SENTINEL .... The film started with a flashback to the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan and the fact that secret service agent took a bullet for the President and survived, the character Michael Douglas plays happens to be that agent. In this film he was good in is role, but then nothing less from Mr Douglas, he has come a long way since The Streets of San Francisco. The other main actor in this movie was Kiefer Sutherland fresh from his 24 role and in a similar vain he was good, though when I saw he as a secret service agent, I did fear he would be another Jack Bauer especially considering the role he was playing, but in a couple of scenes where Jack would have not hesitated and taken action, this character showed he had a heart and soul. One thing the film did do was give you an insight in the probable precision it take to get the American president from the White House to a local school or to a G8 conference, obviously the process shown in the film isn’t the same as used in real life, but I can imagine it is close in it’s execution. I really enjoyed this film, and it was good to see an action packed film that didn’t have too many over the top explosions and FX’ was very good and though I wouldn’t buy the DVD I’d watch this film again.

Shoot Em Up

Gun's Galore

Clive Owen was the name tied to this film that made me want to go and see it. I had not seen the trailer until after seeing the film so it was an absolute case of the big named actor dragging me to see the film, a bit like that Steven Seagal film Executive Decision... and we all know how long he lasted in that film... so going to a film because of a big name actor hadn't been good for me and I have to say that trend continued with this film...

In terms of escapism, this film was very very good but in terms of was it worth the effort, then I'd personally say no. For a film so short I actually found the film pretty tedious mainly due to the fact it was pretty much one dimensional.

The premise of the film was that Clive Owen's character saves a pregnant woman from being shot, but in the mayhem she delivers the baby, he then realises they people doing all the shooting actually trying to kill the baby, so he asks a prostitute to mother the child whilst he tries to find out why all the shooting is going on. Now the storyline in itself is a pretty good one, it’s just a shame the rest of the film spoilt how good the storyline could have been.

There were a couple of things got audience reaction, particularly a scene where said prostitute removes a piercing from a club doorman's nether regions.... let's just say all the blokes in the cinema crossed their legs and looked skyward....and all the women in the cinema laughed....not funny I say....

Am I glad I saw this film in the cinema... overly no. Would I watch this film again... yeah probably if it was on Science Theatre 3000 or maybe as a background film whilst sitting chatting with my mates. Would I buy this film on DVD.....Nope.... Out of 10 I'd give this film a 7, only because the storyline had potential...

Shooter…  http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/shooter/med_trailer1.html

I went to see this film on Sunday morning and have to say I’m glad I sacrificed the lay in. This film kept me thoroughly entertained… The premise of the film was the Mark Wahlberg’s character was in the US Army and whilst on a mission was hug out to dry when an assignment had gone wrong, after this incident he leaves the army a tad disgruntled, but with rumours of an attempt on the president’s life, he is recalled back to try and help stop it happening, but all is not what it seems. The film was quite action packed with never too much to make it an out an out action film, there are a few twists and turns and a bit of political undertones. Also starring in this film is Danny “Lethal Weapon” Glover and Ned “Otisberg” Beatty… both of who put in outstanding performances. Mark Wahlberg was very good in the lead, I doubt anyone is gonna win an Oscar for this film but it was a good film, but despite me saying it is a good film I am only going to give it a 7 out of 10, this is mainly because there was nothing very original about the film, the dialogue was pretty predictable, there were no outstanding lines from the film, so it was kinda a run of the mill a man get’s wronged and is out for payback. I’ve never seen the Bourne Identity, but I’m guessing these films are kinda similar, and the reason why I say the Bourne Identity is because there is another film in the Bourne series out very soon. Would I buy The Shooter on DVD, I very much doubt that I will. As with any film with action scenes, it’s always worth seeing on the big screen.

