Reviews by PvtCaboose91

After the unanticipated success of Robert Rodriguez's little known movie El Mariachi it was pure fate that a sequel would be instigated. In this case, Desperado is a reworking of the original film while also acting as a continuation of the story. El Mariachi was made on an astonishingly small budget of $7,000. Logically enough, Columbia channelled a lot more money into the sequel hoping for similar success and a bigger bang.

Desperado is set various years following the events of the first film. El Mariachi (now played by Banderas) is an acrimonious former guitarist presently determined to exact retribution on the men held accountable for the death of his girlfriend. He is continually on the move - travelling to different towns searching for his principal target. He now has a partner (Buscemi) who precedes him in the towns they visit with the intention of elevating fear by telling exaggerated stories regarding the escapades of the legendary warrior carrying a guitar case loaded with an assortment of firearms. El Mariachi arrives in a small Mexican town looking for a local criminal/drug lord named Bucho (Almeida). Subsequent to an impressive shoot-out and a large disbursement of ammunition, El Mariachi befriends a young beautiful woman named Carolina (Hayek) who owns a local book store that also acts as a café. With plenty of ammunition and weapons, El Mariachi is hell-bent on locating Bucho and getting revenge with an army of blood-thirsty desperados on his trail.

Desperado is an exciting action film abundant in violent shoot-outs and creative character deaths. However the film is basically an unnecessary rehash of the original film. When you boil down the essential elements and events it's the same movie - a musician killing warlords and lowlifes with the obligatory love interest thrown into the mix. It is fundamentally and purposely a remake, granted, but there's a sense of déjà vu and predictability as well. This will always be expected when it comes to watching an addition to this genre.

Antonio Banderas is charming and suitable playing the role of the legendary Mariachi. It's an outstanding choice to cast Banderas as a replacement for the Mexican individual who played the title character in the previous film. In the case of the first film, the non-actor filling the part was skilled in the transition from meek musician to bitter gunslinger. Banderas is skilled in portrayed the character as bitter and blood-thirsty. Overall Banderas is quite remarkable and extremely easy to watch. Salma Hayek oozes sensuality whenever her character appears on screen. She makes the perfection companion for Banderas' equally charismatic portrayal. No action film is complete without the nefarious villain, in this case portrayed by Joaquim de Almeida.

Desperado is tremendously watchable and is solid even after repeated viewings. Combining plenty of skilfully created over-the-top, cartoonish action with the typical revenge plot creates a highly entertaining addition to the genre. The action is dexterously filmed and edited courtesy of director Robert Rodriguez. Similar to the first film the action is continuously very violent and gruesome. The body count remains on the rise. The film is also copious in likable characters and some fantastic tongue-in-cheek humour (one of the film's highest points is Quentin Tarantino's cameo when he tells a very funny joke).

Desperado is a weaker addition to the series that commenced with the impressive El Mariachi. This action film is loud, dumb, explosive and seemingly pointless. Naturally, this means that action lovers of any kind will have a fantastic time watching this one. It's the furthest thing from a masterpiece, so take the film for what it is: over-the-top action complimented with humour and sex scenes. Followed by Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

Amadeus is a film that bears numerous adjectives with self-confidence: this film is stunning, beautiful, wonderful, powerful, amazing, incredible - and anything stemming off from these words. It's a tremendously rare event when a masterpiece like Amadeus is made; a remarkable movie of jealousy and envy that conveys the biographical story of an extraordinary individual. This film has been a critical success as both a play and a movie. It went on to win several Oscars and it still gathers tremendous acclaim during the contemporary era of cinema.

Amadeus is the story of two composers who lived throughout the 18th century. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Hulce) is regarded as the best composer of all time. This film chronicles the period of his prime when his greatest work was composed: a time when Mozart's outstanding imagination allowed him to simply write music as if it was dictation. The film is also concerned with a second composer: a man named Antonio Salieri (Abraham). Salieri is a court composer for the current emperor (Jones). Salieri has aspirations of becoming a flourishing composer since his childhood. However his imperfect abilities are highlighted by the works of the young Mozart whose music is divine. He believes that God is mocking his mediocrity through Mozart's music, and Salieri cannot understand how God could favour such an uncouth individual as his instrument. Driven by rage and jealousy, Salieri instigates a scheme to bring about the fall of Mozart. The film is told in flashback as Salieri is now confined to a mental asylum. Now aging and slowly going insane, he tells the story of how he caused the failure of Mozart; how he gained Mozart's trust that he later betrayed.

