The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian I suspect no-one will be surprised to learn that I loved this. It was wonderful. Prince Caspian isn't actually one of my favourites of the Narnia stories, still good but not AS good, but this was a brilliant adaptation. Eddie Izzard was fantastic, bringing to life the best character of the Chronicles by far. I can't wait to see him again in Voyage of the Dawn Treader as he has a slightly bigger role in that. I can see that the child actors could do with a bit more work on their acting skills, although William Moseley and Anna Popplewell obviously won't be back anyway. Georgie Henley I thought was very good, it's really only Skandar Keyes (Edmund) who could do with some acting classes to help him be ready for Dawn Treader, and even then I didn't find his performanmce jarring in any way. In fact from the moment it started nothing unsuspended my disbelief for a moment, apart from the mild desire to hear Reepicheep offer a Telmarine soldier "cake or death" :P I don't want to give a rating really, personally I loved it so much I'd want to give it 5 stars but objectively it's probably not a 5 star film. I did get slightly distracted wondering how much Tolkien and Lewis influenced each other discussing Middle Earth and Narnia, to be a fly on that wall... I've thought that before, when reading the books and it definitely came to mind again last night. Especially during the river sequence, which demonstrates the same theme of nature destroying the evil work of man that is evident in the flooding of Isenguard and the recapturing of the Shire from Saruman's industrialisation. Clearly this was something that both men felt strongly about. I completely agree with Aeon, I would love to have been party to their discussions.

In Humphrey Carpenter's JRR Tolkien:A Biography,little secret is made of Tolkien's dislike of Lewis' Narnia books.He considered them juvenile and disposable. It could simply be a case of Tolkien dismissing Lewis' work because Lewis essentially had the entire Narnia saga published in the time it took Tolkien to write and publish The Fellowship Of The Ring ... It seems a bit odd that Tolkien despised the Narnia books so much considering Lewis absolutely adored The Lord Of The Rings... Maybe he was just a cranky old git...

From what I've read, quotes and such like, he didn't dislike the Narnia series but he disagreed with Lewis using them as an allegory for his religious beliefs. Tolkien was much more into the subtle themes weaved into his story, and he always denied strongly that LOTR was in any way allegorical. From all the things I've read about them both, I've always thought that Tolkein respected Lewis and the Narnia series. To be honest they're meant to be juvenile, they're pure childrens fantasy, unlike LOTR or The Hobbit. Either way, whatever they felt about one anothers work they definitely spent a lot of time together and were great friends, it's almost impossible that they didn't have shared opinions and influence one another.

Well that's my point,they were great friends,but the fact remains that Tolkien wasn't a big Narnia fan (I'm not sure where you're getting your information that he did like the stories)..In the introduction to LOTR,Tolkien states that he utterly despises allegory in any of its manifestations,so possibly that could be a reason for his bete noir with Lewis' Narnia books... I have two Tolkien biographies,and both clearly state that he considered Lewis' literary output 'beneath' the man's capabilities... There was a definite 'cooling off' in their friendship when Lewis married Joy Gresham (in 1956,two years after the first published edition of FOTR) ,and in subsequent years,although this seems more attributable to Tolkien than Lewis,and Tolkien was deeply upset by Lewis' death in 1963... For all their similarities,their literary output remained very different from one another...

Troy : Directors Cut So much better story-wise and the battle scenes put this version on par with a better epic.

Well that's my point,they were great friends,but the fact remains that Tolkien wasn't a big Narnia fan (I'm not sure where you're getting your information that he did like the stories)..In the introduction to LOTR,Tolkien states that he utterly despises allegory in any of its manifestations,so possibly that could be a reason for his bete noir with Lewis' Narnia books... I have two Tolkien biographies,and both clearly state that he considered Lewis' literary output 'beneath' the man's capabilities... There was a definite 'cooling off' in their friendship when Lewis married Joy Gresham (in 1956,two years after the first published edition of FOTR) ,and in subsequent years,although this seems more attributable to Tolkien than Lewis,and Tolkien was deeply upset by Lewis' death in 1963... For all their similarities,their literary output remained very different from one another... I didn't say he liked the Narnia stories, I said he respected Lewis and his work. I know he didn't like them as such, but I also have never got the impression tat he actively disliked them. I'm certain that I could be very wrong on this though. I have personally always felt that Tolkien missed the point of the Chronicles of Narnia, because I think Lewis intended them as pure and simple magical childish escapism, first and foremost, and never designed them to show off his considerable intellect. Tolkien had a totally different aim to his work. I've also read several Tolkien biographies (two and a half, the third was just rubbish!) and two of Lewis so I do know what you're saying. I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm certainly not implying that their literary output was similar or even comparable on most levels, but there are some elements of their work which suggest they held some similar beliefs and opinions. Anyway, this is somewhat off topic. Sorry everyone!

