Imagine you're a member of the commissioning board at ITV. You're trying to compete with top BBC shows like Sarah Jane Adventures, Merlin, and Doctor Who. So, what do you do? Do you gather together the best, brightest and freshest talent from the UK and brew up something wonderful, exciting and new?

Nope, you rehash the worst bits of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Sky 1 crapathon Hex to make Demons, the new six part Saturday night fantasy series that's set to compete with the likes of prime time shows on the other channels.

Although, someone needs to look up the the word 'compete', as Demons is the most badly written, paced, and acted piece of nonsense to hit our TV screens in quite some time.

If you were fortunate enough to miss it, the premise of Demons is pretty weak. Luke, an average kid (who spends the first half of his episode shirtless - thus ITV shallowly try to tick the teen girl / gay boxes) finds out from his mysterious mentor Rupert Giles - I mean Galvin (Philip (Life on Mars) Glenister) that he is the son of legendary vampire hunter Van Helsing. Yawn.

What's My Line? It should be pointed out that Glenister's hokey American accent is so bad it literally deserves its own paragraph. So dire and unconvincing is this accent that it tears apart any semblance of credibility the show has every time he opens his mouth. Quite why the producers didn't shift him back to his normal gravelly tones after the first day of shooting is incredulous.

The story revolves around Luke discovering he has powers (heightened reflexes and strength) *cough Buffy*, and meeting some of most poorly acted vampire monsters that clearly came from Big Bads R Us. If the main characters weren't bad enough the secondary ones are truly terrible, with Luke's maybe girlfriend, Ruby, particularly grating on the nerves.

Overall, an abysmal start to a series that should never have been commissioned - at least not like this. Right now there are no redeeming features to this series. Richard (Gaius) Wilson from Merlin is in next week's episode, but I doubt even he will be able to brew a poultice strong enough to sweeten this show's pot.

The greatest battle this pile of fetid demon poop will have to face is abysmal ratings. In the same quarter as you have spellbinding TV like Dead Set, you've got the abysmal trying-to-appeal-to-every-audience mishmash of utter drivel as Demons.

Overall: 2/10. Avoid.

Here is my top movies / games / TV of 2008, but as it was really a poor year, there's not much to write about.

For me, the pickings were slim. In fact, I've barely got anything to write about. I've barely seen any movies (I've not even seen that vampire travesty Twilight yet).

It was a year of remakes, with everything imaginable being remade in an industry devoid of ideas, and a year of books being made into movies. Clearly, the American Writers's salaries are inversely proportional to their creativity.

Anyway, here's my top things of 2008.

TELEVISION

• Dead Set (zombies on the lot of Big Brother)
• Merlin (wasn't as bad as anyone made out, but the scripts are still a bit lackluster)
• Doctor Who (but only for Catherine Tate - who was fantastic as Donna)

MOVIES

• The Incredible Hulk (way more exciting than Iron Man)
• Mama Mia (feel good movie of the year) 
• Wall-E (wonderful cartoon adventures with the super cute robot).

GAMES

• Super Space Invaders on the DS
• Dead Space on the XBOX 360
• Little Big Planet on the PS3
• Spore on the PC
• God of War on the PSP

FAILURES

• Heroes - it tried so very hard, but it's gone off my radar for being so - well - so very dreary.
• Disaster Movie - the first movie I've ever given a 1 to. These movies are generally so very bad (Epic Movie, Date Movie), but this one has NO redeeming qualities. It's just THAT awful. Don't even watch expecting to be vaguely entertained. Because you just won't be.
• Cloverfield - sorry but it was VASTLY overhyped nonsense. The handheld cam was dire, the story was dreary and the characters - well - who cared whether they lived or died? I have no expectations for Star Trek. I'm so tired of remakes I can't muster any feelings for another.
• The Happening - another nail in the coffin for the one-hit-wonder (The Sixth Sense) M Knight Shyamalan.

Of the raft of fairly mediocre shows to hit the US this fall, True Blood glowers proudly in the darkness. HBO's racey new series stars Anna Paquin (Rogue from the X-Men movies) as a telepathic waitress in a small town in the Deep South who meets Bill, a dark and brooding vampire who has returned to the town of his birth to live in peace (or at least that's his plan). It's a romance show at heart, but a dark and bloody one with a gratuitous amount of swearing and violence. It's any of HBO's other shows (Six Feet Under, Oz) on vampire-fuelled steroids.

Hang on, I hear you cry, a male vampire and a female human... Isn't that exactly like Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Well, you could make comparisons to Buffy and Angel's on-off (but mostly off) vampire / human relationship, but this is a far cry from the sugar-coated romance of other fantasy shows. This is dark stuff more with more similiarities to hororr flicks like 30 Days of Night and Salem's Lot than it has to kiddy-centric mainstream TV shows (which is probably why no one will ever get to appreciate True Blood).

While only three episodes have aired in the US, the show is already picking up speed with an interesting take on the vampire mythology. Named True Blood after a Japanese scientist invented a synthetic blood which allowed vampires to come out 'of the coffin' to integrate themselves into society. But, humans being humans, there's a lot of resistance to their arrival, and that's no more evident than in the small town of Bon Temps, where belief in God is second only to religious intolerance.

The show has already been green lit for a second season and with such an interesting premise, strong characters, and a delicious relationship forming between the two main characters, it's hard not to see why. It's not for kids, though.

Check it out here.

Pop Meister Alan Connor has released his new video for summer smash, Let Your Love Flow.

It's completely brilliant and you can check it out by going here (or by clicking on the linky below). Remember, if you like it, show your support by giving it a rating.

Well, I'm back from Zombie Fest 2008 at the Quarries Scout Camp in Milton Keynes, and it was exhausting, but phenomenal fun.

The story was that 50 people were called to Willard Valley to celebrate their yearly fertility ritual. The residents were right out of Royston Vasey and, quite naturally, the ritual went horribly wrong, causing the dead to rise.

At first there were only a handful of zombies, but soon, they managed to claw their way through a few of us, until they were many more, and in the end, well over fifty of the blood-soeaked walking dead staggering around Willard Valley.

I did an exemplary job of surviving for three hours, until I was 'advised' to pick up a gas mask, at which point I was caught by the zombie girl scout and succumbed to the infection.

Overall, a masterfully told story with great attention to props and detail.

This adventure game should have the same kind of fun action status as paintablling yet it's condemned to reside in the same 'geeky' area as Dungeons & Dragons Live Action Role Playing.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, check out this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ04mfAY2BU

But it was NOTHING like that. Great story, great effects, and some truly warm, funny, and generally all-encompassing people.

I had a great day, and if you're into zombies or fancy an alternative day out, then one of Terror 4 Fun's events is for you!

OK, I'm going to fly in the face of popular opinion and say I didn't really care much for The Dark Knight.

Sure, all of the performances were great, but I thought the story was a little flat, the action was a bit lackluster, and I couldn't help but think "what's the point of it all?"

Over and beyond all the other criticisms I had of the movie was that it was WAY too long. They could have cut an hour and it would have been a much snappier movie. It seemed to drag for me and I kept thinking: surely THIS is the end...? Not a great sign for a movie.

Of course, Ledger was great as the Joker; I didn't think he was as good as Nicholson's Joker, but he was still very creepy. I can't help but think how much better he would have been had the movie been R Rated - he could have really gone to down instead of seeming strangely fettered in this movie. It seemed horribly out of place in a 12A movie.

