late Sir Alec Guinness's level at portraying Obi-Wan. Natalie Portman improved a lot in this one as Padmé! I think the level of the chemistry between her and Anakin was about right because it wasn't soppy romance where they'd slowly fall in love but there was drama added to that which made me like the bond between them both this time. Hayden Christensen doesn't deliver an amazing performance but it was an improvement to his performance in Attack Of The Clones. One bit of credit that I have got to give him is that he perhaps had a lot on his shoulders playing a confused Anakin and then becoming a psychotic, deranged Darth Vader and Anakin/Vader is a very iconic character! Then again, an even worse actor could have played him (Orlando Bloom, Zac Efron or Robert Pattinson for example). Ian McDiarmid was just fantastic as Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious! Well, we all knew from the start of The Phantom Menace that Palpatine is Darth Sidious but it was really suspenseful in the scenes with him and Anakin. When he was revealed to all that he was Darth Sidious and the one Sith Lord, he went on to a different level of acting and had this rasping voice, really evil cackling laugh and looking just revolting in appearance (like he does in Return Of The Jedi). Also, General Grievous was a great villain for me too. What we see of General Grievous is what we should have seen of Darth Maul but more! I mean, I like General Grievous but Darth Maul is a Sith Lord and we needed him more involved but obviously not.


After his lame directing in The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones, George Lucas shows us what he really can do and how to make a true Star Wars film (even though the franchise is his creation anyway). The music perhaps is the best quality the Star Wars saga has had and I did like how they mixed music from the two prequels and some from the originals. The script was a lot better this time but there were some moments that were a bit forced (maybe that is because of some acting more than the words in the script).


Overall, Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge Of The Sith is an absolutely amazing finale to one of the most successful franchises of all time. To be honest, I don't think they could have thought of a better story to end it. It is an epic film that I think certainly lives up to the original trilogy and it makes The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones like very cheap student films and were written by amateurs. Just amazing!

Like with The Phantom Menace, I loved this a lot as a child but as I was growing up, I could see what most of the flaws were. Admittedly, Attack Of The Clones is a lot of fun and is perhaps a Star Wars film just for entertainment. I would perhaps say that this as well as Episode I is in the Star Wars franchise like Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets are in the Harry Potter franchise: just pieces of entertainment with no crucial events going on that effects the whole series. Yes, they all need to be entertaining but at the end of the day, because there needed to be so many crucial events from all three prequels, we only see all those events occur, really, in Revenge Of The Sith.


I mean, now the more I watch Attack Of The Clones, the easier I can see what the flaws are and what could have been done to improve. Well, the most obvious is the soppy and almost unconvincing love story between Anakin and Padmé. Star Wars is meant to be full of adventure, not like a soap opera! I mean, action-romance-action-romance-action! Make your mind up! It is one or the other, not both. The acting was weak from most of the actors involved in this film. Also, why does Yoda look so fake in this one?! I mean, if Yoda is gonna be in CGI, at least make him look real! If not, try and make him just like in the originals. I mean, that is the main weakness the prequels have: they are overloaded with CGI effects. I mean, yeah I know that times have changed as have effects but at the end of the day, it is a prequel to a very successful franchise and there did need to be some originality. I think the only originality that Attack Of The Clones had in comparison to Episode IV, V and VI is the music!


Attack Of The Clones is set 10 years after The Phantom Menace where Anakin is a grown man now not a little kid but still has his strong crush on Padmé. Padmé is now a senator in the Republic and her life is at risk due to assassination attempts by the Trade Federation so the Jedi Council assign Anakin Skywalker to protect her on her home planet of Naboo and there they slowly fall in love and share a forbidden romance. Obi-Wan, on the other hand, is tracking down a bounty hunter who attempted to assassinate Senator Amidala which leads him to the Mars-like planet of Geonosis and the Clone War begins.