Midnight Cowboy (1969), British director John Schlesinger went to America with this low-budget drama, and it helped change the course of cinema forever!! This has dim-witted Texan Joe Buck (Jon Voight), travelling to New York to make his fortune as a hustler, but it doesn't work out as well as he hoped. But he soon falls in with down-and-outer Rico Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), who happens to have tuberculosis, the two form a very close friendship and end up depending on one another to survive in the slums of New York. This is a film that will always stand the -*test*-('") of time, it shows the dark side of late 1960's America, but stuff like this happens all the time anywhere in the world, but Schlesinger paints a good picture of America at this time, with an outsiders view of the curiousities of the land of the free. It helped put Hoffman and Voight on the road to superstardom, and it became the first 'X' rated film to win the Best Picture Oscar. An engaging and ultimately heartbreaking film of the pursuit of the American Dream. 5/5

Irresistible (1st view) – Susan Sarandon, Sam Neill and Emily Blunt take the leads in this Australian set film. Sarandon is convinced that that her marriage is under threat and her wife’s secretary is tying to steal her husband. It’s melodramatic, predictable and the final twist is signalled very early on, but it rattles along in it’s own enjoyable way – 3/5 Wah-Wah (1st view) – The directorial debut from Richard E Grant is a semi-autobiographical account of his childhood in South Africa. It’s never quite as interesting or engaging as it deserves to be, but a fine cast, Gabriel Byrne and Emily Watson being particularly memorable, helps it along – 3/5 The Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian (1st view) – Like it’s predecessor, there’s plenty about this that I would change but it’s hugely entertaining, feeling a good deal shorter than it’s 2 and a half hours. The elder kids are still quite poor, Georgie Henley as Lucy outshines them. The action scenes are quite spectacular (if often reminiscent of another recent fantasy adaptation), and Harry Gregson Williams has bettered his previous score for the series. Not a masterpiece, but great fun – 4/5 Spiderman 3 (2nd view) – Many people had problems with this film. Most often the cause for concern was too many villains, who were poorly written, too much CGI or the fact that the film was generally crap. I disagree with all that. For me, the problem is Kirsten Dunst. I absolutely cannot stand her and her vapidness. She’s been the worst thing about all 3 films in the series. Beyond her though, this is great popcorn entertainment if you’re in the right frame of kind for some mindless action – 4/5 Kinky Boots (1st view) – Joel Edgerton inherits a shoe factory hat is on the verge of bankruptcy. After a chance encounter with cross-dresser Chiwetel Ejiofer he decides to make shoes for a niche market. This is a hugely endearing and often very funny film, with some sterling performances, particularly from Ejiofer, who is rapidly becoming one of my favourite modern actors - 4/5 Dreamgirls (1st view) – I’m not really sure what to make of this. The story is really nothing original, rags to riches, the downside of fame etc. Some of the sings are excellent; some made my teeth ache and the acting ranges from quite bad to quite good. How on earth Jennifer Hudson won an Oscar is beyond me. It’s far from a good film, but it isn’t that bad, it isn’t all that interesting but neither was it completely disengaging. A curiosity – 3/5 Wanted (1st view) – A completely insane, over the top action film. If ever a film fell into the “brain at door” category, it’s this. It’s a bit like last year's Shoot’Em Up but 10 times more entertaining. James McAvoy is decent as the lead (although his accent took some getting used to), Angelina Jolie has little to do but look sexy (and as someone who has never found her attractive, she does look sexy indeed) and Morgan Freeman offers his own brand of wisdom, much like he has done in every film for he last 15 years. Still, it’s the action that this film will be remembered for, and rightly so, as the action scenes are completely unbelievable yet always compelling and entertaining, even when being morally questionable at the same time Great fun – 4/5 Basic Instinct 2 (1st view) – This was just bad, almost falling into “so bad it’s good” territory. I feel sorry for David’s Morrissey and Thewlis, they are both fine actors but saddled with some awful stuff to say here. Still, it’s Sharon Stone who is the worst thing. Plain awful. Unbelievable and wooden. Just crap. And yet still, I had something of a fun time watching it. I know I shouldn’t, but I did – 2/5 Extraordinary Rendition (1st view) – Omar Berduoni gets kidnapped, drugged and shipped off to a foreign country only to be interrogated and tortured at the hands of Andy Serkis. He’s accused of being a terrorist even though he’s innocent and upon his release has trouble readjusting to normal life. It’s all quiet predictable and the improvised nature of the film has a Ken Loach feel but none of the realism of his features. It’s all a bit heavy handed and ham fisted – 2/5

Hancock Interesting premise which was great until the last 20mins which seemed out of place in the movie and tacked on in a rush. Will Smith was great as always as was the underrated Jason Bateman. Overall it could of been so much better if Peter Berg had made use of its potential 7/10