Overall: A strong 6.5/10. Could do with seeing it again to be sure, but it didn't blow me away as I expected it to. Great performances from Ledger, Cain, and Bale (although I found his Batman voice incredibly grating), but the story was rather too by the numbers for my liking.

And what on earth was going on with that I-only-move-at-two-miles-per-hour Bat Bike thing? 

It’s hard to say anything about The Nines without spoiling the story entirely, but I wanted to talk about it because it’s one of those under-the-radar movies you almost certainly won’t know anything about and you’ll definitely not have seen. But it’s compelling viewing and a worthy addition to the sci-fi/supernatural genres.

 

In fact, it’s so difficult to talk about any aspect of this movie without giving the game away. So rather than spoil it, I’ll try to give you reasons to watch it. The Nines stars talented actor Ryan Reynolds who plays out the story of three men in three very different realities. Their lives are all connected – but to tell you how would be to – you guessed it – to give the story away.

It’s hard to categorise The Nines. It’s one part The Matrix, one part Donnie Darko, and another part Contact. It’s at times creepy and you’re not sure whether it’s going to shift into high gear as a horror movie. Yes the second part is a bit slow and perhaps overly long, but when you get around to the third part that’s quickly forgotten – especially when the big reveal is just around the corner.

It’s a slow movie, and, like Contact before it, it doesn’t give away all the answers but is instead thought-provoking and leaves the viewer to ponder the meaning behind the movie. It’s beautifully acted; Reynolds looks and feels totally different in each of his three guises and the script is gorgeous.

Summary: A healthy, if somewhat unsurprising 9/10. This is a movie every gamer should watch. For everyone else, it’s just a great movie with a compelling and thought-provoking story. If you liked Donnie Darko then you'll love The Nines.

Remember last year when I saw The Lord of the Rings musical in London, and I panned it to high heaven?

Well, I saw it again last night (against my better judgement) and lo and behold, to my surprise, it was actually really good. They've cleaned up much of the dialogue and changed a few bits here and there, the songs are better and some of the actors have been replaced. It seemed to flow much better and the whole thing just felt a lot more like The Lord of the Rings.

Overall, I'd give it a strong 7/10. Well worth seeing.

Of course, the show shuts down in just another few months, so if you were undecided about going to see it, get on down there before you've lost your chance forever. It is worth seeing, especially if you're a Tolkien fan.

It's just a shame it's taken them almost a year to sort the show out as word of mouth has all but been the ruin of this West End musical. 

2007 is all but over, and here’s my list of the heroes and villains from the past 12 months. Overall, it’s been a great year for movies, games, and television, but do you agree?

THE BEST OF 2007

TELEVISION
•    Sarah Jane Adventures – Example of how to do a spin-off show right (Torchwood, take note!).
•    Primeval – great action time-travelling show involving dinosaurs and Hannah Spearitt in white panties – a fact that surely pushed up the ratings! A fantastic first season of this exciting show, with season 2 just around the corner.
•    Dexter – absolutely fantastic show with the right combination of – pretty much everything. Michael C Hall is perfect as the serial killer Dexter. If you’ve not seen it, watch it from the beginning but check it out at once! 

MOVIES
•    300 – Fantastic looking movie. OK so it’s not much on story, but it looks so great with its unique style that it deserves a place in my top movies of 2007.
•    30 Days of Night – Startlingly attractive horror flick. Sure it’s got its flaws, but it looks so lovely, you can almost forgive anything. Now, make a sequel with a decent writer and a proper editor and you’ll have one hell of a scary movie.
•    Stardust – genuinely fun magical comedy that’s reminiscent of those from the 80s (Hocus Pocus). My only gripe about this movie is that it’s slightly too long, but it’s still a fantastic ride with a superb (and slightly shocking) performance from uber macho Robert DeNiro.

GAMES
•    God of War 2 - It’s got boobies and move violence than you can shake a scimitar at!
•    Super Mario Galaxy – AKA the only reason for the Wii to exist. Play this game, it’s gorgeous, but once it’s over it’s back to the cupboard for the Wii until the end of 2008.

THE WORST OF 2007
Here are the sad losers of the year. Shame there are so many. Clearly, the entertainment industry has far too much cash to be spending on badly conceived ideas.

TELEVISION
•    Torchwood – In the style of Torchwood: this show was complete f*cking sh!te and you can kiss my a$$ if you think otherwise you son of a b!tch. A disastrous attempt at an ‘adult’ TV show with immature themes, poorly realised characters, and a profusion of swear words, which, clearly the producers think makes good adult TV. Newsflash: it doesn't.
•    Flash Gordon – Move along. Nothing (good) to see here.

MOVIES (so many to choose from)
•    Bridge to Terabithia – Stick to Hallmark where movies like this belong and don’t entice us to spend our £6.50 with false advertising…
•    Spiderman 3 – A crappy end to a getting steadily crappier series – where was the Venom action we all wanted? Oh that's right, there was three minutes of it! Apparently, the story got in the way of the action.
•    Sunshine - Nice face shame about the story. And, what the hell was going on at the end?
•    The Simpsons Movie - Too much hype and generally rubbish. Akin to an overly long and substandard episode.

GAMES
•    Bioshock – looked lovely, but devoid of anything new. Go play System Shock 2 for a far more fulfilling gaming experience.
•    World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade. Too little WAY too late for Blizzard as they release a half-arsed expansion with none of the content they promised. There's not enough here to reward their loyal fans of two years.

REALLY ANNOYING STUFF
•    The Writers Guild of America Strike! They’ll never make back the cash they’ve lost in striking, and their actions have hit their fans hard. Some shows won’t see the light of day this year and that’s harsh. Farewell my favourite shows. I will miss you!
•    Nintendo Wii Dominating Xmas - when it’s really little more than a glorified calculator (one of those solar powered ones, but a calculator nonetheless).
•    Manhunt 2 Being Cancelled - damn sensors, they’ll cut anything these days. First it was movies in the 80s, now it’s gaming.
•    World of Warcraft - this behemoth is showing no signs of slowing. Well, actually, it is. Server populations are way down, despite Blizzard’s protestations, but if games had populations dependent on the amount of new and revolutionary conntet, WOW would have been closed down years ago. If Sony can manage to churn out great content, new races and classes, why can’t Blizzard – who, after all, has a vastly larger developer team.
•    Rhydian losing to Leon in X Factor - coughs: “FIX”. That’s all I’m saying.

And that's it. The end of 2007. There is no more. I hope you had a great 2007 and that you're looking forward to more movies, games, and great TV shows in 2008.

The Golden Compass is based on Philip Pullman’s novel Northern Lights, which tells of Lyra, a young girl in an alternate universe Oxford under the control of the Magisterium, a malevolent organisation trying to suppress various beliefs of the population. Lyra’s adventures begin when she discovers the existence of Dust (ahh, Little Britain will never be the same again), a mystical substance which passes from one universe to the next (and whose meaning is not revealed in this movie). The Magisterium are trying to hide the existence of Dust. When Lyra’s friend, Roger, goes missing to the Gobblers, Lyra sets off the get him back. That’s about as much of the story as I dare reveal without ruining the story entirely. It’s a complicated affair with all sorts going on, but more on that below.