I have always been a strong admirer of Ewan McGregor and he is one of the best living actors but his performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi in this one was mediocre. I mean, he wasn't involved THAT much in The Phantom Menace but he was a bit more this time but his performance wasn't really any better. I think perhaps because of the cheesy script made his performance even worse. Hayden Christensen was simply the wrong actor to have been chosen to play Anakin Skywalker in the second prequel! I could probably give George Lucas a list of about 30 actors who could have played Anakin better and made him more realistic. I think James Franco would have been the best option because he would have made Anakin an angry individual, a hero and a man with feelings. Hayden just made him like a really empty character and I can't believe that is Darth Vader but younger! Natalie Portman was surprisingly bad as Padmé. I mean, I could hardly feel any emotion for Padmé at all; what with the assassination attempts or the love she has for Anakin.


Seriously, George Lucas, what were you trying to achieve with Attack Of The Clones? I mean, yeah you want Anakin's turn to the dark side to be tragic, not soppy romance! Maybe go a bit mad after a close one died (like his mother or a Jedi colleague or something) and that would have made it even more interesting. The screenplay was pretty damn cheesy most of the time especially in the Anakin and Padmé scene where Anakin was expressing his feelings towards Padmé and how a relationship between them would work but as I said, Star Wars is a series of adventure and action, not romance! I mean, fair enough with Revenge Of The Sith because it all comes down to that film seeing as that was part of the story. There were just conversations, no romance but did feature heartbreak which is how Obi-Wan and Yoda felt about Anakin's betrayal and the fact that the Jedi were going extinct except those two. George Lucas shouldn't have been director, should have gone to someone else who would be awesome at directing it (Episode V and Episode VI weren't directed by George Lucas) and should just stick to writing but not make them cheesy!


Overall, Star Wars: Episode II – Attack Of The Clones is a disappointing prequel to the original Star Wars trilogy that is just entertainment for the action and effects but crap regarding story, acting, directing and writing so it makes it about average. Thank God that Revenge Of The Sith showed us what George Lucas really is capable of doing. Nothing major happened in Attack Of The Clones that affects the originals when we needed it to build up to Episode III aka the climax film but was just an entertainment Star Wars film. So it is neither good nor bad.

Ok, I am just going to go ahead and admit that I still really like this film now despite it was one of the films that I grew up with as a child. However, as I have grown up I have noticed that the first prequel does have its flaws and, in all honesty, there are quite a lot of crucial ones. I am going to start with those flaws first and then say the good side of the film. Ok, here goes. The most obvious one: Jar-Jar Binks!! He is one of the top characters if not the best character to totally ruin a film! He was funny to me when I was a kid but now I just think he is an absolute idiot and serves literally no purpose in the film whatsoever, Jake Lloyd is a lousy Anakin Skywalker, the skinny droids for the Trade Federation are pretty much funnier versions of Stormtroopers in the Empire and the directing from George Lucas was lousy as was the editing and most of the screenplay.


Now, the good points of the film is that the special effects were absolutely amazing, I really liked how they involved a much younger Obi-Wan and back to when he was an apprentice and I did like Qui-Gon's character too. Darth Maul was one badass, evil and mysterious villain (like Vader was in the first two original films) but too bad we don't see enough of him. The duel towards the end was epic as was the podrace and I did like the plot but could have perhaps adjusted a few bits and started it off a bit better.


Set in The evil Trade Federation, led by Nute Gunray is planning to take over the peaceful world of Naboo. Jedi's Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi are sent to confront the leaders. But not everything goes to plan. The two Jedi's escape, and along with their new Gungan friend, Jar Jar Binks head to Naboo to warn Queen Amidala, but droids have already started to capture Naboo and the Queen is not safe there. Eventually they land on Tatooine, where they become friends with a young boy known as Anakin Skywalker. Qui-Gon is curious about the boy, and sees a bright future for him. The group must now find a way of getting to Coruscant and to finally solve this trade dispute, but there is someone else hiding in the shadows. Are the Sith really extinct? Is the Queen who she really says she is? And what's so special about this young boy?