Smokin' Aces  -  http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/smokinaces/theatrical_medium.html

Why oh why do film critics and/or film makers try and grab your attention by saying a film is the next version of a cult film. It seems many genres do this, like for example when Killzone came out on the PS2, they said it was a Halo beater…. Nope it wasn’t anywhere near the quality of a Halo, in was a good game, but not a Halo beater… actually I know why they say it, because they want more people to go and see the film, but all they do is put people’s backs up, for the next time they produce a film and compare it to a cult film…. They said this was the next Pulp Fiction…. Sorry guys, but it wasn’t at all like Pulp Fiction, now if you’d said Lock Stock and Two Smokin… then you would have been a whole lot closer. I adore Pulp Fiction, but this was even close.

The premise of this film was that a hit has been put on someone and this film follows all the contract killers who are after the bounty. Which is where the problem lies. In any film or book as a watcher or reader you kind of need to relate to the characters, for example Lord of the Rings, Kill Bill, Star Wars… which were all stories told over more than one film… The first part…actually the main part of the film was spent introducing you to all the characters and giving the low down on their background, then when it came to the meat of the film, it was far too short… it’s like getting a box of KFC with three pieces of chicken, and you eat the breast pieces first so you can savour the drumstick, then your partner walks in and grabs the leg and bites out the fleshy bit… not good and very disappointing….

I think what spoilt the film for me was the whole comparing it to Pulp Fiction; I was truly disappointed with this film.

Would I get this film on DVD… unlikely to be honest, I did like the performance of Mr Piven (from Entourage) and Alicia Keys was pretty good too. There was some dark humour in the film, that is about the only aspect of the film that could have been compared with Pulp Fiction. When I say dark humour I’m referring to the bit in Pulp where Vincent Vega shoots Marvin in the face…..well I found that bit funny…..

SNAKES ON A PLANE... this film was a little difficult for me to watch as I really don't like Snakes and I'm not too keen on flying, but I managed to watch the film without averting my eyes. The film started very well, and was going down the road as a very good action film, but for me the film did slip into a classic B Movie, but unlike Independance Day which started out as a modern day B Movie, you could see that Snakes was trying to be a serious but tongue in cheek movie, but I can see this film being shown in 'Science Theatre 3000' in about 10 years time. Science Theatre 3000 was a show where a guy and two robots on a space ship showed an old movie and passed comment on it.                          There were some issues that should have been addressed but weren't. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the film as much as you can when you hate snakes and it was quite funny the way some people taken out by the snakes and especially one scene where every single bloke in the cinema was doubling up and grabbing thier nuts, while thier female companions were laughing..... not funny ladies, not funny....                               The ending of the film was quite poor, it was like they said "Okay we've run out of how many ways a snake can kill, let's put the plane on the ground and run the credits" so that was disappointing. I would see this film again, but won't be buying the DVD or renting it out.

 STORMBREAKER ... it was ok, a poor man's James Bond, but a rich man's Spy Kids. The story was pretty weak which was surprising considering it’s a book, and the main villain wasn't the best. There was an assassin who I have to say was smooth, he becomes Alex' (the secret agent kid) nemesis. I’ll have to see if I can get an excerpt from the book. Ewan McGregor's small part was good, have to say, he’d make a good James Bond with a little bit of work. But you could see the film was aimed at the kids as it was a little slapstick at times. Doubt I’d see it again, and apparently there are a few books in the series, I don’t think I’ll make an effort to see them if they get made into films.

The following film review has been provided by The Professor

Superman Returns... - After a week of hard commuting down to London for a course I was able to squeeze in a viewing of Superman Returns. I was also able to see it at the Imax cinema on Friday in 3D no less. Now before I get to the meat of this you should that when I was a kid there were 3 things I believed in 100% (Yes I was that kind of kid)...