  

I loved this movie. It’s got elements of both The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, which is to be expected from a children’s movie made by New Line Cinema, but doesn’t suffer from it. The story is a complex one with a lot of elements, and it could be slightly confusing to some, with characters just popping up seemingly to reveal a bit of information before vanishing again. Other than everything being crammed in to just under two hours, it flows very nicely and there’s never a dull moment.

The special effects are seamlessly integrated into the movie, and I think they could easily have the best I’ve ever seen. The costume design and the faithful realisation of Pullman’s Oxford is equally splendid and the daemons (humans have animal companions that are their souls) look splendid scurrying and flying around in every scene.
 
The cast is fantastic. Dakota Blue Richards is wonderful as the spunky Lyra, and Nicole Kidman is perfect as the sinister and controlling Mrs Coulter. My only criticism was the choice of Ian McKellan as Iorek the dancing (I mean armoured) bear. I just hear Gandalf now and it ruined the immersion – especially when he was crying “Run, Lyra, Run”, on the ice bridge.

Other than that, a fantastic movie that’s faithful to the book in as many ways as possible. There are even simmerings of anti-religion smattered throughout the movie – which was nice the see the director refusing to shy away from controversial issues.

Overall: 8/10. If you liked the book, you’ll love the movie adaptation of The Golden Compass. Consulting my Alethiometer, I can see that all signs point to a sequel in 2009.

I went to see Ratatouille yesterday. It's a Pixar movie about a rat called Remy who realises he wants more than just being a rat and wants to be a chef. So when he finds himself in Paris - he sets out for the most famous chef in all the city with the intent of emulating him.

This is s a great movie that deserves to be seen by all ages as it has something in it to appeal to everyone. There are some really very funny scenes, and I haven't laughed out loud that often in ages. Characters are charming and it's an action-packed ninety minutes with very few, if any, slow moments.

Overall: 8/10. Very funny. 

Two things spring immediately to mind when considering the movie Beowulf:

1. The graphics (for this is a CG movie) are fantastic. There are places where it looks real.
2. It’s not a movie for kids. There were plenty in the cinema, but it’s a 15 and they shouldn’t have been there. There are a lot of sexual references (which, admittedly they won’t get) and lots of very scary scenes.

The movie tells the tale of the original poem of the 10th century* tells of the hero Beowulf and his epic battle with the monster Grendel in a Scandinavian mountain town. The townsfolk’s king, Hrðgar, built a great hall called Heorot for their revelries. But there’s a problem for whenever they carry out their bacchanalian joymaking, Grendel hears them singing, and comes down to exact his revenge – although you’ll have to watch the movie to find out why. The people lives in fear of the monster until – enter the burly Beowulf - ready to slay the beast and claim his reward.

This is pretty much a faithful retelling of the story – to a point. It’s about as faithful as it can be without being boring. It’s got plenty of action, and an almost entirely naked CG-rendered Angelina Jolie – who plays Grendel’s mother.

It’s very dark movie, and, contrary to the opinion of one very popular reviewer, one thing it’s not trying to be is The Lord of the Rings. It’s a lot more like 300 in style and direction (300 is far superior). It’s got dragons, monsters, and lots of magic in it, so, I suppose it IS like Lord of the Rings – if you look at it in that rather limited way.

Overall: 8/10. A decent fantasy epic with lots of eye candy, epic battles, and a fairly decent script. What more can you ask for?

Also, there are two versions of the movie, a 3d one and a normal version. If you get the chance, see the 3d version.

*I know the dates vary wildly for when the original manuscript was written. If anyone knows more, let me know. 

Set in the town of Barrow in Alaska, where it’s dark for exactly 30 days a year*, it’s a pretty cold and remote place. In fact it's the perfect place for a bunch of vampires to suck the life from the population.

Based on the graphic novel of the same name – it’s an interesting translation to the big screen – but unlike 300, it’s not particularly deep or stylish. It’s about a gang of vampires who attack a remote town - and that’s pretty much it. There’s a vague sub-story between the two main characters (who were previously married) but other than that, there’s not much going on. It’s a combination of The Thing, The Fog, and John Carpenter’s Vampires. With lots of gore and blood thrown in for good measure.

Overall, I tried hard not to like this movie, it’s got an overly slow build up which felt a bit pointless (as half the people the director spent all of two minutes getting to know will be dead in a fraction of that time anyway), but I can’t. It’s got some heart-in-the-mouth moments, and some really grisly scenes. The decapitation scene has to be one of the most gruesome in a movie; it’s pretty horrid stuff.

There are quite a lot of continuity errors and plot holes in the movie - the biggest being when the gang hide out in a house that’s been boarded up for winter, but when the story requires it, windows are strangely open and doors simply open onto the street.

The vampires are great, the make up is fantastic and but they were so evil - I couldn’t help but want some holy hero to come along (say, * SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT* Kerisan from Darkness Rises) to come along and blast them all into oblivion. Sadly, that didn’t happen here.

Overall: 8/10. Flawed, but a worthwhile vampire movie. I guess the mark of a good movie is whether it plays on your mind after, and 30 Days of Night has definitely left its mark. The graphic imagery, the horrific vampire faces, and the vast amount of gore is swirling around in my mind, reminding me that 30 Days was no mundane vampire flick. Although, what’s sad is that I can’t say exactly why I liked it. It wasn’t a great story, nor was it special in any way. It was just a great vampire movie. Does there need to be a more fulfilling explanation?

A word of warning. This film really is VERY gory. I cannot believe it was given a PG 15 rating in the UK. What were the censors thinking? Yet they can ban Manhunt 2, but it’s decapitations galore in any old movie. Oh, sorry, that’s a rant for another day.

It’s about now that you’re expecting me to close with some vampire-esque statement. I tried hard – really hard – to avoid one, but OK. Seen as it’s Hallowe’en. Go see 30 Days of Darkness, it’s one vampire movie well worth sinking your teeth into this Hallowe’en season.

There. Don’t say I’m not good to you!

See the website here

*It’s not really like that in the real world but we can make believe, OK?

This is a movie which came under a lot of criticism, and I don’t really know why, one, because as a movie of a horror computer game, it’s hardly going to be the Schindler’s List of film-making is it? And two: because it’s actually not at all bad, and as a triquel (ugh, pretend I never used that word), it’s far better than many of the endless spin-offs we’ve seen over the years <coughs, Matrix>.

Extinction begins where the second movie (Apocalypse) left off. Actually, that’s a blatant lie - the beginning of the movie bears no resemblance to the end of #2. It’s three years later and the writers have clearly forgotten what went on before. I quite like the start, though, because the characters are a few years older which gives a bit of credibility to the whole thing rather that pretending time is forever standing still.

The T-Virus has spread out across the world, transforming humans and animals into zombies, and affecting the environment. The waters have all but dried up and the world is now a barren desert. In fact, it all feels a bit like Max Max in places, with desperate bands of humans doing whatever they can to survive. Morals are out the window - when 90% of the world has turned into flesh eating zombies (that may live for decades) - you’re pretty much going to do whatever you can to survive.

The suits at Umbrella are once again seeking Alice for their evil schemes and, in order to avoid capture, she has left her band of zombie hunters to wander America.

I’ll leave it there (not that there's really a great deal to spoil). It’s an action-packed, explosion-wielding, zombie-lite story. The effects are great, Alice just gets better as a character with every movie; she’s an ass-kicking superhero with psychic powers. While she doesn’t do as much scrapping as I’ve have liked and we still don’t know how she got her powers or why, she’s a strong female lead who gives us just enough to keep us wanting more.

