It’s 1981, the local Odean is showing Any Which Way You Can, Arthur, Chariots of Fire, Cannonball Run, Clash of the Titans, Excalibur, Flash Gordon and For Your Eyes Only. Ronald Regan becomes president of the United States of America. Bucks Fizz win the Eurovision Song Contest for Britain. STS-1 launches, the first Space Shuttle mission. The first recognised cases of AIDS are reported. Prince Charles marries Lady Diana. MTV is launched and you can buy an IBM PC for the first time, for $1,565 in America.

Oh, and Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark is on at the pictures.

That’s the context of the first movie. Three years later (1984) Temple of Doom is released. This is the same year the Apple Macintosh goes on sale, Michael Jackson burns his scalp, the 10th shuttle mission is launched, GCSE’s replace O levels in British schools. In the cinema, we’re watching Ghost Busters, Beverly Hill’s Cop and Footloose.

And then in 1989 the third Indy movie airs, The Last Crusade, alongside Batman, Honey I Shrunk the Kids and Lethal Weapon 2. Also in that year George H. W. Bush succeeds Ronald Reagan, the first GPS satellites are placed in orbit, in Alaska’s Prince William Sound the Exxon Valdez spills 240,000 barrels (11 million gallons) of oil after running aground. Seinfield airs for the first time. East Germany opens its borders, and the destruction of the Berlin wall begins.

That’s the world when the first three movies were released. A time many of us were in our late teens or early twenties. My generation. Those of us who knew who to call when we saw a ghost, knew never to mix gremlins with water, and knew without a doubt that aliens would want to phone home and lay their symbiotic spawn inside our chests at the same time.

A lot, and I mean, a lot has changed since those times. The 90’s came and went, and we’re at the neck end of finishing the first decade in the 2000’s. The world became smaller, and more cynical, and the technology of our dreams turned out to be the agonising painful support problems of our daily lives. We discovered we were really wrecking the planet like a bunch of petulant kids, and that maybe it was time to grow up and take notice.

Expectations changed, reality became so unreal that our heroes had to become doubly so to seem fantastic. The Lord of the Rings and the Matrix changed the expectations of movie fans all over the world. And we began to re-invent.

In 2005 we re-invented Batman. In 2006 we re-invented Superman.

And then there was a rumour, a fourth Indiana Jones movie, with Harrison Ford no less. Would we be seeing a re-invented Indiana Jones?

I’ll be honest, I was excited. I had memories of loving the original three films, although I’d not seen them in the cinema. I’d watched them over and over whenever I could, I loved them, they were a part of my life and my youth. I was nervous, I felt the Star Wars films had been handled badly even if they were mostly enjoyable. But we’d seen it was possible to get away with it, Batman Begins I loved and Die Hard 4 was a credit to the franchise.

So we went tonight, I took my hat but didn’t have the courage to wear it. I want to write a positive review, I want you to go and see this film, and I want you to enjoy it, as I just did, but you have to keep in mind the context. Spielberg has given us a sequel to the Last Crusade in all ways. The same style, the same dialog, the same approach. He hasn’t tried to re-invent the characters, he’s dealt with them honestly, presenting them as older but the same people. He hasn’t tried to give the story a modern context, or a modern ethic, he’s kept it tied to the 50’s and kept it in sync with the previous three.

It’s brave I think, he said he was writing this for the fans, and he has. Because compared to the three previous movies, it’s excellent, superb, entertaining. Compared to action movies of today, it’s lacking and misses the mark.

Which is a real shame, because it deserves to be enjoyed more than I fear it’s going to be. It’s fast paced, it’s got Indy’s dialog, it’s got action, it’s got good guys and bad guys and incredible artifacts of power and mystery. It’s the fourth Indiana Jones movie at its core and it should be loved and enjoyed for it. But it’s gentle and soft. There is no Die Hard 4 here, no Batman Returns, no serious danger or deadly menace. There is no adrenaline fueled fear for our hero, no doubt he will win through, just curiosity about how and about why.