Another reason why expectations were high was because of the two leading actors. One who portrayed an amazing performance as Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List and the other as Renton in Trainspotting. Liam Neeson was, in my opinion, brilliant as Qui-Gon Jinn! I did really like the Qui-Gon character and he was to Obi-Wan and Anakin in Phantom Menace to what Obi-Wan and Yoda were to Luke in the originals: not just a master who is training you but also a mentor and a friend. Ewan McGregor perhaps is the only actor who could have possibly portrayed a younger Obi-Wan seeing as he looks a lot like Alec Guinness who played Obi-Wan in the originals and there wasn't very much Obi-Wan in this one but I still liked his performance anyway. After her amazing performance in Léon as a little girl, Natalie Portman rises to fame once again with the Star Wars prequels but her performance was about average to satisfactory. Jake Lloyd made Anakin Skywalker look like an utter muppet! Anakin should have been a teenager in Phantom Menace and why he was called 'Ani' which made him seem innocent is beyond me! Hello? That's Darth Vader in the future! Was great to see Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (well he was inside R2-D2) and Ian McDiarmid from the original films back again, though!


George Lucas, you may have directed the podrace scene pretty well and made it exciting but the rest of the directing felt empty and rushed. I mean, no the prequels didn't need to be made but one (especially the creator of a classic trilogy) needs to be prepared of what is required and what needs to be worked on. Yes, he did have a lot on his shoulders but I am afraid to say that his directing, editing and sometimes screenwriting is bad! I can't even understand why George got Jar-Jar Binks involved but was a good job that he got rid of him after this film. I mean, despite it isn't as good as any of the originals, I think people should at least appreciate that times have changed and there are going to be some CGI added and there are going to be new characters seeing as The Phantom Menace is set almost 30 years before A New Hope.


It was nominated for 3 Academy Awards: Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects but was a contender for a few Razzie awards too. It won Worst Supporting Actor (Ahmed Best as Jar-Jar Binks and rightly so!) but was nominated for Worst Picture, Worst Director (George Lucas), Worst Screenplay, Worst Supporting Actor (Jake Lloyd), Worst Supporting Actress (Sofia Coppola), Worst Screen Couple (Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman).


Overall, Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace is a childhood favourite of mine and is a Star Wars film for entertainment like the first two Harry Potter films are before anything gets serious. I have almost no problem with the story but I think if the film was better directed, written and edited, Anakin was a teenager not an innocent little boy (which does mean Jake Lloyd to not be in the film), more Darth Maul and most of all: Jar-Jar Binks wasn't involved at all, it would have been a great success critically like it was regarding box office takings!

I literally had only one bit of knowledge when I was about to watch it and it is bloody obvious: that it features a hole so I didn't really know what to expect. This surprisingly shook me when I watched it as it did a lot of critics. This just shows what thrillers are all about and how a film can truly succeed without that much violence. This film is very scary but because there was lots of suspense but hardly any violence at all, it was even scarier and it really does show that some films fail because of the lack of suspense and the overloaded amount of gore involved.


Set in modern day America of a single mum with her two sons who move away from their home due to a dark past and move into a new house. One day, the two boys discover a mysterious hole with no bottom but as they seem to find the hole quite interesting to begin with, the tables begin to turn and things start to get scary. Chris Massoglia delivers a performance that I think was actually quite good. I mean, most teenage actors aren't really that notable until a certain film comes out where they either deliver a great performance or the film becomes a success both box office takings and critically. Nathan Gamble's acting was very similar to Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense and Danny Lloyd in The Shining because he was another terrified young boy who was being tormented by things that only he can see. People would almost instantly recognize Teri Polo as Pam from Meet The Parents and Meet The Fockers but she stars in something different this time and did a satisfying but not brilliant job. She should just stay with romantic comedies.


There are some awesome gory films but when a film is referred as a thriller, it is better having more suspense than gore because that just ruins it completely! As I said, this is exactly what thrillers are all about. It does have boundaries to scare its audiences but this needs to be a rated R (in US) and 15 (in UK) not PG-13/12! Think they chose it to be that rating instead of R/15 because there is no violence but they cannot say that it wasn't suspenseful and wouldn't scare many people especially when little kids could see this one.


Overall, The Hole 3D is a film that should not be seen by little kids like the certificate its been given suggests. I was in the cinema and saw kids crying because it was so scary so that is a crucial mistake! Well, back to what I think now. I just thought it was an intense, suspenseful, gripping thrill ride that I surprisingly really liked a lot. One of the biggest and best pieces of entertainment one will see all year!