Overall: 7.5/10 - there’s life in the old girl yet. It’s a better movie than the second, with some decent action and a reasonable story (although it’s fairly hard to come back from the fact that the writers have destroyed the world). The ending is great with some meaty potential for movie #4.

Just finished reading Belle de Jour - the Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl. Such a great book. Belle has a wonderful writing style (although you never really know if that's the editor or not), and the book really is a fantastic insight into the world of a London high-class call girl.

It almost glamorises prostitution, although I'm pretty sure not all prostitutes have her lifestyle. Belle has such a unique outlook on sex, sexuality, and life, this book is a gripping read. While the sex is vaguely shocking, it's her interpersonal relationships that are the most interesting.

Now, where's the sequel?

After Doctor Who, the only way Billie Piper could go is down. Quite literally... For in her new role as Belle de Jour, in Secret Diary of a Call Girl, Piper plays an escort / high-class prostitute.

Going down... See what I did there?

This show is pretty racey with lots of very sexual scenes right from the outset - so it's definitely not for everyone. In the first thirty minute episode she has sex with several different men, has a chat with a purple vibrator in her hand and rides a man in his fifties with a saddle and riding crop!

She does walk around half naked most of the time, so it's not all bad, then!

Call Girl tells the tale of Belle (real name Hannah), who loves sex and money, and enjoys her work and the fact that she has two lives, the normal girl-next-door Hannah, and the fabulous power dressing, blowjob-revelling Belle.

And never the two shall meet. Or will they?

Piper is absolutely entrancing. She's highly convincing as Belle (draw your own conclusions) and this feels like the role she was made to play. She's a very sexy and confident woman, and uses every one of her assets to draw the viewer in from the opening moments of the show.

While the show's been given some criticism for glamourising prostitution, the show certainly is highly appealing, and I can imagine men all over the UK switching on to ITV 3 at 10:00pm on Thursdays for the next five weeks.

The spin-off to Doctor Who, the Sarah Jane Adventures started on BBC today at 5:00pm.

If you missed it, it was great fun. The Revenge of the Slitheen was slickly made, funny, and all round highly enjoyable entertainment. Elisabeth Sladen is enchanting as Sarah Jane with just the right amount of baggage to make her interesting, while being both tough and vulnerable in just the right combination.

Episode Two of The Revenge of the Slitheen is better still, and the teaser for Episode Three looks to be better again.

 

What more can we ask for while we wait for Doctor Who to return to our screens in 2008?

Apart from a much longer series of Doctor Who, of course. 

A fantastic start to the series.

Visit the Sarah Jane Website 

Wicked tells the story of the warring witches of The Wizard of Oz. It opened in London last year, and, on reflection, doesn't deserve to be called "A New Musical" at all!

Anyway, Wicked tells the story of Galinda and Elphaba, two young witches who meet at Shiz Academy. Elphaba eventually becomes the Wicked Witch of the West, while Galinda becomes Glinda the Good. Their story has been told in the Wizard of Oz, but this story focuses on how the Wicked Witch of the West became evil.

Being green ain't easy; just ask the Hulk. And for Elpheba, life at Shiz is hard. Tormented and teased for the colour of her skin, the self absorbed and selfish Galinda is the ringleader of the hate campaign against our emerald heroine.

But as time progresses, Galinda and Elpheba grow to become firm friends, proving (at least in theatreland) that it's not the colour of your skin that makes a person, but what's inside.

And what's inside Elphaba is that she wants desperately to feel validated and to be treated as a human (instead of a green freak). She believes (like all the idiots in Oz) that this will happen when she meets the Wizard of Oz. And when her magical powers surface, they become her ticket to the wizard.

Only there's a price to having magical powers: when you have them. Everyone wants them - as Elphaba discovers to her ruin.

With great songs, an even greater story, Wicked is probably the best musical in London at the moment. The theatre is packed every night. It's very funny, charming, sentimental, and exciting.

Go see it at once before I set my flying monkeys on to you.

With so many big budget movies coming out this year, who’d have thought that a little movie swamped by such huge blockbusters as Transformers and The Simpsons Movie would manage to shine so brightly? 

Based on the 1988 movie (starring the late, great Divine) and the 2002 Broadway musical, Hairspray tells the story of Tracy Turnblad, an overweight teenager who dreams of dancing on the ‘60s TV show – The Corny Collins Show.

Yet it’s not all plain sailing, for her unusual appearance earns her more than a little hatred from rival dancer Amber and her evil (studio floor manager) mother Velma.

While on the show, Tracy discovers there are more important things in life than being a star - namely ending the racial segregation that was so evident in the ‘50s (the show has Negro Night once a month). Armed with her new black friends, Tracy sets out to do something about it...

Will she win the final dance-off against Amber for the coveted "Miss Hairspray" title, or will she dance her way into trouble again?

Note: It’s a disturbing truth that the people of the last century actually thought it was OK to segregate blacks and whites. It’s sobering to think that the last century had black slaves. So far, blacks, women, and gays have fought for their freedom. I wonder who’ll be next (apparently, the human race doesn’t learn a great deal as the years pass by).

OK, back to the movie. Which has some truly fantastic casting.

• Christopher Walken – as Tracy’s father and owner of the Har Har Joke Shop.
• James Marsden is perfect as his names-sake (Corny Collins).
• Michelle Pfeifer – as Velma Von Tussle – Amber’s wicked mother who will do anything to keep her daughter in the Miss Hairspray competition. And I mean anything!

But it’s John Travolta who is the shining star of this movie! As Edna Turnblad, he / she is incredibly engaging (and has a huge behind). She sings, she dances; she adores cake…

It’s no secret that I love musicals and feel good stories and this one ticks all my boxes. In fact, I don’t think I’ve enjoyed an onscreen musical as much as this since Grease. Yes, you heard me (and that’s fightin’ talk where I come from).

The whole movie is hugely entertaining and incredibly endearing. It moves from one song to another effortlessly, and there are no slow parts at all. It’s a fun and light-hearted 107 minutes and well worth the price of entry.

Overall: 9/10 - it's bright, it's loud, it's colourful. It’s without a doubt the feel good movie of the summer.

This movie is well worth checking out (at least on DVD). Spray your hair high, get on your best dancing frock, and go see it at once.

I wonder the writers were stuck for ideas when they were writing the script for Transformers. I mean, it’s not as if they haven’t got enough source material. Transformers has had countless TV shows spanning three decades, two big screen movies, ten console games, and thousands of pages of comic books and novels, so it would be hard to go wrong with a movie.

Wouldn’t it…?

I like to think that when the writers were running out of dialogue, they grinned wickedly at each other (as though they were having the best/most diabolical idea ever) and said: the dialogue’s a bit weak there. How about another explosion!

Like the movie needs another explosion...

So, let’s start this review with the explosions. There are rather a lot of them. Now, Transformers is a kids’ movie, so you’d expect there to be explosions (lots and lots of explosions), but this is two and half hours of them, and not really much else, apart from a rudimentary story and some very confusing special effects.

Basically, the Transformers’ home world was destroyed long ago, but the Cube, a mythical device that made worlds, fell to Earth where it was lost. The Decepticons (the evil Transformers) are already here when the story starts, and the Autobots (the good Transformers) are on their way.