One must remember that Amadeus is based on a play, not on history. The film indicates that the character of Salieri was involved in the eventual death of Mozart. In history there is barely any indication at all - instead his death was recognised as a combination of alcoholism and depression. If you're expecting an elaborate film based solely on fact you may be disappointed. This is the film's single flaw.

Amadeus is a film that never grows dreary. Although at a length of about 150 minutes you will never feel bored. Every aspect of the production is faultless. The sound and music are truly sublime; the collaboration of acting and directing is outstanding; cinematography and editing are wonderful; with costumes and art direction that are generally terrific. In short: this is almost a definitive example of crafting a faultless movie. It's long but far from overlong. Every member of the cast and crew did their job to perfection; never is a false note struck.

The powerhouse performances are truly incredible to behold. F. Murray Abraham was correctly presented with an Oscar for 'Best Actor in a Leading Role' (actor Tom Hulce was also nominated in the same category) for his fascinating characterisation of a man fuelled by envy and antagonism. Tom Hulce as Mozart is yet another magnificent decision of the casting department. He nails the role of the multi-faceted tragic composer. No-one would ever have an image like this of Mozart in their head: Hulce displays the raw childish nature of the man. His mannerisms, inappropriate sentences, irritating laugh - all played to perfection by an actor who excels at his profession. The whole cast perfectly capture the emotional depth of the character they are portraying. Astonishing work!

Visually, Amadeus is perfectly created. The film features sets and costumes that feel like a photograph of its period. Never is there a lack of focus in any part of the creative team. The directing in particular is absolutely breathtaking. Never is there a lapse in concentration for any shot. From start to finish, the film is exquisitely filmed and a pleasure to view. For a film that runs for 150 minutes this aspect is vital.

Amadeus is truly a masterpiece of marvellous magnitude. A beautiful piece of art! Winner of several Oscars including Best Picture.

El Mariachi is an early film directed by now-famous filmmaker Robert Rodriguez. Initially the film was intended to be a low-budget action picture that would proceed directly to video. However the reception was far more positive than originally intended and was picked up by Columbia for a theatrical release. With this film, Robert Rodriguez proves that with an astronomically small budget of only $7,000 (approximately) he can craft a superb little action picture.

El Mariachi is the story of a young Mexican musician (Gallardo) who wishes to carry on the family tradition of becoming a mariachi (a wandering musician who travels to different locations in search of work). Little does he realise that an escaped criminal named Azul (Martinez) has wandered into the same town carrying a guitar case featuring an impressive array of firearms. Azul plans to kill local crime lord Moco (Marquardt). Moco is obviously not happy with the concept of being assassinated; sending every hired gun at his disposal to target Azul. Moco's men mistake the innocent young El Mariachi for Azul due to their similarities in appearance. While being hunted by an assortment of hitmen, the El Mariachi becomes involved with barmaid Domino (Gomez) who assists him in his avoidance of being killed.

No-one ever expected El Mariachi to be very successful, hence the small budget. Although the film was shot in two weeks and was made with virtually zero crew, Rodriguez ended up making a surprisingly fantastic, entertaining action film. This film delivers the goods in its minuscule running time of about 80 minutes. Of course there is plenty of high energy action, and even the film is superior to most stunt-reliant, big-buck Hollywood action flicks. In addition to the action there is a lot of suspense and creative cinematography.

Rodriguez was in charge of lensing and editing the material. It's very evident in the final film that he had a clear vision of what he wanted and achieved his goal modestly. One of the most surprising things is that the film maintains an actual plot throughout its duration.

To save costs of hiring actors, most of the cast was filled with family members, friends and amateur actors. Make no mistake - the acting is sometimes really amateurish. On the contrary, most of the actors are very convincing at times. There is a subtle charm to the great performance from Carlos Gallardo. For the film's final showdown, Gallardo feels very naturalistic and believable. The villains are typically shown to be evil and brooding, with their henchmen unable to shoot properly. Some of these things are conventional, but for the sake of the genre we try to ignore it.

