The only reason I did not give this movie five stars was because of the spiders. I'm severely arachnophobic, and if I'd known what was to come in the last half hour, I would probably never have hired this film.
That aside, I was disappointed to read so many negative inferences into the film. I did not see it as perpetuating the whole 'Jocks/mainstream is good - Goth is evil' thing. It was, however, a strong effort to warn both mainstream students about the evil in oppressing someone just because they are a little bit different (karma always comes back to bite you in the back), and a warning to anyone suffering at the hands of bullies about the dangers of trying to take revenge.
I also believe people have completely mis-interpreted the thanksgiving prayer right at the end of the film. It was a young man who was making his first effort at saying a prayer, and if anyone thinks God wouldn't have had a smile for him needs to take a good look at their own attitudes.
There is plenty to be positive about with this movie. One of my favourite points was when one of the Goth students tries to hang himself, and one of the jocks that had previously been harassing him ran to help and save him.
Hangman's Curse is a good story. My only concern is the lack of emphasis on the family's Christian beliefs. It is worth watching, though - assuming you're not arachnophobic.

Firstly, I want to say that I do like this book and found it an enjoyable read. However:
Allinon = Gandalf
Shea = Frodo
Flick = Samwise
Balinor = Aragorn
Brona = Sauron
'Skull Bearer' = Ringwraith/Nazgul

Need I say more...?

I would just love to launch into an abusive diatribe over this film, but I'll make the effort to restrain myself. Personally, I thought it was pathetic. This was not so much the lack of Macaulay Culkin in the role of Kevin. I thought the new kid did an okay job. At least he could act.
However, what completely and utterly ruined this for me was the use of French Stewart as Marv. Now, I'm sorry, but no one will ever equal Daniel Stern's performance as Harry's dopey sidekick. The facial expressions were hysterical, where French Stewart is a one-expression actor: squinty.
That is all he seems to know how to do - squint. Perhaps it's a throwback to his days on 3rd Rock, but if they just had to try to cash in on the Home Alone franchise one more time, why, oh why did they have to choose Stewart as the bad guy?
I'm sorry, I'm starting to rant.
Moving on:
The acting from the rest of cast is actually quite decent, and some of the stunts are funny enough to get some good laughs.
The movie follows the typical Home Alone plot. Child is left alone, for whatever reason. Child uncovers dastardly plot. Child foils dastardly plot, employing various lethal techniques. Child makes friends with social outcast. Child reunites otherwise dysfunctional family in time for end of movie.
Admittedly, they have attempted to provide H.A.4 with a twist or two, particularly involving the bad guy/s. But the decision to have Mother & Father McAllister separated, and Father A. shacked up with a rich girlfriend...? The only plus out of that was the 'automatic house' which Kevin so abely worked to his advantage.
Disasters are aplenty in this movie, the same as with its three predecessors, but unless you're a devoted French Stewart fan, I'd recommend renting this one only. Because the guy is just so damn wooden in his performance, it's painful to watch. (His one-dimensional acting spoiled a potentially good film in Inspector Gadget 2, as well)
Rent if you will, but otherwise don't waste your money.

The Return of the King soundtrack is truly the perfect finish to this wonderful trilogy. It differs from the first two soundtracks in that there is no single outstanding theme - until the final track.
Where Fellowship had 'The Bridge of Khazad Dum ', and Two Towers had 'Forth Eorlingas', much of the music in this third installment seems to be quite neutral in comparison, and a lot is remixing of original themes. However, this is not to say that there are not highlights in the music.
The fifth track, 'The Steward of Gondor', features the almost angelic vocal talents of Billy Boyd who sings a very sad and mournful theme. We are also treated to a short rendition from Viggo Mortensen in track 17, 'The Return of the King'.
The absolute highlight of the CD, however, would have to be the final track, 'Into the West' by Annie Lennox.
Put into context with the feature songs of the two previous soundtracks, 'Into the West' really does finish it off beautifully.
'May It Be' (sung by Enya for Fellowship) was a song full of bittersweet hope. 'Gollum's Song' (The Two Towers) was all about betrayal and despair. 'Into the West' marks the end of the long journey, the renewal of life and hope, and the end of all grief and pain.
The words are poignant:
'What can you see on the horizon?
Why do the white gulls call?
Across the sea a pale moon rises,
The ships have come to carry you home.'
This is the end of Frodo's journey, and he finally has the chance to find peace for himself. The music matches the mood perfectly, and is the most fitting end to this brilliant trilogy of music.