That’s about all you need to know, really. It’s a hunt for the Cube (which needs to be destroyed as the Decepticons will use it to destroy the Earth) - but that story gets lost along the way with all the explosions (did I mention those, yet?) and the main focus of the story: the military and how they deal with the arrival of the Transformers.

Personally, I think this was a weak angle. I’d have liked to have seen more of the Transformers as they’re not really in the movie a great deal) and how they deal with finding the Cube, but Director Michael (Pearl Harbour) Bay, loves his military action, so what we get is a movie about humans, from a human perspective, with the Transformers being relegated to second place a movie which really should have been about them.

The humans do all the saving, all the sacrifice, and most of the action, while the transformers just look blurry and transform from time to time from giant robots into cars, helicopters, and tanks.

It’s hard to say what this movie was really about. It’s could have been a coming-of-age movie about a boy buying his first car, or it could have been a gritty action movie about the military facing an enemy which could have been Korea or China (or even aliens!), or it might have been a comedy about Section 7 - a special branch of the US Government, or it could have been a fantasy about the Transformers, or…

Well, you get the idea.

Ultimately, as a movie, Transformers doesn’t work. It tries so hard to be all genres: children’s, farcical, comedy, serious, action, political, and all it really succeeds in being is army vs. blurry robots.

The direction was too fast paced. If they’d only lost a few of the more pointless story elements, made the movie a half hour shorter, and slowed down the action, it would have been fantastic, but right now it was too fast, too confusing, with most of the action shot with a moving camera at groin height.

My biggest gripe was that with all the computer technology bandied about, I at least would have expected to see ONE transformer up close that wasn’t horribly out of focus, instead, the fighting was a blur of motion in which the only way you could tell apart the robots was because the Autobots were brightly coloured, but even that was hard to work out when there were smoke and explosions in every scene.

Overall: 6/10. A Good Movie in Disguise (see what I did then?). A faithful rendition of the series, complete with blurry robots. Fans of Transformers (and explosions) will almost certainly love this movie, but I was left wanting more.

The Simpsons, they’ve been around forever. They’re the most popular family in the world, and probably the most dysfunctional. With nineteen TV seasons, hundreds of episodes, endless merchandising, and a stream of hungry fans wanting more, more, more, it was only a matter of time before a movie hit cinemas.

The Simpsons Movie is exactly like a decent episode in one of the earlier seasons (when it was still really good). It’s about three times as long as a normal TV episode (a bit shorter, actually) and if you’ve seen the show, you know exactly what to expect here. There is no deviation from the formula that made the show so popular in the early ‘80s.

The show has come under some criticism in recent years of losing some of the sparkle that made it so very special – and that seems to flow over into the movie. It felt as though the writers were really struggling for ideas. It’s funny in parts, but it’s more of the exactly same, with the famous five (Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie) all doing exactly what the audience has expected them to do for the last fifteen years.

The funniest joke by far is the Spiderpig story, which is very amusing (and is a recurring joke throughout the movie), but the whole story is weak, the best bits (as always) are in the trailer.

My first real grip was that it’s very short. Very short! It’s really only about 80 minutes long as there are very long end credits (and I mean long – they clearly padded them out so the movie didn’t look so short on running time listings). You’ve barely sat down before the end credits are rolling.

The show meanders along as there’s little or no real pace to it. It’s exactly like to average mid-season filler episodes, only with a bit of computer generated imagery for effect. Everything you’ll see here you’ll have seen before in another episode, and probably better and funnier.

Summary: 5 out of 10. If you are a Simpsons fan, you probably will be very satisfied, but I was expecting more of everything, more laughs, more visual humour, and something with a bit more substance.

The movie starts with Homer appearing on screen with the family at a movie theatre watching Itchy & Scratchy the Movie. He turns to the audience and says: you guys are jerks. Why pay for something you can watch for free at home?

And I agree.

This will be a very quick review. Why? Because if you've seen the other four movies, this one has a damn good chance of being your favourite. It's a better movie in every respect. It's got lots of great scenes, some stunning visuals, and it's not in any way slow or boring.

While very little happens in the book (J.K. Rowling's source material hasn't exactly been brimming with amazing cinematic possibilities), the movie hides it rather well.

This is a darker movie; the acting is far superior to anything previously seen from the trio, and it really is strange to see them all (almost) grown up when they were soooo tiny in the first movie. 

I'm not going to spoil any of the story; if you're one of the six people on the planet who hasn't read the books, but a war is coming, and Harry is getting ready to fight the Dark Lord by forming an army of his own. Harry gets his first kiss (mind you that's nothing compared to what he showed us in the West End Play: Equus) and Lord Voldemort is back (although he's barely in the movie).

There's really not much more to say here. It's a great movie. Far superior to even Prisoner of Azkaban or Goblet of Fire, both of which were excellent movies.

Alan Rickman as Professor Snape was exceptional, but it was Helena Bonham-Carter who stole the show as Bellatrix Lestrange - I'm looking forward to seeing her a lot more in the sixth movie (in which she has a much greater part).

There's not a lot more to say really. It's more of the same, but it's faster, darker, more colourful, and a superior fifth installment of the Potter series. 

9/10 - Spectacular stuff for Potter fans everywhere. 

It’s hard to write a decent review of this 25 million pound musical, as two of my party absolutely loved everything about it, while I was somewhat less impressed.

So, to avoid making this review utterly biased, I’ll list the good before the bad and try to be as impartial as I can. 

IMMERSIVE QUALITY (8/10)
It’s not like any other play I've seen. The set moves and changes with every scene. The actors constantly move around the audience, and fifteen minutes before curtain up, the hobbits came out to chase fireflies, which was very amusing and a lovely change from having to stare at the safety curtain until curtain up.

The whole show takes in sight and sound and uses all kinds of
techniques to draw you into the realm of Middle Earth – and very
successfully, I should add.

There is one truly stupendous moment and I don’t want to spoil it too much by saying what it is, but it’s well worth the price of the performance. I will say that it takes your breath away – quite literally – and that I am going to go see the show one more time, just to sample that one short minute a second time.

THE VISUALS (9.5/10)
I don’t think it would be possible to find a stage play with more incredible visuals. It’s clear where all the money went. Without spoiling things too much, when Frodo puts on the ring, he vanishes, eliciting a sharp gasp from the audience. One minute he’s there, the next he’s gone. It’s all clever smoke and mirrors, but is seamlessly done and looks incredible.

The next is the set. Based on a huge moving column, the whole thing shifts and twists, rising and falling in places, and looks very impressive. Every location looks different to the last and really is very attractive.

The creatures and locations are equally breathtaking. LothLorien looks stunning as a great tree descends from the heavens and opens up across the stage. The fires of Mount Doom are equally lovely. The Ents look perfectly acceptable for the walking trees they are, but by FAR the most stunning thing were the mounted Nazgul. They are simply breathtaking and a fearsome sight to behold. When they first appear your heart will be in your mouth...

But the show stealer was, of course, the spider Shelob. Black and massive, she creeps on to the stage and really is tremendously effective. And scary.

So the visuals are incredible. Really. I could talk about how breathtaking they were all day.

OK, we’ve had two positives so far. Now for the bad. And, in my opinion, this stuff was really, really bad.