I wasn't exactly sure of what to make of this film when I first heard about it. I am not really a big fan of music films but this is something even more personal than just music. It is a film of pure beauty but a film of heartbreak as well. Most films about music or involve music are bio-pics but this is something that I would say only involves it and it isn't a bio-pic but it sure would have been a pretty inspiring true story.


I would call this The Wrestler of 2009 because there are just so many similarities between that film and Crazy Heart. For example, both leading male characters are aging veterans who are like living life alone who attempt to go back to something from their pasts, they are both specialists at activities and are famous for it and few others. Also, the critical response and Oscar nominations they both received were similar.


Jeff Bridges' performance was amazing as Bad Blake! I would say that after Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds, it is the performance of the year but it is the best leading male performance of 2009. His performance was just like Mickey Rourke's in The Wrestler and now after Jeff Bridges winning the Oscar, he deserved it but it makes up for Mickey Rourke losing the Oscar to Sean Penn when he was the favourite. Maggie Gyllenhaal delivers the performance of her career thus far but Crazy Heart isn't my favourite film that she has starred in. In fact, there are quite a few that she's been in that I liked more than Crazy Heart but her performance in this one was the best she's delivered so far. She deserved her Oscar nomination but didn't quite deserve to win it. Robert Duvall's supporting performance was brilliant as well. Unfortunately, he's losing tone now as he's got older (well, really, after appearing in the first two Godfather films as Tom Hagen and Apocalypse Now as Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Kilgore (all three films are by the same director: Francis Ford Coppola). Colin Farrell's role may have been underrated and perhaps something that not that many were aware of seeing as it was a minor role but he did a good job despite that.


Crazy Heart won 2 Academy Awards out of 3 nominations (won Best Actor (Jeff Bridges) and Best Original Song (''The Weary Kind'') but was nominated for Best Supporting Actress (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and it won those two awards at the Golden Globes too and rightly so because they deserve it. For the first time since Adrien Brody won Best Actor in The Pianist back in 2002, I actually agreed that the actor who actually won totally deserved to win and was better than the others.


Overall, Crazy Heart is an underrated film that I really enjoyed. It's perhaps not a Best Picture worthy film but definitely one of the 2009 films that need watching and needn't be missed. If you really like The Wrestler, then you will really like this one. Bravo, Bridges and Gyllenhaal!

For the past few years, we keep on seeing these action films with a slight science fiction dialogue to it. Salt is just another action film that I found almost identical to what some of the moments in the Bourne trilogy were like. It is also another example that tries to reach to that level but fails to do so. I did like the story of the film but the USA vs. Russia dialogue did seem a tad bit unrealistic to me. I realise it's just for entertainment but you always need a film that has a believable story for it to succeed. Think that was the only flaw that this film had.


Well, I think we were expecting from Angelina Jolie like we always expect from her: a very sexy young woman with a 'bad girl' seductive type of woman and we do see that but more of a Jason Bourne-like character. So I would say that she is like the female Jason Bourne. There was one thing that I didn't fully understand about Evelyn Salt's character was if she was really innocent, why was she still performing attacks and why was she still part of Russia when still claiming she is innocent? Another thing which was a bit weird was that she was with the CIA to start off with but 2 minutes later, she was a convict and fugitive. Don't get me wrong, she is a decent enough character but I think there are too many like her.


This is just like a Paul Greengrass kind of style direction with a convicted person on the loose. Directors Terry George, Michael Mann and Peter Berg came close to directing but I am glad none of them did because I think that the film would have been crap and ruin their careers and this wasn't one of those landmark action films. The script was mostly quite flat and silly but I think that is normal of a film like this.


Overall, Salt is a decent piece of entertainment that is nothing special. Just another action thriller for me and that's it. Good film but not one of the best of 2010.

Seriously, what was everyone expecting from this film? I think pretty much all the same things! I'll give you a few: women in bikinis, seeing their breasts and asses, gore regarding the piranhas and suspense! And that is exactly what this film got but something a bit more than that. I just had zero interest at all to watch it on the brink of its release but after watching it, I am surprised that I decided not to watch it. I guess it possibly being utter crap and a waste of time put me off the film but when I just suddenly watched it, it surprisingly entertained me throughout the whole time.