Rodriguez was literally the only person behind the camera. He put so much into this movie and his efforts shine as brightly as the morning sun. The man was determined to do what he could with a small shooting schedule and a miniature budget. As a fellow film student I find his action scenes to be well cut and well shot, abundant in visual elegance. Most of the budget must have been channelled into the fake blood and special effects. The action is always extremely violent.

There are a few minor problems with this movie such as a few poor performances and some dumb action movie conventions; however credit of the highest order must go to director Robert Rodriguez for producing a great quality film made with such a tiny budget that one could barely afford a car with it! Copious amounts of fake blood are well expended here. There is little wonder why the director went on to continue making a lot of violent movies. His reputation began with this little movie. Now his career is very well deserved. Followed by a remake/sequel entitled Desperado.

Baby Geniuses is every bit as terrible as the critics made it out to be, and then some. Admittedly this film has some feeble potential, but the idea of talking babies has been toyed with so recurrently that it's growing old. It's apparent that the filmmakers simply wanted to make a guilty pleasure with a few laughs for the kids and adults. The kids might find some entertainment here. As for anyone over the age of 5...you'd have better luck finding a three-legged ballerina than finding anyone remotely interesting in this putrid mess of a movie!

Basically there are a bunch of babies being held for scientific experiments. Two scientists (Turner, Lloyd) who manage the world's leading manufacturer of baby products secretly plan to crack the code of baby talk. Then one troublesome young child named Sly (played by all of the Fitzgerald triplets) escapes from the facility and runs into his twin Whit (played by the same bunch of triplets) with whom he has a telepathic bond. Then some massive mix up occurs when guards from the scientific facility accidentally capture Whit who's mistaken for Sly, and Sly is mistaken for Whit and taken home by Whit's mother.

Apart from some preposterous other sub-plots that emerge, there is nothing else holding the film together. It's a string of stupid, notoriously unfunny childish lines of dialogue that some people actually regard as funny. Now that's a shock! No laughs, hideously embarrassing acting, bad storyline and no redeeming features at all. Whoever decided to green-light this project deserves to be kicked out of the industry forever! Think about it...they spent of millions of dollars financing this film. With that money they could have done two or three low budget movies that could have been decent. That's two or three movies we will never see. If crap like this is being created in Hollywood I wonder what stuff they must be rejecting... I don't think any possible film projects that have been rejected could possibly be worse than this.

Everyone on the cast should be ashamed of themselves. With names like Christopher Lloyd and Kathleen Turner one would expect something that is at least entertaining. Instead we have dreadful acting with even poorer source material. I can't believe how bad this so called "comedy" (I believe the film is incorrectly placed in the genre of comedy) turned out to be. The script is so terrible...I cannot even conceive a word to describe it. Directing is usually uneven and awkward. I don't recall any scenes that are memorable. Each and every second is instantly forgettable. In a sense this is a good thing. I'd rather forget I ever saw this movie.

Baby Geniuses marks one of Hollywood's lowest points. The whole film is the furthest thing from entertainment. Every aspect of the filmmaking falls flat. Script, directing, performances...they act as repulsive faeces in a grotty toilet. The screenwriter must've been a 1-year-old baby...and not a genius.

The fourth and final instalment in the celebrated Indiana Jones series was a long time coming. It has been 19 years since the release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; that's 19 years of the project being stopped and started. The classic adventure hero could only return if the correct screenplay was discovered. George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford finally gave the green light to a screenplay penned by David Koepp.

Every fan of the Indiana Jones movies will want to know if the painfully long wait was worth it. So is this fourth Indiana Jones film really worth the wait? The answer is an emphatic yes!

The plot of this movie was kept an enormous secret throughout the production. In this day and age that is a daunting task. The film is a lot more special when you don't know much about the plot. I don't intend on spoiling the film by providing an in-depth plot synopsis, so I shall be brief.

Beloved archaeologist and legendary adventurer Indiana Jones (Ford) becomes entangled in a Soviet plot to uncover the truth behind the Crystal Skull; an object of myth and superstition. The Soviets, lead by the nefarious Spalko (Blanchett), believe that with the power of the Crystal Skull they could dominate the world. Indy is now accompanied by several cohorts including the young Mutt Williams (LaBeouf), former lover Marion Ravenwood (Allen, reprising her role from Raiders of the Lost Ark), insane professor Oxley (Hurt) and long-time partner Mac (Winstone). With the Soviets endlessly pursuing them, the gang must try to elude capture and prevent the powerful ancient object from falling into the wrong hands.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a lot deeper and more complex than implied in the short plot synopsis. The typical formula has been drastically altered, but this is a change for the better. Everything has been structured differently. The memorable opening in particular introduces us to the new Indiana Jones: he's no longer young and fast, but aging and fit.