THE SONGS (2/10)
This was a musical, yet the songs seemed tacked on almost as an afterthought. They were neither clever, evocative of the story, nor catchy in ANY way. I don’t think I could remember a single line or bar from any of them. Simply terrible.

This show should not be called a musical, because the songs are so dismal, uninspired, and awful.

However, there is a shining light here, and it comes in the form of Galadriel. Her one song about Lothlorien is truly stunning. She has a beautiful voice and her performance, as she comes spinning down from the heavens, swirling in golden silk and bathed in amber light, is truly spectacular. 

Thankfully, there weren’t too many songs in the show, so it wasn’t all bad (I’ve never heard of a musical whose songs last only a fraction of the show, though…)

THE STORY (1/10)
By FAR the worst culprit is the story. It bears no resemblance to the book. It’s a collection of names and places – but that’s about it. You would be hard pressed to discover more than a fragment of the story here. It’s a travesty for any Tolkien purist. Knowing what to expect, I’d turned off my brain, but there were still scenes that shocked me - why change a show SO much just to fit it into three and a half hours? They could have done a LOT better by making the scenes they did use more comprehensible. The creators had hacked up the book with no thought of how to make it into a musical that flowed properly.  

So Much Work to Do...
If they sacked the lyricist, the musician (who gave the songs a depressed Enya feel) and gave the job to people who knew how to write musicals (I don’t understand why they songs were so dreary), they'd have a great musical on their hands. If they made the story more akin to the book, and made it easy to understand, then this would have been a breathtaking show. But, they didn't. They failed utterly.

Being a musical, I’d have expected to have enjoyed at least some of the songs, but they were all (but one) lacklustre. This show utterly fails as a musical.

It entertains on every level except audio, in which it crawls in the gutter like Gollum, wretched and utterly miserable.

Summary: 5/10. Go see it purely for the visual spectacle, but if you’re expecting anything like a reasonable musical, go see Wicked – you’ll be far more entertained. There’s nothing of musical value to be heard here.

Links: You can see footage from the stageshow by: clicking here

My memory of Sesame Street is limited to the overly effeminate Big Bird, the (ahem) non-sexual relationship between Eric and Ernie, and the Cookie Monster.

Or was it Oscar the Grouch?

Hmm. Sod it! It really doesn’t matter anyway.

I clearly recall a random and irrepressibly cheery human whose face might have changed on a weekly basis, but whose cheer was nonetheless irrepressible.

And that’s pretty much it, really.

When I heard about Avenue Q, a musical parody of Sesame Street, I had to go. It was too good an opportunity to miss.

Avenue Q tells the story of Princeton, a twenty two year old fresh out of college who is seeking his Purpose in the wide world of New York. He finds his way to Avenue Q and when he meets Kate Monster and falls in love, his life is turned upside.

Only there’s a twist. Princeston can’t settle down until he’s found his propose, his one true meaning in life. And thus the complications ensure.

The songs are great. The show starts with It Sucks to Be Me! And it goes steadily downhill from there. But in a good way.

With songs like: You can be as loud as the hell you’re want (when you’re making love) and If You Were Gay. And of course, the extremely naughty The Internet Is For Porn (which, of course, like the show we all know is true but no one will ever admit)!

The show’s characters are equally reprehensible. With Lucy the Slut, the Bad Idea bears, and some very naughty language, you can tell this show isn’t for children.

A simple seven man piece, the show is effortlessly put together with many of the actors playing several of the key roles (sometimes at the same time). It’s rather clever stuff and harmlessly good-humoured fun that mocks sex, sexuality, race, religion. Actually, I needn’t bother making a list if it’s possible to mock something, Avenue Q manages it!

While Avenue Q doesn’t have much of a story beyond the basics it’s riotous fun. Go see it at once, you’ll be laughing all the way through.

My only gripe was that the orchestra was a little too loud and that you couldn’t quite hear the lyrics – and thus some of the very clever lines were lost on those who didn’t know the songs.

But overall, a minor gripe in an otherwise extremely funny and witty musical in which you are bombarded with moral messages, subtle hidden under the guise of humour.

And sometimes, learning can be fun…

This review was brought to you by the letters F and U.

It's strange, in this world of endless doom and gloom, that there aren't more movies about optimism, about doing the right thing and never giving up on your dreams no matter what the hardships...

Fortunately, The Pursuit of Happyness is one such movie. Will Smith plays Chris Gardner, a salesman who spent his life savings on purchasing a whole bunch of bone-scanners (which most hospitals view as an expensive luxury). He needs to sell just a couple of scanners a month to pay the rent, yet when they aren't selling and as the months pass, his wife starts working all the hours possible, and the resentment - and the bills - start piling up.

But Chris wants to become a stock broker, and risks everything taking on a six months scholarship with a firm on the vague possibility of a job at the end of it. As the money runs out - his quality of life takes a nosedive as he has to struggle with his scholarship and the needs of his son.

Based on a true story, the movie deals the concept of doing whatever it takes to achieve your dreams.

Basically, the moral is never give up and never let anyone tell you you can't do something (because they're probably putting you down because they can't do it themselves). We've all heard it. Heaven knows how many times I've been told to stop writing a get a proper job!

There are some great moral messages in this movie, which has some great acting from Smith and his real life son, Jaden Christopher Syre Smith.

8/10 - When you need a boost and you're sick of the endless rejections life throws at you - this is the movie to watch.

This will be the shortest movie review I've ever written. Why, because Shrek 3 is a pale imitator of the previous two movies and if you've seen any of the awesome ogre's adventures then you'll know exactly what to expect here.

Only there's far less of everything...

This third sojourn to Far Far Away is technically splendid. It has all the right elements in all the right places, but it felt a bit flat and falls short of previous excellence. While the voice acting is as splendid as ever,
it seemed to be going through the motions without managing to sparkle.

That's not to say Shrek 3 isn't a good movie. It's just nothing new or exciting and the gags are few and far between.

Despite that, this is a comfortable and very watchable movie. It's nice to see the old gang back and while very little actually happens and the story is wafer thin, it's still exceedingly pleasurable to see Shrek and pals explore the make-believe land of Far Far Away for ninety minutes.

There were times when it looked absolutely real (I know, I know. Ogres don't exist).

Overall 7/10. Like old shoes, great to wear for a awhile but after a bit you want something a bit more stylish.

When production companies make these huge high-budget movies, do they get together with talented writers and storytellers and creative, arty types. Do they brainstorm until they’ve created a sensational story…

Apparently not, for with the likes of Ghost Rider, you’d be hard pushed to find a story in the last few years worth of superhero blockbusters.

Now I’ve said for a long time that with the superhero genre being so fashionable, it IS possible to have a deep and meaningful story in a movie like this one. It doesn’t have to rely on special effects and explosions alone.

But sadly, in our current age of glossy, ultra shallow movies, engrossing scripts and enthralling acting are few and very far between.

Fantastic Four 2 is a decent mix of story and action. It doesn’t rely too heavily on story, but what there is is funny and reasonably clever.

The main characters are back, and this time they are used to their powers and are trying to get on with their lives as both people and the Fantastic Four. The wedding between Mister (Stretchy) Fantastic and the Invisible Girl is in the air and this time they’re going to get married, no matter what.

Or so they think…

Now, call me a hypocrite, but after all that moaning about there not being enough story in movies, I have to say: there’s not really enough action in this movie. There’s plenty of action here, but it’s just not enough.