So here’s some detail, too many characters I fear. We could lose three or four and the story wouldn’t suffer and the film would be tighter, leaner and better paced. We’d have more room for Indy and Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) to play off each other’s dialog, and more room for pace and movement. Instead it feels clumsy and crowded, with both Ray Winston’s character and Karen Allen’s reprised Marion taking up space on screen and giving little in return. Cate Blanchett’s bad girl isn’t convincing or terrifying at all, and I’m not sure the movie would have been much different without her. Her role appears to be a confusing combination of Arch Villainess and Deadly Black Widow but her interaction with Jones is cold and uninteresting.

The story is the most complex of the four movies, and overly so in my view, it could have done again with being tightened up and thinned down and the film would be no worse for it. It’s also the most far-fetched of the four, if that’s possible, and while I won’t spoil it for you I think it makes an attempt to tie the previous mysteries together which isn’t necessary.

With all that said, it’s worth seeing on the big screen, the action is full of action and the presence of Indiana Jones is undeniably engaging. It certainly didn’t feel like it ran for two hours, it never lost me, I was never bored, and I was always interested in where it was going next.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a sequel to movies written in a different age, for a different audience, and I fear modern audiences will be left wondering what the fuss was about. It is a good movie, you should go and see it, but it’s not great, and it’s certainly not going to be the greatest movie this year. Spielberg hasn’t let down the original fans, but neither has he delivered something younger and newer audiences will be clamouring to see.

Bucking the trend of trilogies in 2007 we get the 4th Die Hard movie. The anticipation, the worry. The fear! Bruce Willis over50 years old, could he really pull off another John McClane? I was definately nervous going to see this, more nervous than the third Bourne movie. This one had a real chance of being embarassing.

A friend had said it was good – which alleviate the concern a little, but still, there was much trepadation in the air.

The movie starts off by covering the years between #3 and #4 in 20 seconds, introducing us to McClane’s teenage daughter and setting his location and status. I found it useful, it dispensed with the background quickly and made sure that all we had to worry about was the story going forward. McClane is still a cop, still sarcastic and still getting shot at for no good reason. In 4.0 John is sent to pickup a minor league hacker, who has become embroiled in a Fire Sale (everything must go!) hack accidentally, and neither John nor the hacker are aware of how far the Fire Sale perpetrators are prepared to go.

The action kicks in immediately and the chase begins, because this Die Hard movie is basically one huge chase movie. The bad guys are constantly on the move, John McClane is constantly under attack through a number of mechanisms and the action follows them from location to location. The humour of Die Hard is present and as deeply ingrained in John’s character as ever. John’s sidekick is a worrying addition but it turns out ok despite my fears. The bad guy is suitably cool and yet deeply frustrated by John’s existance. The special effects are superb and the encounters are typically over-the-top; McClane survives an attack by a figher jet while driving a truck for example.

The plot is nothing amazing, but it’s twisty enough to be interesting, the final endgame is revealed pretty early on but then that’s not why anyone is watching (right? you weren’t hoping for an indepth and intricate thriller whodunnit)? The movie really just focusses on the core of Die Hard, John McClane fighting increasingly absurd attempts to kill him while getting ever closer to stopping the bad guy.

Without too much of a spoiler, the introduction of his daughter at the start was foreshadowing, and if you have to save a family member well the stakes are just that much higher …

It’s not as good as the original, but it is better than #2 and #3 and it is nearly as good as the original.

It’s the year of the trilogy and the Bourne Ultimatum was no exception. I saw the first movie (Bourne Identity) on DVD a while back and enjoyed it, but it was only on seeing it a second time that I really decided I liked it. The second movie (Bourne Supremacy) I saw on TV and enjoyed it, although it’s obviously not as fresh as the first. I had mixed feelings about a third, I wanted it to be brilliant, I feared it would be substandard. I was worried that they would be dragging the story thin, the freshness of the first movie comes partly from the lack of identity of Jason, but he gets closer to knowing who he is, and in the second closer again. Would there be enough left to provide a background? Would it just be a rehash of the first story?