An Indiana Jones film would never be complete without loads of action and exciting adventure. In this case there is plenty of action that begins quickly. The film is exceedingly fast-paced and over-the-top. There are several homages to classic films from the works of Spielberg and Lucas (the opening few shots mirror Duel and American Graffiti) while always being original and exciting. This film also retains numerous crew-members who worked on the previous movies. From the casting department, the editor, the producers - they have all been called back to make this one.

Of course this is now the age of CGI and blockbuster effects. About 30% of the film is CGI. But much of the film is actually live action. Old school effects appearing in contemporary cinema is a rare event indeed. Heaps of the action is extremely over-the-top. More so than the other films. A lot of the action is absurdly unrealistic, and this is one of the film's only flaws. All the action is at least entertaining with never a dull moment. I never felt bored at all. Never did I feel compelled to continually check my watch. This is the beauty of such fine filmmaking.

Spielberg is a fine director, now with an able new cinematographer who manages to recapture the wonderful cinematography of the previous films.

Harrison Ford will always be Indiana Jones. It's the part he was born to play! He's much older and he looks much older, but he is still energetic and fit for someone in their late 60s! Cate Blanchett is a formidable villain. Blanchett is one of the best working actresses of the current generation. She succeeds in playing a nefarious Russian villain. It's fantastic to see Karen Allen reprising the role of Marion Ravenwood. I have no complaints about the rest of the fantastic cast.

John Williams excels himself once again. No-one else can possibly compose the score for an Indiana Jones movie.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is definitely worth the wait! After years of scrapping ideas and scripts, I'm happy they finally settled on a screenplay and went ahead with the film. It's a vastly different Indiana Jones film of course. Because of advancing technology it looks and feels different. But the film is fun, filled with action and provides an extremely fitting conclusion for everyone's favourite adventurer. I was just disappointed that it had to end. Beware: this Indy movie is more of a 1950s alien B-Movie.

8.8/10

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the third, but not final instalment in the legendary Indiana Jones series. The first film is still one of the best movies in cinematic history, with the second film grossly incapable of recapturing the charm and appeal of its predecessor. This next Indiana Jones adventure is the best sequel thus far. The filmmakers have almost equalled the brilliance of the first flick. Just like the original movie, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a faultless blend of action and adventure with intrigue and romance thrown into the mix.

The opening sequence is always a pivotal part in the success of these movies. In this case the film opens with a prologue that traces the roots of Indy as we now know him. This prologue digs into his fear of snakes, delves into why he has a scar on his chin, the reasoning behind his passion for relic hunting and how he came into possession of his trademark items. This prologue also serves as an artefact hunt that acts as a bridge into the main plot.

Everyone's favourite treasure-hunter-come-professor Indiana Jones (Ford) whips back into action with a hunt for yet another ancient relic. Indy is taken to meet a wealthy ancient relic devotee named Walter Donovan (Glover). Walter explains that recent discoveries have been made that may possibly point to the locality of the Holy Grail - the cup Jesus Christ theoretically drank from at the last supper. Indy is also informed that the project leader has gone missing; said leader is none other than Professor Henry Jones Sr. (Connery), Indy's father. With his father's Grail scrapbook in his pocket, Indy heads to Venice in search of his father. The adventure then moves to Germany during the height of the Nazi regime. It then becomes a race against time as Indy and his father scramble to find the location of the Holy Grail before the Nazis get there first.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is of course filled with endless action and excitement. Just like Raiders of the Lost Ark this film is a myriad of now memorable scenes. Some of these unforgettable scenes include a desert scene with a large tank, Indy inadvertently getting the autograph of Adolf Hitler, avoiding a nest of rats in the catacombs underneath a library, a battle in the air and a great scene set inside a German blimp.