In fact it’s never enough (and it probably never will be). There are some cracking scenes with the Fantastic Four saving the London Eye, but aside from a few impressive scenes, there’s still not enough powers in this movie. They don’t really do any fighting or battling any major bad guys, which, is the meat and drink of an action movie, isn’t it?

So this was an action movie, without the action. It was the sugar-free cola of action films.

But that’s not to say it’s bad, I would have preferred more… Another 30 minutes of scrapping and outrageous use of super powers.

It’s the same for the Silver Surfer. While an interesting character, he really doesn’t get a lot to do. I would have liked to have seen some proper fights between him and the Fantastic Four.

A sadly wasted opportunity.

About Galactus: Without spoiling the story too much, our fantastic foursome encounter the Silver Surfer, a being of great power and herald of Galactus - a being of even greater power and known throughout the galaxy as The Destroyer of Worlds.

However, the film company didn’t like the original purple and blue image of Galactus, so they decided to change his iconic outfit to – well – a big cloud-thing. This is the kind of change I don’t like in movies. While I appreciate they felt that a cloud could have looked better artistically on the big screen than a towering bloke in a strange helmet, why use Galactus if they’re only going to use him in name alone?

I just don‘t get it - and I probably never will...

Final Word: Now, after all that you probably think I hated the movie, but I really did like it. In a world of oh-so-weak superhero movies, this one actually stands out as something special. For an action movie, there are lots of missed opportunities for heart-stopping fights, but it really does work and it’s much improved on the original. It’s a more mature movie, which is exactly what you want from a sequel.

It’s also very short. At just 93 minutes I was surprised by how quickly it was over. I felt I’d only just sat down when the end credits were rolling – a good sign by anyone’s standards.

Overall, Fantastic Four 2 left me wanting more.

I wanted more action, more powers, more – everything.

8/10 – Fant - nope, I won't do it - Highly entertaining.

The thing about Bridge to Terabithia, is that there are two versions of this movie. There’s the one you think you’re going to see when you watch the trailer: a Harry Potter-esque, high fantasy adventure into Narnia…

And then there’s the real movie – a ninety minute story about the
rather mundane lives of two children in an American high-school rife
with bullies.

Of course, if you’ve read the book by Katherine Paterson, you’ll be
utterly unsurprised by this faithful adaptation which is lacking in
magic, or adventure of any kind. 

As enjoyable as it was, I couldn’t help thinking: why on earth did anyone make this movie? There’s not enough worthwhile content to fill ninety minutes and it was all just a bit underwhelming.

It doesn’t help when the trailer is brimming with all the special effects of the movie – it fails to show you the other eighty five minutes where nothing really happens.

I couldn’t help but feel a bit duped.

The two child actors: Josh Hutcherson as Jesse Aarons and AnnaSophia Robb as Leslie Burke, both do an awesome performance and it’s a pity Henderson isn’t a bit older as he could have been Harry Potter from the start. He’s just about old enough and would have been a much better choice than the lackluster Daniel Radcliffe, who, admittedly is starting to come into his own how he’s a bit more mature.

So Bridge To Terabithia is about to two teenagers, their lives, their relationships with their families and each other. When they discover Terabithia – an imaginary world that exists beyond the river – their ‘reality’ starts to blur as their magical kingdom is filled with mystical versions of the bullies they encounter every day at school. In the real world life is painful, but in Terabithia they are the king and queen and can do literally anything they desire.

While this was a pleasant enough movie, I felt it was out of place on
the big screen and was more suited to a made-for-tv movie. While the
special effects are good, they’re nothing compared to the likes of the
Sky One’s Hogfather.

Bridge to Terabithia just felt a bit too small to be on the big screen.

It’s a Sunday afternoon Hallmark Channel movie that simply cannot compete with the likes of Narnia, The Golden Compass, or Harry Potter. It’s sentimental, it’s nothing like I wanted it to be, and it’s needlessly sad.

But the message of the film is a good one: be happy with who you are – we’re all individuals and that’s what makes us wonderful!

6/10. Wonderful child acting, but stop making films that are vastly different to the trailer. It’s practically false advertising.

28 Weeks Later is the sequel to 2002's cult success 28 Days Later, a violent horror-thon detailing the outbreak of the Rage Virus, a disease that transforms the infected into living zombies whose only desire is to tear at the flesh of the living and to create more Rage-infected zom... Infected (we're not allowed to call them zombies - 'cos apparently they're not!)

It's a terrifyingly real tale of zombies and panic and has the unique privilege of actually being a good UK horror movie by Sunshine director Danny Boyle (oh how did you go so wrong with Sunshine?). 

So now you know the gory back-story, onto the sequel.

It's 28 Weeks after the initial infection and the zombies, I mean Rage Infected have finally died of hunger. But all is not lost, for the the US Army has cleansed a section of London (called District One) for the survivors to return to. It's home away from home while the rest of the UK is purged of the terrors of the Rage plague.

Robert Carlyle plays a husband who abandons his wife in the early moments of the movie to an Infected attack, and who escapes to find himself at District One waiting to meet his children who are being flown back to the UK from Spain (the UK was quarantined for six months until it was safe to return - which is why the plague was contained in the UK and didn't spread to Europe.)

These are the first kids to return to UK soil, and naturally, being kids, they don't understand the 'laws' put in place to protect the citizens of District One from harm (although there are no Infected remaining, there's terrible disease out there in the wasteland of London).

Without wishing to ruin the story, when these kids sneak away from District One - all manner of trouble ensues and it's a Chase Against Time to avoid being eaten...

Overall, if I had to use one word to describe this movie it would be: unfocussed. It's more about the Army than the Infected (who are relegated to mere back-story and really don't have much of a role in this movie). It's a cross between Night and Dawn of the Dead and really isn't any better for the wealth of source material out there.

The scenes in deserted London are excellent. As in 28 Days Later, there are many scenes of an eerily empty London, from Tower Bridge to aerial views of a city wholly devoid of life, but it still doesn't quite capture the bleak feel of the first movie, and, if anything, it's clearer here that the scenes were shot just after dawn (as there are huge shadows draped across the buildings).

My pet hate is the camera angles... They're all over the place and while this is 'meant' to look realistic and gritty, it just makes me feel sick!

28 Weeks Later is more like a kids' movie than it should perhaps be. It felt a bit like an adult version of the Chronicles of Narnia than a sequel to a horror movie. It's all explosions and gore and the Infected really don't have any kind of meat in this movie. There's none of the terror of the tyre-change scene under the bridge, or the chase up the high-rise. The Infected are just there, almost as an obligatory set piece. They're not particularly scary and when they're not slamming against windows (accompanied by the cheap musical sting), they're really not doing a great deal. 

As a fan of the original movie, I expected more Infected, more scary chases, more exploration of the story - more everything!

I was denied.

This movie contains none of the pacing, flavour, or story of the original. It could so easily have been a movie about the US Army facing a bunch of football hooligans in London.

I was sorely disappointed. 4/10.

I’d like to say that Spiderman 3 does not deserve the poor scores and harsh words it has received from the critics. In fact, as a pre-summer blockbuster, it's actually quite good. it's not mind-blowing by any means, but find out why below. This article is spoiler free!

Weighing in at 140 minutes, Spiderman 3 is a long movie, and it’s not necessarily better for it.