And it was ‘good’, not superb, not as good as the first one, but it was entertaining. I still love the solid confidence of the main character and how well he’s portrayed by Matt Damon. It’s that confidence which brings the character to life, the absolute solid knowledge of what to do next, given any situation, and how to deal with it. It doesn’t matter if he’s right wrong or out-smarted, but his every action is steeped in raw confidence. His movements, running and decisions all come from that rigid absolute knowledge that he has to do exactly what he’s doing. It’s intoxicating.

The story is good, we get to meet a couple of familiar characters and a bunch of new ones, we get some new locations including London, and we get to see a yet-deeper conspiracy within the CIA, convoluting the entire story and situation even further than the second movie. The supporting cast is ok, some of the roles are a bit tired and some of the presentations are pretty much stock-out-of-the-bag, but it holds the story together and gives Bourne a platform on which to perform.

It turns out there is enough story left to delve into and we finally learn how Jason Bourne was created and who created him. We return to his birth, and finally learn what he was prepared to sacrifice for his country.

An excellent action movie, a good spy action movie, and a fitting if slightly-pale follow-up to the first two. A must see for the fans, a should see for people who like this kind of movie.

While based on a comic, the comic is based on the historical Battle of Thermopylae of 480BC. The battle holds a special place in my heart because David Gemmell used it as the basis for some of the battles in his books. From the moment I heard about the movie I was looking forward to it – and I wasn’t dissapointed. As a cinema going experience, it was superb. As a deep character movie with an intricate plot, it failed, but I never believe it was intended to aim at that target.

The imagery was excellent, the action, pace and direction suit the material and give the whole movie an otherworldly appearance. The characters are easily accessable (which is necessary because of the short time to get to know them) and the dialog clips along and keeps you interested. A movie about a single battle is never going to have much scope for a complex plot but 300 does well with it’s scope and offers a little bit of politics and intrigue to grease the wheels of action.

And it’s the action that drives this movie, the solid unrelenting nature of the Spartans, their charismatic king and their desire to die the glorious death. The cast is good, we get a range of warriors and characters to enjoy, and we get to see some of the best large scale battle scenes in cinema history, without losing any of the personality of the warriors in them. 300 is an excellent action movie, tense battle scenes, interesting characters, and superb visuals.

Not what I was expecting! The hype I’d seen suggested this was an action movie on a par with Matrix. It’s not, it’s a good sci-fi movie, but it’s not a sci-fi action movie.

There’s action in it of course, but it’s not the focus. I guess I should have known, it being a Philip K. Dick story.

Tom plays a cop in a ‘pre-crime’ unit, using pre-cognitive people who see the future, the cops are able to stop murders before they happen. Things take a turn when Tom’s character is seen commiting a murder in the future. If Tom avoids his apparent fate then how can anyone trust the visions the pre-cogs have of the future? If not, then our hero is in trouble …

There is intrigue, some action, some nice funny moments, some tense moments and a couple of jumping out of your chair moments. Two bits made me feel queasy.

I really needed the loo for the last 20 minutes, which detracted a little, and once I’d worked out ‘who did it’ it was a little hard to stay involved, but it was a good film non-the-less. Tom was excellent, supporting cast was nice, and the overall look was very good.

I felt that as with other short stories by Philip that have been made into full length films, there’s a few things that are just glossed over (they really expect us to believe that 3 pre-cogs and about 20 policemen can prevent all murders in a city this size?), some bits of the story felt as though they’d been shoe-horned in, and I was left feeling that not all of it held together.

Having said that, it’s well worth going and seeing it. It keeps you guessing, keeps you interested, and keeps you entertained. The pace is good.

It’s probably just as good on the small screen, it’s not another Matrix, it is a good come-back for Tom after his recent movies.

So, Attack of the Clones. One line summary, “Better than the first one, still holding out in the hope that the third one is excellent”.

Very entertaining movie, if I’m honest, and I do hesitate to say this, more entertaining than Lord of the Rings (not necessarily a better movie, but more entertaining). It had pace, drama, humour and all the elements we expect from a Star Wars movie. Some nice foreshadowing, some nice gentle pokes at the previous movies, light plot, light acting and some excellent action scenes.