Harrison Ford is every bit as charming and appealing as he was when the series commenced in 1981. Ford is always fit for action and is given a plethora of clever lines to work with. The casting department of these films will endlessly receive compliments and recognition for their superb choice of actors. Sean Connery is perfect in the role he was born to play. Formerly playing the role of James Bond, Connery is an absolutely ideal choice. The chemistry between Ford and Connery never feels at all contrived. The two feel like a genuine pair of father and son. More appraisal for the casting department as the rest of the supporting cast is equally remarkable. Denholm Elliot, John Rhys-Davies, Julian Glover, Alison Doody...they are all outstanding.

No Indiana Jones film is complete without the brilliant directing from Steven Spielberg and the exciting music from John Williams. Composer Williams excels himself with the music in this film. There is plenty of action accompanied with a perfect score. The special effects still look elegant and hard to fault. I adore the use of old school effects. In this case everything is done practically and all special effects objects actually have a screen presence. The cinematography is also a major stand out with this film as well.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade satisfied my every requirement in an adventure movie. Loads of action, plenty of witty dialogue, well conceived characters and a high level of excitement. Many have tried, but no-one can ever match the brilliance of the Indiana Jones movies. They don't make movies of this elegance anymore. Followed 19 years later by Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

9.85/10

The original Indiana Jones film was a little known production that became a worldwide hit. After the great success of Raiders of the Lost Ark it was inevitable that the team would get back together and produce another ripping yarn of an action/adventure flick. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is certainly the weakest Indiana Jones film to date. After watching it again after all these years I am reminded that even the worst film of a film series can still be bucket loads of fun.

Temple of Doom is a prequel to the original Indiana Jones film, this time set in 1935 before the Nazi occupation commenced. At the beginning of this film we are once again introduced to the legendary archaeologist with a weakness for adventure, Dr. Indiana Jones (Ford). Jones narrowly escapes a group of Chinese gangsters in a nightclub in Shanghai, ending up stranded in a remote location in India. He finds himself being partnered with a young Asian boy named Short Round (Quan) and a head-aching nightclub singer named Willie Scott (Capshaw, who ended up marrying director Steven Spielberg). The trio come across a devastated village that is under crisis. Their children have been taken and their precious stone stolen. The villagers believe Jones and his companions were brought here for a specific reason: to recover their precious stone and the missing children that they hold dearly. Trekking across the thick jungles of India the gang reach the enigmatic Pankot Palace where they are openly welcome. Indy is then faced with a baffling religious ceremony in a mystifying temple. With two companions and a whip by his side, Indy must battle the powerful forces of evil in order to recover the sacred stone and the young children that were taken as slaves.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a lot darker and more sinister than its forerunner. We still have the gorgeous locales and elaborate sets, but we are also given some menacing horror scenes that will easily frighten young viewers. Especially when the action moves to the temple, things suddenly become exceedingly shocking. I remember being quite disturbed by these sequences when I was a youngster.

The charm and wit of Harrison Ford has not disappeared at all. Ford is energetic, funny, and sublime as Indiana Jones. The character is still whip-touting and skilled. His dialogue is impeccably written and faultlessly delivered. There is no wonder why Indiana Jones was voted several times as one of the best action heroes of all time. Kate Capshaw will make your head hurt. Throughout the whole film she's endlessly whining or complaining about the conditions. Her character is cleverly constructed; however she's just the essential clichéd damsel in distress. The first film boasted a feisty female lead who suffered from very few fundamental conventions. Recognition must go to Jonathan Ke Quan, a young actor who does a stellar job.

Steven Spielberg is the only man with the skill to helm a successful Indiana Jones film. Even with dated visual effects and limited resources, Spielberg is an accomplished director competent in bringing words on the page to life with great results.

Like the first film, this instalment is filled with stacks of stunts and spectacular special effects that are so abundant that it never leaves us any time to breathe. Unsurprisingly, the film is topped off gorgeously with the rollicking score courtesy of acclaimed composer John Williams.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was never going to improve upon the original movie. Be that as it may, this prequel to the successful 1981 adventure film is influential and entertaining. Followed by Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

7.85/10

The Indiana Jones films became the most influential adventure films in cinematic history. The films made their mark on the genre and still influence the way adventure films are made to this day. What's the allure of the series? Put rather simply, all the Indiana Jones films impeccably merge action, exhilarating adventure, dazzling locations, marvellous humour and a mixture of great characters. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the first instalment in the highly acclaimed Indiana Jones series, and still the superior film. The elegance and class of this movie is so far unrivalled and unsurpassed even after several decades.