This is the second remake of the original 1978 version (first one was a 1995 adaptation of the same name) and now I think that this new one turned out more of a success both critically and box office ratings more than the first remake. I guess, the fact the new one was released in 3D gave it a slight push ahead. I mean, if this remake works in 3D and does a good job, I could see them doing a future 3D remake of something like Anaconda or Lake Placid but not too many because they'll just suck and fail for trying too hard.


There were lots of intense suspense that was a bit like Jaws. Piranha 3D did take a lot from that film regarding that but it wasn't an awful attempt. What I mean by this is we see point-of-view shots of the piranhas when see people's feet, legs or even whole body in the water like the piranhas are going to attack (like we see through the eyes of the shark in Jaws like the classic opening scene and the attack on the beach the next day). The poster is just like the Jaws poster as well. Alexandre Aja (director of 2006 The Hills Have Eyes remake) did a surprisingly brilliant job and filmed it well both underwater and on land. After reading a couple of reviews, critics and fans have said that ''this is what Snakes On A Plane should have been.''


I wasn't familiar with most of the actors involved in this film except three (Richard Dreyfuss (previously starred in Jaws. So many connections Piranha 3D has with that film), Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames (starred in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction) but the acting was very good from those who were under attack by the piranhas and the wounded ones but I thought that some of the young people like the two girls on the boat were a bit shit and just lacked character development. I liked Jake's character because he's just another teenager who wants to go out and have fun like most teens do but his mum is the sheriff and has asked him to look after the children but he doesn't want to. Not going to spoil anymore so you'll have to see for yourself.


It is obviously a very cheesy, soppy plot but the suspense and the dark comedy involved did save the film. I suppose you could say that Piranha 3D has the comedy humour and sometimes the unnecessary violence like Shaun Of The Dead. That film did manage to pull something surprisingly smart off and I think that Piranha 3D somehow managed to as well. There are lots and lots of moments where you could just disgustingly laugh at the gore within the film like you could in Shaun Of The Dead. Despite the very basic and simple story, it features a surprisingly shocking twist that would interest the audience a lot more for the upcoming sequel in 2012.


This is perhaps the first gory horror film to be released in 3D and I regrettably never got chance to see it in 3D but the experience in normal 2D was pretty damn terrifying! I think if there perhaps wasn't that much gore at all it would have reached the ultimate fail level in 3D. Seriously now I can only imagine how terrifying it must have been in 3D with a large screen and piranhas and guts popping out the screen! I'm going to definitely be up for that in the sequel. Stepping aside the original 1978 Piranha film, I'd say that Piranha 3D is like Jaws mixed with Shaun Of The Dead. This is what entertainment is all about!

My expectations of The French Connection were pretty high because not only did it win Best Picture but it even beat A Clockwork Orange and Stanley Kubrick. It is a very good film that I did really enjoy but it did feel a little bit slow to start off with. I personally think it took about half an hour to get into 'Popeye' Doyle and 'Cloudy' Russo. 1971 was a great year in cinema and did feature a lot of famous films that are part of many genres. I think it had some similarities to Dirty Harry (not just the film itself but the characters too). I think the main key parts of the film when I was stuck to the screen were during the action scenes especially the train and car-chase scene and the scene where Popeye would be chasing after a suspect or fugitive.


Gene Hackman delivers an absolutely brilliant performance as Jimmy 'Popeye' Boyle. He is based on detective Eddie Egan who actually appeared as Boyle's detective supervisor like the real Sonny Grosso is another detective supervisor and Roy Scheider's character Det. Buddy Russo is based on him which does make it a true story. Actors such as James Caan, Robert Mitchum and Peter Boyle declined the role of Popeye Boyle and perhaps that was good because it doesn't seem likely that they would've done a better job than Gene Hackman seeing as he won the Best Leading Actor Oscar in 1972. 4 years before Steven Spielberg's breakthrough masterpiece Jaws, Roy Scheider stars in The French Connection in a role that perhaps led him to star in the lead role in Jaws seeing both characters he plays in both films are police officers.