If you doubt the impact of computer graphics in movie making, go and see this movie. A good cinema going experience. I will be buying the DVD, and with more enthusiasm than the Phantom Menace.

Aaaargh. Here’s a quick recipe.

How to Ruin A Sequel

• Take one excellent movie
• Take one charasmatic actor
• Overcomplicate the plot
• Remove chances for Actor to ooze charisma
• Add pointless elements and silly dialog
• Pretend the first movie never happened
• Place in the oven and bake for three years

They did it to Mission Impossible, they did it to Batman, and now they’ve gone and done it to Blade. The first movie was simple and focussed on action and charisma. The sequel is overcomplex (although not that complex), badly edited (I hope, otherwise the script sucked), and lacked all the charisma and chutzpa that made the first Blade rock.

We are to believe that Blade teams up with some vampires, to kill some even nastier vampires. The nastier vampires have nice special effects, gory that is, which we are treated to over and over and over again. Hey, I got it the first time guys. Blade and his Vampire Buddies hunt down and kill the other Vampires. And there’s a twist. No, really, there is. Honestly. Because hunting vampires isn’t enough (even though it was the first time around).

Very dissapointing. They should have just had the Blood Gang (the vampires that Blade teams up with) hunting him down, and him killing them off one or two at a time for 110 minutes, and it would have been far better.

The action scenes are ok, and some of the fights are nice, but they are too few to make this a good action movie. There is an element of horror, but not enough to make this a horror movie. So, it lies in the no-mans-land between horror and action, alone, ignored, and unloved.

A terrible way to honour the original movie.

You can, I believe, measure the quality of a movie by the lingering memory you have of it. I’ve just been to see the Harry Potter movie, and in no particular order, remember the following,

The rustling and chattering of children, and the distraction caused by it.
The role of Hagrid as played by Robbie Coltrane.
The quality of the acting shown by Harry’s two sidekicks, and the lack of quality in the acting of the guy who player Harry himself.
Deja-vu after having read the book and played the computer game so soon before seeing the film.
The excellent effects.
Alan Rickman for his excellent Snape.

It was ok, good, not bad, fun, enjoyable, but it wasn’t brilliant, it wasn’t astounding, I didn’t leave feeling enthused. I’m not sure why. Go and see it, try and avoid a time when the kids are out, but do go and see it.

Exactly what it said on the tin. More American Pie. If you liked the first one, you should like this one. Not quite as funny, not quite as fresh, but funny, lively, feel-good, and sexy to boot. Same characters, same overall concept, different gags along with the old, and, chicks 🙂 Slow in parts, side-splittingly-funny in others. I’d go and see it again, I think I’ll get in on DVD to match the first one, and I hope it does well. Won’t win any prizes for direction or script, but hell, who cares.

Superb. Go and see it!

A medieval romp through the delicate foliage of true love, honour and courage. This movie has pace, humour [oh the excellent humour], high emotions, on-the-edge-of-your-seat moments, and more. I’m sure there are detractors who will cry ‘oh how predictable’ and ‘oh but where was the twist’. Well to them – tosh.

We got hokum and bunkum by the bucket, and we loved it.

The characters were moving and interesting, the dialog was sharp, the humour had me laughing out loud, and whilst it may have been easy to predict the story and the results, it never detracted for a moment from the entertainment value provided.

Planet of the Apes ran in a straight line and I disliked it as a result; let’s face it, so did this movie, but here it didn’t matter, because we were being dragged along in its wake feeling glorious and enriched.

With a nod and a wink to the excellent Plunkett And Macleane we are given a period fantasy with a modern feel and an updated sound track. The movie opens with the medieval crowd singing Queen’s ‘We will rock you’, and the banquet dance scene includes modern music and dance in a period setting.

Excellent performances all round, but for me, Paul Bettany stood out as Chaucer. Audacity, charisma and an on screen presence which left me wanting more.

So generally, an excellent feel-good movie, entertaining, thrilling, funny, well worth £5.50, and one I will be buying on DVD no doubt. I strongly recommend seeing it.