They say less is more, and in some cases that’s true, but this is a hurried movie with lots going on and very little time spent focusing on any one of the storylines. It could have been another half hour longer and that would probably have been sufficient time to give all the storylines sufficient attention. But that would have made the movie too long, and right now, it was already a bit too long...

Right now, there’s too little of too much here.

Firstly, there's a lot going on in this movie. In fact there's LOADS in this movie. It's crammed with so many storylines, Mary Jane and Peter, Spiderman versus The Sandman / Venom / Hobgoblin, Parker's friendship with Harry Osborn, the Gwen Stacey storyline - there are others, too. It's a lot, and in some ways, it doesn't really work as the movie could have removed any one storyline and still have a perfectly flowing movie.

Right now, it just felt a little constricted as no one really got sufficient attention. The venom storyline was relegated to what seemed to be an afterthought. He was barely in it, which I found sorely disappointing!

Secondly, Spiderman/Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) looks like he's going through the motions. There's little real energy from him - or from any of the main cast, and they just look as though they are reading their lines and going home (to a fat pay cheque). It all felt a little hollow, especially when they were delivering those heart-felt scenes that felt a little flat. Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) again is relegated to the hapless heroin, and again, she does very little other than stare longingly into the distance, and generally little else to move the story along.

She’s merely there for the villains to exploit (as they so often do in superhero movies).

Lesson 1 in Being a Superhero: Never date a mortal. Always date another superhero - a really tough one that’s impervious to pain!

The Black Suit: So much hype and excitement surrounded Spiderman’s black alien suit…  I remember thinking how cool it was going to be having an ‘evil’ Spiderman in a movie. That was years ago – in a more naïve time. After seeing Peter Parker/Spiderman’s evil side, all I can say is: never piss me off by cheating at cards! His ‘dark’ persona was a smug, over-confident asshole, and his evil side was wishy-washy at best. I’ve seen more evil in '80s TV glamathon Dallas.

Special Effects: The special effects were typically amazing, although I found the first fight between Osborn/Hobgoblin and Spiderman to be too fast, too blurred, dark, and confusing. Other than that, spectacular effects - well worthy of the Spiderman brand.

Not Enough Stuff: As I've said above, my ultimate gripe is that there's just not enough of anything in this movie. Not enough Mary Jane, Aunt May, Harry Osborn, Hobgoblin, Sandman, or Venom. And there's certainly not enough Spiderman, and when he is there, his outfit is torn and he's half Peter Parker underneath. It was as though Tobey Maguire demanded more Peter Parker time (for maximum exposure) so it's Spiderman in every scene with his mask off, showing the world (or anyone with a zoom lens) who he really is.

Suck it and See: I liked Spiderman 3. While I've spent five
hundred words saying what's wrong with the movie, there were some great
moments, some fantastic fights and some interesting character
development. I thought it could have been shorter, with fewer villains
and more attention devoted to those featured. There could have been
fewer tears and a lot less angsty Dawson's Creek-type moments. But
overall, it was a good movie, even if it did feel a little tired.

7/10 - it's not the movie we all wanted but is a worthy successor to the Spiderman series.

Another movie review, this time of the breathtakingly spectacular Howl’s Moving Castle.

Yes this is a Japanese animated movie, but before you start complaining about subtitles, incomprehensible stories, and chesty teenage girls in various states of undress, fear not, for it’s been completely reworked in English with top stars like Lauren Bacall and Christian Bale doing the voices.

Howl's Moving Castle is a romance set in a world of magic and mystery. It's got everything: magic, wars, strong characters, and a story that really pulls on your emotions. It's just beautiful.

I particularly loved the way the way the magic of the world blends in with the story. The world is filled with magical scarecrows, strange demons, and flying cars, but the most impressive animation is that of the home of Howl, his strange walking castle (reminiscent of Baba Yaga's Hut from Russian legend).



But what’s best about Howl’s Moving Castle is Calcifer, the fire demon. He gets all the best one-liners and is just about the cutest demon ever (quite like Abrax from the Summoner Chronicles).

Of course, as with many Japanese stories, not too much is explained and everything feels rather vague and undefined, but it really is a gorgeous two hours as the main character, Sophie, is aged seventy years by a curse from the Wicked Witch of the Waste (that's right, you heard me!). So Sophie seeks out the wizard Howl, who, she believes, can help remove her curse.

And Sophie, naturally finds more than she bargains for when she decides to meddle in the affairs of wizards.

Howl's Moving Castle is a gorgeous story and beautiful animation, so check it out.

I promise here and now that this column is not going to become dominated by movie reviews... OK, so maybe it will, and maybe I'm hopeless at keeping my promises, but that's the point of a column.

So, I just came back from seeing 300, which, as you will all know is a movie about three hundred nearly naked Spartans trying to resist the advance of King Xerxes' army on Sparta.

That's about it for story, but what the script loses in complexity, the movie more than makes up for in style. Absolutely gorgeous, stunning visually with some truly breathtaking moments.

It's very visceral and oh-so-gory (so not for the squeamish) but it's a really fantastic piece of film-making.

What gets me, though, is how people are complaining that it's not historically accurate. Who cares? It's JUST A MOVIE! It doesn't need to be accurate. I always say: style over dreary realism any day of the week.

After all, no one stood up and said: "Hey! Hobbits never existed?"

So ignore those naysayers and go see 300.

Just as I posted about how much I loved The Queen last week, I felt I HAD to comment on the movie Sunshine, the latest flick by 28 Days Later director Danny Boyle.

The basic premise is this: it’s fifty years in the future and the sun has cooled, or gone dim, or something... It’s still burning, but it’s a shadow of its former self.

So, the Earth sends the Icarus II armed with a huge nuclear bomb to restart the sun.

And, that’s about it, really. There no explanation, no real story, just the ship going to the sun and what happens to the crew along the way.

Now, I really don’t want to use my column as a hate-fest, but this movie was TERRIBLE. I felt like it really wanted to be like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but instead, it just came out as confusing, unfinished, badly edited, and left you with far more questions than it answered!

The acting was great, but the cast was badly let down by the story.

Sunshine was just a mash of drawn out computer generated space images and totally confounding scenes in which something (involving special effects) was happening, but I’ll be damned if I knew what any of it was about.

And the ending! Can someone translate?

In summary: go see it for yourself and let me know what it was about…

I’ve just watched the movie: The Queen, starring Helen Mirran. Never has a film touched me for such beautiful acting. Mirran utterly deserved the Oscar for best actress; she is wonderful as the Queen; distant, alone, aloof.

This movie was a ninety minute insight into the world of the Queen, the election of the new Labor Prime Minster, and the death of Diana: Princess of Wales. It portrayed Tony Blair in a very positive light and at first, I thought the movie was going to be anti-monarchy, yet in the end, it skillfully carried across the trials and difficulties encountered by the current Queen of England and set her character in a very intriguing light.



I always compare Oscar winners to The Silence of the Lambs. I think you can tell the sign of a good performance if you can see the role reflected in the actor’s eyes. It was there with Hopkins and Foster, and it was there again in The Queen, that stoic resolution carried by Mirran as the head of the British monarchy.

And with all the current speculation: was Diana Wales killed or was it all merely a terrible accident? I certainly have no way to know whether the events portrayed in The Queen were accurate, but it was a wonderful movie that really made me think about the monarchy and the lives of people who’s existences we cannot begin to comprehend.

And in this day and age, anything that makes you think cannot be a bad thing at all.