William Friedkin is a director who has received a lot of credit from the Academy for making great films but unfortunately directors like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Bergman, Kurosawa and Fellini never did. Friedkin did do an incredible job directing this especially in the train chase scene where he'd have to cause a lot of traffic because they're shooting the film and that was just beautifully made for its time and I'd even say that it either sums up exactly to how awesome car chase scenes in films are like today or maybe even better because they're full of CGI whereas this one wasn't. It won 5 Oscars out of 8 nominations. It won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Leading Actor (Gene Hackman) and Best Film Editing. It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Roy Scheider), Best Cinematography and Best Sound.


Overall, The French Connection is a very enjoyable classic that perhaps didn't deserve all of the credit at the Academy Awards as much as Stanley Kubrick, Malcolm McDowell and A Clockwork Orange. Brilliantly acted by Gene Hackman (but still find his performance better in Unforgiven) and well-filmed in the modern day era. It is definitely worth checking out!

For years I was always in denial of whether to watch this or not but only a few days ago, I had this random desperate urge to watch it. I was going into this film sort of knowing that it was going to be crap anyway but there were a few key moments where it was just awful and it did step over the line. I shall give you an example: the Norman Bates masturbation scene. What the f**k?! That is insulting to the original film and to call itself a 'remake' is beyond belief! Regrettably, this is more of a rip-off/spoof and awful duplicate of the 1960 version more than a remake and also most of the cast and crew involved in the film hadn't even seen the original version so that is just hopeless and stupid!


Well, I'm gonna keep this short and just say what the film is about because it is exactly the same as the original: a woman runs off with $40,000 from her boss, ends up staying in a motel and gets killed in the shower by a mysterious person. Get it? So, as for the acting in the film that featured the likes of Vince Vaughn as Norman, Anne Heche as Marion, Julianne Moore as Lila, Viggo Mortensen as Sam and William H. Macy as Detective Arbogast. Vince Vaughn was just awful as Norman Bates! I mean, the man didn't even try to bring something different to Norman because not only was he obviously saying the same in the original seeing as the script is the same but because of that, he was trying to copy Anthony Perkins actions as Norman during the scenes as well as how he would speak and that was just epic fail! Must ask this: did Anne Heche even audition for the part of Marion or was she a random woman off the street? Well, I think I am more convinced by the latter because she hadn't even seen the original Hitchcock version nor read the book so goes to show what she knows about the original and the character she is playing. Viggo Mortensen was disappointing as Sam Loomis and Julianne Moore who can be both brilliant and awful in her films but I am afraid to say that she was the wrong choice for Lila Crane! Despite that Lila wasn't the one who was murdered in the shower, she is an iconic character too but I would say that perhaps a more attractive and more talented actress could play her; like someone better should have played Norman and Marion.


Now onto the direction of the film: Gus Van Sant is a director that I did have good respect for; films such as Good Will Hunting and Milk but now after making the Psycho 'remake', that has all gone! I never thought a director who has been nominated for an Oscar would agree to make a film that is copying exactly off Psycho of all films and ultimately failing! I mean, he does show how awesome the original version is because of how awful the 'remake' was by doing exactly the same but nowhere near as good. He even uses the original DVD and plays it during filming of the remake so that makes it worse! I was pretty surprised about Danny Elfman being the composer of the film. Yeah, there's Bernard Hermann's original music of the film but Elfman did adapt it a tiny bit but that didn't even save the film. Well, I'm just gonna say that the script was awesome because it is awesome but I can't give the film any higher rating for that because there was no attempt to make any difference or to improve on it.


I mean, the fact that this was filmed in colour didn't even save the film. I think perhaps the reason for making this was so the new generation especially young teenagers would be persuaded to watch the original version. Now, that is a really bad idea because there is nothing good about this film and there's nothing wrong with the original. It was like a slasher film and since when has Psycho original film and even the book for that matter ever been a slasher film?! This isn't a spoiler so I'm just going to say it: when the ending credits rolled it said 'In Memory Of Alfred Hitchcock' and I paused the film and stared at it! How dare Gus Van Sant say that when he has remade something that is more like a bitch-slap towards Hitchcock, the cast and the rest of the crew in the original film?!


