Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"They hide in the dark so you can't see them."

The horror genre is comfortably separated into two different categories. The first is of course the mindless, gory horror fest when the objective is not to scare the audience but fill the screen with far too much disturbing gore. The second category is the horror film low on violence and gore. Instead this is replaced with spine-chilling moments and effective thrills. When done properly, both categories can produce some good work. They is certainly part of the latter. Toned down to a PG-13 rating in America; this film is not for those who crave gory horror films such as Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street.

While They had an interesting premise that plays on the genuinely recognisable human fear of the dark it was ultimately a bland and predictable entry to the horror genre.

After an opening sequence that effectively sets the tone for the film, we are then introduced to a graduate student of psychology named Julia Lund (Regan) who is currently studying for her masters. She is pulled into the psychological problem of her childhood friend Billy (Abrahams) who endlessly drones on about staying in the light and how "they" are out to get the both of them. Naturally at first Julia believes that this is mindless ranting without any fact. It's only after one of Billy's worst episodes that she finally realises that Billy might not be totally insane. As the arachnid demons living in the dark get more persistent, Julia begins to talk to some of Billy's friends as they attempt to find a way around their seemingly inevitable fate.

The premise of They is an expansion on the typical childhood fear of the dark. Every child goes through the phase of being terrified of the dark. The creatures in this film can only attack in the dark and when no-one else is around. Of course, kids watching this will probably never sleep again. There are a number of genuinely spine-chilling moments throughout the film. Even more surprisingly is that the film is actually scary at times. If you watch it in a dark room with the lights out on a rainy night, be prepared for one pretty terrifying experience.

For a tame, watered-down horror film it's a necessity that the film must carry some solid filmmaking. I have no complaints about the directing or the cinematography. Unfortunately some of the scares might also trigger a bit of laughter due to some awkward framing.

I had my reservations about the cast. Complaints were limited when it came to Laura Regan in the leading role. Her fear and motivations are palpable during the more intense horror scenes. On the contrary there are several instances when more acting is required. She also looks a bit too cute, even when she's meant to look terrified. This is another case of Hollywood choosing an attractive actress as opposed to an actress that perfectly suits the part.

They is cheesy; however its atmosphere is solid and scary. There are plenty of opportunities for the audience to be at the mercy of the filmmakers; not knowing what will happen next but aware that a scare is about to occur. Some of the scares are predictable albeit still quite chilling at times. Whenever the lights are terminated and the shot darkens we know that something terrifying is about to happen.

One of the film's flaws is in its gross predictability. At least 60% of the scares can be predicted before they occur. The film is slightly uplifted by its unconventional ending. It's extremely clever to stay away from the clichés when it comes to horror. Although the conclusion is slightly unsatisfying, at least the filmmakers weren't afraid to stay away from the genre clichés.

They is a decent entry to the horror genre. It's far from brilliant but the pasting it took was grossly unnecessary. For me the film was atmospheric and scary despite being corny and predictable. Worth seeing. "Presented" by Wes Craven.

"This is Nuckin' Futs!"

Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star is a film that was severely panned by critics and audiences upon first release. It met with such an appalling reception that I purposely avoided it in fear of it being as horrible as some people have said. However when I finally watched the film all my previous expectations were surpassed. People called it 'poor' and 'laugh-less' but I guess it's a matter of taste: I laughed quite frequently and found it to be decent comedy.

Dickie Roberts (Spade) was a very popular child actor who had an enormous fan base. After his show was cancelled while still a young child, the 'child actor syndrome' kicks in: i.e. Dickie is no longer a desired actor among the studios. He slips off the grid and out of the industry due to his sudden drop in popularity. Even his mother leaves him while he is still at a young age. Now an adult, Dickie is poor and has been reduced to typical jobs such as being a valet attendant who parks cars. He misses the fame and popularity of being a famous actor. When in Hollywood he meets Brendan Fraser (played by himself, logically enough) who is able to get Dickie an audition for the new Rob Reiner film. But Dickie is rejected because he doesn't have the genuine feel of the part due to his childhood that he was robbed of. Reiner believes that Dickie just isn't a real person because of the way stardom affected him when he was a child. Dickie is still determined to get the part and stage a successful comeback. To do this he will need to develop a personality of his own. So he advertises a considerable amount of money if a family will allow him to move in and hopefully relive a proper childhood. Dickie moves in with the typical suburban family: selfless mother Grace (McCormack), selfish father George (Bierko) and their two kids Sam (Terra) and Sally (Boyd).

There is a good basic premise here. It's a well-known fact that child stars usually disappear from the spotlight or their life is lost to drugs and alcohol. Although the script is decent, it's ultimately flawed massively by its overuse of clichés and conventions. Not to mention a few sickening sub-plots like the predictable one concerning Dickie falling in love with his new mother Grace. There's quite a bit of sexual humour trapped within this solitary sub-plot. And then of course we have the obligatory few scenes concerning school bullies that Dickie swiftly takes care of. These are all predictable and it wouldn't be a tragedy if they were left out. Despite this they're still mildly amusing at times.