Set in 1936 on the eve of World War II, Dr. Indiana Jones (Ford) is a renowned archaeologist and a famed adventurer. Jones grows tired of lecturing students at a university; instead he adores trekking through the jungle touting a whip and a gun while searching for ancient artefacts. After an incredibly memorable opening sequence set in Africa, Indy is hired by the United States government to investigate the possible existence of the 'Ark of the Covenant'; an ancient relic that appears to be the cause of strange doings by the Nazis. Indy is pitted against rival archaeologist René Belloq (Freeman) who is also searching for this illustrious ark that has been nothing but myth and legend for centuries.

This fascinating story is merely the beginning as the film rapidly moves to numerous different locations around the globe from Nepal to Cairo.

Harrison Ford is unreservedly perfect for the principal role of Indiana Jones. Ford possesses that certain look about him that suits the role of both an adventurer and a professor. His dialogue is delivered extraordinarily, and his on screen magnetism is one of the film's highest points. Ford has all the wit and appeal: the character of Indiana Jones is the essential embodiment of an adventure hero that encompasses all the qualities and the charisma that makes him one of the best action heroes of all time (as voted on several occasions). Ford is partnered with the equally charismatic Karen Allen. Playing Indy's love interest, this isn't the usual clichéd damsel in distress who can't fend for herself. On top of this there's a remarkable performance by John Rhys-Davis, and unforgettable performances from both Paul Freeman and Ronald Lacey.

Steven Spielberg's direction is magnificent. This focused directing and the lavish cinematography are qualities rarely seen in contemporary adventure movies. I particularly loved the old school effects and the elaborate sets. With such gorgeous images on the screen for every second of the film's duration, it effectively moves from one memorable scene to the next.

The opening artefact hunt is still my favourite film opening of all time. Not to mention all the other memorable scenes - the bar fight, the plane scene, the snake pit, the truck chase, the ship battle, the final showdown...it's impossible to spot a dull second amongst the action and adventure. The outlandish stunts are a requirement for an adventure film of this calibre. The filmmakers deliver a never-ending supply.

The film is only made better by the accompanying exciting music by John Williams. The classic Indiana Jones theme is still my favourite movie theme of all time! The exhilarating action is only made better by the triumphant, invigorating music.

The special effects delightfully hold up even after all these years. With filmmaking technology forever advancing I am pleased and happy to see such terrific old school effects that still look mighty impressive.

When I was a youngster I remember watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on various occasions. The first three Indiana Jones films were an essential part of my childhood. Now that I've aged and matured I still love these original three films tremendously. This is unquestionably one of the best movies of all time! Followed by several sequels beginning with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (this is actually a prequel).

10/10

Guest House Paradiso is a comedy filled to the brim with nothing but non-stop laughter, physical gags and sexual innuendo. The creative team behind this film also created two popular TV shows: The Young Ones and Bottoms. The whole film is beguilingly tempting comedy - each scene being nothing more than a myriad of hilarious gags and little plot emerging.

Richie (Mayall) and Eddie (Edmondson) run the worst hotel in the entire British Isles: thieving manager, drunken immigrant chef and a former mental patient for a waiter. This is a hotel that makes Fawlty Towers look like attractive 5-star accommodation. The two bumbling nitwits, Richie and Eddie, have their establishment right next to a nuclear power plant. The only regulars at the hotel are a bunch of power plant workers who drop by to get drunk, as well as an elderly woman named Mrs. Foxfur (Fielding) who appears to be conned quite frequently. After an opening that clearly shows the kind of stupidity the two protagonists continually exhibit, the hotel is cleared of many residents. Things begin looking up when a small family voluntarily checks in for a stay. They are then overshadowed when beautiful famed actress Gina Carbonara (Mahieu) checks in with the intent of escaping her Italian playboy fiancé that she doesn't want to marry. What follows is a night of complete disaster. Radioactive fish, crazed Italian, vomiting house guests...everything imaginable as the central characters move from one disaster to the other.