Overall, Psycho is an absolutely disgraceful disaster that can hardly call itself a remake let alone a film! If it shows us anything, it shows us that some films just aren't meant to be remade and it just shows how pointless some remakes really can be! The 'remake' is one of the worst films of all time but the original is one of the best films of all time which is a weird thing to admit despite both films feature the same characters, same shots and camera angles and music. Probably the first film that I would automatically call a 'lazyarse' film because there really is just no effort or even enjoyment for that matter! It was plain awful and just pointless from beginning to end. It should have earned all the Razzie glory because that's what its worth and rightly deserves!

Well, I knew from the very beginning that The Wolfman was going to be crap! The main reasons for me watching this was almost the same reason for Jennifer's Body: "Ohh f*** it!", wanted to expand on my 2010 in film list and I do enjoy reviewing and watching bad films sometimes. This film was indeed bad as expected but to be honest, I wasn't expecting it to be as slow and as boring as it really was! I mean, the title is 'The Wolfman' and we don't see that happen until like 50 minutes of the film out of its 103 minute duration. Yeah, there's going to be character development and needing to get the story going but seriously, does it really take that long to get the main key of the film going?


The film did have some similarities with Sleepy Hollow but this just felt very unrealistic and quite flat on occasions. However, there were some moments that were quite scary like when the Wolfman or Werewolf attacks. The violence makes it scarier and perhaps adds more horror to make the audience more terrified. I mean, there are some horrors that are really violent that go over-the-top and the film fails but some of the very successful thrillers and horrors aren't really violent at all.


Shooting of The Wolfman began on 3rd March 2008 and commenced on 23rd June 2008. It had been scheduled for release about three separate times and has been postponed 3 times. I think the first time it was scheduled for release was in spring 2009 and then it was around November 2009 and was eventually released in March 2010. It perhaps was trying to decide when it would be a good time to release it so therefore it would make more money and become a blockbuster like Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince did but The Wolfman was a lot more of a failure and didn't make the top box office list.


Set in 1891 or an actor called Lawrence Talbot (Del Toro) returns to the stately home where he grew up after the death of his brother. His brother's fiancée, Gwen (Blunt) and father (Hopkins) await him there – and something rather furrier and more dangerous besides. I must admit that there are a group of talented actors but despite that I do like most of them, I did sort of know already that they weren't going to deliver brilliant performances. I do like Benicio Del Toro as an actor and has delivered some great performances in the past but The Wolfman was a big mistake on behalf of his career. I hardly felt any sympathy at all for Lawrence unfortunately and the character just felt soulless and empty. Emily Blunt made a name for herself after The Young Victoria but her acting was pretty much the same as what Gemma Arterton was like in Quantum Of Solace and Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time. Anthony Hopkins holds the best leading male performance of all time in my opinion as Hannibal Lecter in The Silence Of The Lambs and after seeing this film, I still can't believe it is still that same person! Even he was as flat and empty as Del Toro and Blunt were. Hugo Weaving, however, did a slightly satisfying job but even he didn't save the acting side of the film.


Joe Johnston; director of Jurassic Park III, Jumanji and The Pagemaster (live-action) really does try to entertain the audiences but sometimes manages to do so but sometimes doesn't. He is also set to direct the upcoming feature film on MARVEL comic book hero Captain America due for release next year. The Wolfman isn't only his first film in 6 years but it's also his first film rated R (USA)/15 (UK)/MA15+ (Australia). So, all I can say is, Joe, is that I think you should just stick to making PG rated family films because this one was just 'no, just no'.


Overall, The Wolfman is a huge disappointment that didn't really surprise me. Great cast and good effects but that is about it. I wouldn't be surprised if this is nominated for a few Razzies such as Worst Remake/Sequel/Rip-Off/Re-boot, Worst Picture, Worst Actor, Worst Actress and Worst Director. I need to check out the original version now to see if there is a massive difference between them (which I hope there is) regarding the tone, pace and character development. It is a failure and unfortunately one of the worst films of 2010 as well as one of the worst remakes.