I watch movies such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Event Horizon, and other such gruesome mind-bending flicks, and I have to say that none affected like the boot camp scenes in Full Metal Jacket.
I don't know how realistic any of this film was, and I have to confess that I ceased to watch it after the final scene when Leonard kills the drill sergeant, then turns his gun on himself.
I've rated this 4 stars because it had such an impact on me, not necessarily because I really enjoyed it. I didn't, not in the slightest. But I do appreciate the incredible talent displayed by the likes of Vincent D'Onofrio.
The scenes that have stayed with me the most were firstly the assault on Leonard by his fellow recruits and, curiously, the scene when Leonard began to finally do things right. Ironically, this, along with the assault, marked the beginning of his break-down.
I won't say anymore on this film. I'm hoping that by putting something down of the effect it has had on me, that I'll be able to put it to the back of my mind.
Suffice to say, don't watch this if you don't want to see anything really confronting. Realistic or not, Full Metal Jacket is severe in the worst and best possible ways.

I liked Home Alone. I loved Home Alone 2. I didn't think anything could possibly top the sight of Tim Curry on his knees telling a fictitious hotel patron that 'he loved him'.
Boy, was I wrong.
Many people seem to have taken issue with Home Alone 3 because it does not follow on directly from the 2nd film in the series. Really, is that such a huge deal? If anything, it's what made this movie work. They didn't try to make another 'Kevin' story, but went for something totally different, just using the same plot - David vs. Goliath in a house of horrors that David set up.
And as for trashing Alex D. Linz in the role, please.... At least this child could act. My biggest gripe with the first two Home Alone movies was that Macauly Culkin constantly sounded like he was reading his lines straight out of the script, rather than something that was rehearsed.
But back to the story. The premise of this tale is that four criminal masterminds have obtained a stolen chip, with the intention of selling it to a mega-rich (mega-dangerous) buyer.
Through a totally plausible mix up at the airport, the chip (which is hidden inside a remote controlled toy car) ends up in the hands of an elderly lady. The crooks chase her all the way back to Chicago to try and recover the chip and save their own rear ends.
This is another factor which worked well for the movie. Whereas with the first two films, it was funny because Harry and Marv were such an obvious pair of morons. The four crims in HA3 are supposed to be smart, which makes it so much more delicious when Alex makes idiots of them.
The hero of the story, Alex, is by himself not through any family holiday mix-ups, but rather because he has chicken pox, and both parents have to work. Like Kevin McAllister, Alex is portrayed as being rather hard done by as far as his family goes. He's the butt of endless jokes and tormenting by his older brother and sister, and when he begins reporting the suspicious activity going on his neighbourhood, no one will believe him.
Hence, he decides eventually to take matters into his own hands, find out just what is going on and do something about it.
There are some absolutely hilarious scenes in this film. Particularly the scene when Alex sends the car with a video camera taped to the top to try and get evidence to prove he is not lying.
And the inevitable confrontations in the end with the crooks have to be seen to be believed.
The best parts to watch for are firstly the incident with the mouse and the iron bar. If you thought Marv's screams in Home Alone 2 (when the pigeons were attacking them) were hysterical, then this one surpasses all possible expectations. Who would have thought a grown man was capable of hitting such a perfect high note...?
And secondly, the parrot is a complete crack-up. Watch for the shower scene, it's the best.
Like the first two movies, this has the standard little-boy-makes-friends-with-aloof-and-outcast-neighbour ploy. The plot is basically the same in all three movies, but the introduction of a completely new cast has done wonders.
This film is not the disaster that some would have you believe, and if you enjoyed the first two Home Alone movies, then it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't like the 3rd installment. Just do yourself a big favour, see it for yourself and make up your own mind. Because it really is worth it.

I'm only attaching my review to this particular video because I can't do it for all of them. I haven't actually seen this, and I have no intention of ever seeing it, or any other Steve Irwin productions.
Speaking as a born and bred Aussie, I'd just like to say that if Americans and people of other nationalities think that all Aussies act and speak like Steve Irwin, then God help Australia. I have no idea how he became so popular in the US, but he is so well-loved in Australia that his show was cancelled in record time and we only have to put up with seeing him on government quarantine advertisments.
Steve Irwin is passionate about what he does, I'll say that much for him. But there is a fine line between being passionate and going completely over the top and being a complete and utter moron. Maybe he's some sort of a cult figure in the US and elsewhere, but most normal Aussies regard him as a total twit. And before anyone argues, this is the guy who turned up to an official function with President George W. Bush dressed in pretty much the same tacky shorts and shirts that he wears for his shows.
I've lost count of how many people I know that are hoping that one of these days a croc will get the better of him, and soon.

Maybe I was tired at the time, but the whole relevance of Signs pretty much escaped me. I'm not saying it wasn't a good movie, and I know a lot of people greatly enjoyed it. Personally, I just couldn't get my head around what it was all supposed to be about.
We have a man, who was a devout minister before the tragic death of his wife, living on his farm with his two young children and his brother. The appearance of crop circles sets off a chain reaction of mysterious events that eventually leads to a 'War of the Worlds' style invasion by poisonous, deadly aliens.
There are frequent flashbacks to the incident which killed Gibson's wife, and her confusing last words to him, the meaning of which is finally revealed at the end of movie.
The movie is well-made, and well-acted. Joacquin Phoenix is particularly impressive as the young man who is fed up with his brother's refusal to accept what has happened and get on with life.
I'm afraid the deeper meaning of it all is simply escaping me. It appears that the wife died purely to be able to impart the mystical words that would give the clue to surviving the alien attack that would come in the future.
It is confusing, to me at least, but I recommend that, as with the other films of Shyamalan, you give it a chance and make up your own mind as to whether it is worth while or not.