Troy (3rd view) – I’ve seen the theatrical cut twice now but this was my first viewing of the Director’s cut. I’m on of the few who seemed to genuinely like the TC, so the chances of me liking this were fairly high. The battle scenes now have a far greater impact, more ferocity and anger in them, more of a spectacle. Some of the characters have also been almost revamped with the inclusion of extra scenes. There’s a great cast here as well, though it’s a shame that a few let the side down. Eric Bana, Sean Bean (sorely underused, even with new footage), Brendan Gleason and Brian Cox are the best here. The great Peter O’Toole is quite woeful though, and the women do little more than look pretty. It’s actually Brad Pitt that’s the biggest fault for me. He might look the part but his delivery of lines seem ill at ease, he’s been far better in many other films. Still, for all it’s faults this is still highly watchable and entertaining – 4.5 The Namesake (1st view) – Mira Nair’s coming of age drama tells the story of Gogol (Kal Penn), a young Indian man who was born and bred in America, his immigrant parents, and the troubles he has while exploring his heritage. It’s well acted and competently made, but never really all that engrossing. Reasonable – 3/5 American Gangster (2nd view) – My first look at the extended cut of the film, and it flows better than the theatrical edition. Ridley Scott once again brings a world that is foreign to many of use to life. The soundtrack is littered with great tunes from the 60s and 70, and there is a fantastic cast. Best of all though, is Denzel Washington. I was gutted when he was forgotten come awards season, he gives one of the best performances this decade. Sympathetic, formidable, caring, complex and damned scary at times, it’s easily one of his best roles – 4/5 The Chumscrubber (1st view) – The more independent and quirky films I watch, the more I come to dislike there quirkiness and independentness. Following on from the likes of Igby Goes Down and Thumbsucker, teenage misfits take centre stage in a film that has great cast wasted playing unsympathetic, unbelievable film stereotypes within a story of no importance and situations that don’t engage in the sligh-*test*-('"). Ralph Fiennes, Jason Isaacs, William Fichtner, Glenn Close, Allison Janney, and Jamie Bell could be dream cast, but not one of them can make an impact in this. Give me a Michael Bay cheese fest any of of the week over this. – 2/5

The Game (1997), David Fincher's most underrated film, (never mind Alien³), this is a suspensful and mysterious thriller which has rich financier Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas), who has just turned 48, receiving a visit from his estranged brother Conrad (Sean Penn), who has a peculiar present for him. It's a game set up by a company called Consumer Recreation Services, the game begins, and it soon takes over Nicholas' life, bad and weird things start happening to him, and he becomes determined to get to the bottom of who's behind all of it. It's got imagery and moments that are typical of Fincher, he gets the best out of his actors, and keeps on piling on the twists and turns throughout the film. It's just as good as Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac, well worth another look if you have seen it... ;) 4/5

Rambo That was crap, barring Julie Benz. She's lovely :D

1941 (1979), Steven Spielberg's mad and wild war comedy, which helped bring down the curtain of the New Hollywood era of the 1970's, but it isn't all bad, you know. This multi-layered film has several different groups of Californian residents, living in and around Los Angeles, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, preparing themselves for a Japanese invasion, but they only succeed in fighting each other. This is the film that could have killed Spielberg's career, but it didn't, if anything it's a cautionary piece of creative excess gone mad, and compared to mordern comedy's you get today, it's very good. To it's credit, it's got a good cast, (Dan Aykroyd, Ned Beatty, John Belushi, Christopher Lee, Toshirō Mifune, Warren Oates, Robert Stack, Eddie Deezen, John Candy and Slim Pickens), it's beautifully shot by William A. Fraker and it features some brilliant special effects that are just as good as those from any other Spielberg film. One in need of a rediscovery... ;) 4/5 Salome's Last Dance (1988), one of Ken Russell's forgotten 80's films, a little low-budget piece set in 1892. It has Oscar Wilde (Nickolas Grace), coming a brothel owned by Alfred Taylor (Stratford Johns), to watch a production of his recently banned play, Salome, which is performed by prostitutes. It features Wilde's homosexual lover Lord Alfred Douglas (Douglas Hodge) as John The Baptist, and Lady Alice Kensington-Windsor (Glenda Jackson) as Herodias, what follows is a performance of Salome, with Wilde watching. It's structure is not a million miles away from what Russell did with The Boy Friend (1971), only this is more explicit, and it does have O.T.T. acting and imagery we have all come to expect from Russell, (midget Rabbi's and the titular dance done to Grieg's In the Hall of the Mountain King), an underrated film. 3/5

Hellraiser (1987), the film that put Clive Barker on the map as a new master of horror. Hellraiser has a dangerous man called Frank Cotton (Sean Chapman), who buys a mysterious box which kills him, but he is accidentally revived when his brother Larry (Andrew Robinson) and his wife Julia (Clare Higgins), move into Frank's old house, and to revive Frank, murder comes into it. It's quite dated now, and it's reputation tarnished by the number of sequels that followed it, but it does have a few good tricks up it's sleeves, and for a low-budget British horror film, it is incredibly well made and has a professional look to it. 3/5