Guest House Paradiso focuses solely on the laughs as opposed to a plot. It's a difficult task to justifiably outline the plot in any great detail because everything would then be spoiled. As an alternative to a plot we just have a straightforward series of events. With the thought in mind of a night of plain disaster, we are treated to a repulsive (occasionally disturbing) series of events. By the end of it you will want to vomit as strongly as some of the guests. During the film's final 40 minutes of non-stop hilarity and gags I was both choking with laughter and feeling mighty queasy from the disgusting events that unfold.

The two main characters are a talented duo that will be familiar to fans of the creative team. Both Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson have their moments of utter hilarity. It's the clichéd odd couple: one of them has brains (using those words loosely), the other does not. Those of you familiar with the film will agree when I say that the opening kitchen brawl shows the agility and talent of the two leading performers. It's a hilarious combination of slapstick gags with some overwhelming violence (surprisingly enough). This string of nothing but gags and laughter is very memorable as well. You will either be quoting the dialogue, re-enacting scenes or discussing these scenes in detail with another who has seen it.

From the front cover and trailer, Guest House Paradiso promised to be nothing more than a bit of light-hearted entertainment that isn't at all tasteful. This assumption is extremely correct - it's nothing but funny mindless gags that make a fun way to spend 85 minutes of your time. Not classic comedy in any sense, but if you're easily entertained and enjoy puerile, disgusting humour then this is the one to rent (or buy).

Lee Tamahori's 1994 low budget New Zealand film Once Were Warriors was critically commended and praised for its uncompromising, potent examination of the sinister side of the Maori population. Due to its colossal universal sensation it was virtually predestined that the studio would demand a sequel. In this case, Once Were Warriors is far too brilliant and unbeatable; consequently nobody ever expected this sequel to surpass its forerunner. Films like Once Were Warriors are austerely one-off successes. Nevertheless, What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? stands on its own intrinsic worth as an outstanding movie that is different in its own unique way.

It has been five years since the events of the first movie. We resume the story of Jake 'The Muss' Heke (Morrison): a man whose sweltering temper interfered with his family, progressively giving them additional incentive to leave him. The first movie was a story of his wife Beth (Owens); however this film barely concerns Beth at all - in fact we hardly even see her - instead this is the story of Jake and his search for redemption. Jake realises that his fiery anger only detached him from his family. He recognises that he has serious problems affecting his life, and he must confront them to prevent further loss.

The story of What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? is separated into two threads. The first thread is of Jake Heke's pursuit for salvation, and the second is of Jake's son Sonny (Eruera) who clouds his future by joining a rancorous street gang. Sonny wants revenge on the gang who were responsible for the murder of his brother. These two threads of narrative are united with a bang towards the film's conclusion.

This film is extremely different to the style and storytelling of its predecessor. What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? still delivers a mighty kick in the gut and is an uncompromising story; however the original is far more raw around the edges and abundant in mature themes. This film showcases a lot of profanity and some strong violence, especially when it comes to utilisation of firearms. Lots of brutal violence is featured in the scenes that feature Jake bashing up a few characters. The end gang fight is especially heavy and really hits home.

This potent drama is fuelled by some terrific performances. Some people will complain about the thick New Zealand accents. This complaint is obligatory for most American audiences. However the accents add realism and potency to the film. Temuera Morrison is nothing short of outstanding with his a passionate, poignant portrayal of a man living a tragic life. When the sizzling temper of Jake Heke takes control it's impossible to fault his complete concentration. Towards the end of the film in particular his performance will leave you absolutely speechless. Morrison's performance towers above anyone else in the cast. In a sense he's the prominent leader being supported by a group of grunts. Of course the rest of the cast do a good job...they just can't match the brilliance of Morrison.

Ian Mune must have been nervous about taking the reigns after Lee Tamahori directed the first instalment. Similar to the first movie, Mune is able to establish a raw atmosphere that examines people at their lowest ebb. The first film was shot using grainy photography to make it feel raw and authentic. This effect has been completely retracted here, unfortunately.

Overall, What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? is a solid, strong sequel to the excellent Once Were Warriors. It's fascinating to see a refined Jake Heke who has changed his ways and has confronted his problems. On the contrary the character is a lot stronger and better developed in the first movie. This character alteration is both good and bad: draw your own verdict. Do not consider watching this film if you haven't seen the original. If you have seen the original it is not vital to see this one, although it is an interesting continuation of the story.