 1. That if I trained my mind hard enough I could levitate an X-wing out of a dagobah swamp.

2. That my future career was archaeology(all I needed was a leather jacket and a bullwhip).

3. That a man could not only fly but catch a feisty reporter in one hand and a crashed helicopter in the other.

I have to say I was worried when I settled into my Imax seat...it's weird I suddenly felt like a kid again daring to wonder if they could make me , a cynical, slightly jaded 37 year old believe after all these years that 'a man could still fly'. By the end of the opening credits I was already a happy man (if you liked the opening credits for the earlier superman movies you'll know what I mean) 2 hours and 30 mins I was even happier. I go to the cinema lot and I can't remember the last time people applauded a film like that or actually the last time people even applauded a film.    

Just to make this review well rounded one of the things I didn't like was some of the over use of the Superman = Christ like scenes. There were only a few (which was good) but there was one in particular which I just thought was unnecessary. This isn't because I thought it was blasphemous or something just thought they didn't need to go there to make their point. 

Gripes aside this was my film of the year period. The action (the first main set piece in particular) /soundtrack were both suitably epic esp those scenes in 3D. The acting was great from all the leads (though Kate Bosworth did look a little young as Lois).I found it difficult not to compare Routh to Reeves but I thought he did a good job as both Clark and superman though his supes was definitely the highlight out of his dual roles as he showed a very 'human superman'                                                                     

Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor was not the comedy villain that Gene Hackman (don't get me wrong I loved the old Lex Luthor) was in the earlier movies. Although Spacey's Luthor does have a comic side his performance is altogether darker making him an even more dangerous nemesis for the man of steel.            

I won't go on (believe me I could) as I don't want to spoil it for anyone. Now yep as I said earlier there were some things I didn't like but they were seriously outweighed by the good. As for the 3D...DAMMMMM!!! 3D's come a long way since jaws...seriously you London based folks have no excuse get yourself down to the IMAX it's worth it.      

The Professor

Spiderman 3…  http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/spider-man_3/trailer1_medium.html  

Now as a comic book fan I always try and watch this latest genre of Hollywood money making as the churn out comic book based films, so I’ve seen a fair few from The Mask, to The Shadow, to Superman to Batman, to Blade and not forgetting The X-Men and to be honest it is getting a little tiresome as the films they have put out there had been getting badly made, but the recent Batman film with Christian Bale made fantastic headway, only to be brought back down with Ghostrider, which I never saw because it wasn’t in the cinema long enough, which kinda tells you how bad it must have been. Well Spiderman 3 was a great escapism and it fit in well with the previous two chapters of the Spiderman saga. All the mini storylines continues which was really good and Maguire and Dunst were both very good in the role of we’re just kids trying to deal with this whole super-hero thing. I enjoyed the film immensely and I would watch it again. The premise of the film was essentially the fame of being Spiderman gets to Peter Parker’s (his not so secret identity) and he gets a little cocksure, at the same an alien force has landed on earth, this force is attracted to anger and revenge, it envelops Spiderman and changes him, mean while he learns new information about his uncle’s killer which enrages him, along with that, the alien force also envelops Peter Parker’s new photographic rival, not forgetting the guy who wants to make enough money to get his daughter better or his arch enemy for the previous film trying to avenge the fact that Spiderman killed his father… as you can see there is a lot going on in this film. This brings me on the bad points of the film. Even as a comic book fan I did think the film was a little long, but the reason for it being so long was no doubt to give everything I mentioned above some descent airplay in the film. In my opinion this film could quite easily have been done in two films adding a bit more character building with the new characters, one thing that does get me in these films is the bad guys always get wasted (or do they) and then somehow they have to try and bring them back, but I just think if you look at my premise section again, they could have just take two or three of those aspects and made a much better, fully and slightly shorter film and no one would have felt short changed. As I said before I did enjoy this film a lot and would def say to you, it has to be seen on the big screen. Would I buy this film on DVD… absolutely, though I’ll probably wait for the triple box directors cut as I never got round to buying Spiderman 2, so might as well for the box set that we all know is coming out. This movie out of 10, I’d have to give it 7-8 only because of the length and there was slightly too much going.