I saw this movie for the first time this weekend, and I'm still trying to decide whether or not I like it better than The Sixth Sense.
It has an unusual premise, in that it is really a 'reality-based superhero story'. It revolves around two men, one of whom is a 'middle-American' security guard whose marriage is on the verge of falling apart. The other is a man suffering from Osteo-Genesis Imperfecta, a disease that severely weakens the bones and causes them to break easily and often.
The second man, Elijah Price, has lived his life virtually out of comic books, and has come to believe that they are really exaggerated tales of ancient mythology which, in turn, are based on actual truth.
The movie is about Elijah's search for the type of person that he believes comics depict - someone whose life has been completely untainted by illness or injury, and whose senses and abilities range considerably above the norm.
He believes he has found his 'hero' in David Dunn, the sole survivor of a train derailment. As he points out several times through the film (and this becomes a crucial point towards the end of the film), there had been 3 major disasters within a short period of time that had killed an enormous number of people, and only David had come away unscathed.
David is naturally sceptical to begin with, something that is aided by distorted memories of a serious car accident that he was involved in earlier in his life.
His son is less sceptical and, in his desperation to prove that his dad is something special, at one point turns a gun on him.
Through a series of incidences, David comes to the astounding realisation that Elijah was right all along, and there are a number of small, seemingly insignificant points that help to emphasise this.
For example, there are several references to the fact that David wakes up every morning with an inexplicable sadness. This is at first explained away as being regret at having sacrificed a star football career for marriage. It is not until after David puts his new-found talents to use by saving the lives of two children from a violent intruder that he comes to understand the sadness is, in fact, the result of not doing what he was born to do - help other people.
In tradition with Shyamalan's previous film, The Sixth Sense, there is a twist at the end of this film. Although it doesn't have as much impact as Shyamalan's spooky ghost story, it is still a stunner, nevertheless. Though I don't believe it would affect a person's enjoyment of the movie, I won't give the surprise away here.
I know this film did not get good reviews when it was released, but I recommend that people ignore the negative publicity and give it a chance. If you're capable of suspending disbelief, even to a small degree, then the premise of Unbreakable is not such a long stretch of the imagination.
And, it's a surprisingly enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours.

I saw this for the first time on the weekend, and while it's not really as bad as some would have you believe, it isn't that great, either.
To start with, it's hard to equate Matthew Broderick's Gadget, with the character played by French Stewart. Broderick put real life into Gadget, where Stewart played Gadget purely as a 2 dimensional cartoon character for 90% of the movie. The only time he came to life was near to the end, when Claw kidnapped Penny.
Just for the record, I thought that was a nice throw-back to the original cartoon. Penny was forever getting caught by MAD agents, though she was usually rescued by Brain, and not Gadget.
The emphasis on the glitches in Gadget's circuitry was a little confusing. In the cartoon, the so-called glitches were usually his gadgets doing the thinking for him. The Inspector was such a lame-brain (and I mean that in the fondest way) that he inevitably called on the wrong gadget for whatever situation he was in. So whenever a gadget popped out that was different to the one he called for, you could be fairly sure it was the right one to do the job.
In this movie, the glitches were just that - glitches.
And then, there's Claw. Rupert Everett did a fantastic job of playing Claw in the first film. It didn't matter that his face wasn't hidden, as was the case in the cartoon. It was pointless that they tried to do that in the second film. Aside from the shockingly awful voice, what they ended up with was an 'evil' version of Wilson from Home Improvement. It was just plain sad, given Everett's deliciously wicked performance in the original.
I'm not totally sure what to think of Elaine Hendrix's performance as G2. I suppose it was fine when you consider that she is basically supposed to be an emotionless android who slowly comes alive as the film progresses, but how can you feel anything for a character that is little more than a piece of wood for most of the movie? Like French Stewart's Gadget, she only came alive towards the end of the film, and by then it was too late.
There are positives to the movie. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough.
One is the fact that Penny is given considerably more importance in this movie. In the first, she was more of a sidekick than anything else, and that rankled the hardcore fans quite a bit.
The special effects were okay, but I'm afraid that's all I can say.
As an Aussie, it was interesting to see two Aussie actors hamming up the roles of Chief Quimby and the Mayor (Mark Mitchell and Sigrid Thornton, respectively), but even they didn't give the film much of a lift.
As another reviewer commented, one blessing was that the voice of the Gadgetmobile was the same. Unfortunately there just aren't enough other redeeming features to save what could have been a wonderful movie.