The central laughs are built on the clever dialogue deliveries from David Spade. I'm not going to tell a lie at all - I thought that some of his insulting rants were absolutely hilarious and I was laughing out loud quite constantly. But it's a shame there wasn't any effort on the part of the screenwriter (looking at you, David Spade) to create any other gags or any other characters that can deliver funny dialogue.

After the first third of this film, we all know what the outcome will be. The conclusion is cheesy and predictable beyond words. The good news is that there are a number of decent laughs to keep one entertained despite its predictability.

David Spade is funny when given the right material to work with. Using a script he wrote himself it seems he gave his character the majority of the funny dialogue. The rest of the acting is okay but nothing groundbreaking. The kids sometimes seemed a little cardboard, as did the rest of the cast at times. Acting lessons are badly required during some sections of the movie.

Aside from its flaws and shortcomings, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star at least stocks a good supply of laughs. There's no brilliance or innovation in the laughs department; however the film is still hilarious viewing. One of the film's highlights: a reunion of genuine former child stars being grouped together for a musical finale during the end credits.

"The way of the future..."

Martin Scorsese established himself as one of the best directors in Hollywood. With each new movie the crazed Scorsese fanatics praise the movie like it's the second coming.

When I watched The Aviator I was never a fan or hater of Scorsese. I am fond of some of his movies for sure. GoodFellas in particular is still a superb piece of movie-making. I had heard so much appraisal of The Aviator and decided that it was time for me to see what the ruckus is about. Unfortunately my viewing concluded with feeling of dissatisfaction and boredom.

This biopic of eccentric rich lunatic Howard Hughes is 3 hours of complete and utter monotony! After about the first half an hour I was already tempted to drift off to sleep. But I kept telling myself that there must be something interesting about to occur. Nothing interesting or engaging ever did occur. When the film ended I was glad that I could finally roll over and go to sleep. I watched this film with my parents. We sometimes have conflicting views on the quality of a movie. With this film we all agreed strongly that The Aviator is pointless and extraordinarily boring! In my opinion I can't see anyone being interested unless they're a specialist in aviation.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Howard Hughes as the film chronicles his life during the 1940s. As the film opens he's in the middle of making a movie called Hell's Angels. That's the only interesting part of the movie. I thought that the first half an hour was quite captivating. The filmmaking process had me interested because it had an interesting story to tell. But from there everything went downhill; I didn't see any evidence of a plot, I never found anything at all interesting.

The Aviator is stretched out beyond all belief, dull and devoid of any life. DiCaprio is tragically distracting in the title role. He has done some mediocre work in the past, and some good work. We can add this film to his list of mediocre performances. Everything seemed so forced and contrived. He tries but modestly fails. That's the bottom line. Cate Blanchett, on the other hand, was truly magnificent in her role. It's just such a shame she disappears after the first half. Blanchett was understandably presented with an Oscar. She was flawless. Maybe if Scorsese used her properly she could have saved the film.

The screenplay must have weighed a tonne. It's loads and loads of dialogue lacking any emotional spine. This makes the film seem very shallow, disingenuous and cursory.

I thought that the cinematography and the special effects looked fantastic. I was disappointed with the limited opportunities to showcase such breathtaking cinematography. It seems that there was potential in every aspect of the filmmaking; it's just that Scorsese under-uses all his solid resources.

The Aviator had everything going for it - it's a biopic of an extraordinary man with a good cast and a great director. But it is not in the least bit entertaining or interesting. This is another classic case of focusing on aspects of the story rather than the entertainment value for the viewer. Leave this one on the shelf...for your own good and well-being. Overrated, over-hyped, long, convoluted and incredibly boring. The Aviator will put you to sleep. (People who suffer from insomnia...go buy it!)

"So in the book, I wanted to give Robbie and Cecilia what they lost out on in life. I'd like to think this isn't weakness or... evasion... but a final act of kindness. I gave them their happiness."

It is indeed an extremely rare event that a masterpiece like Atonement comes along. After a tedious wave of mediocre films and straightforward blockbusters throughout the year, Atonement is an extremely good and effective war drama that ended up being one of the finest films of 2007.

I had wanted to see this production because of the critical acclaim it received and its successful trip to the Golden Globes (during which it walked away with Best Motion Picture for Drama; beating other films like No Country for Old Men that were heavily favoured). After seeing the trailer only minor interest was sparked in my mind. On a recommendation I approached this film, and ended up leaving the cinema completely speechless.

It's an unfortunate fact that films of this stature are few and far between. In the course of a year only a very limited amount of films can be found of such quality in the case of contemporary cinema.

Like many other people have stated, it is a fact that the plot cannot be revealed in any depth. The brilliance of the movie is the audience's inability to predict what is going to happen next. If you ruin one part then the impact of the movie will be slightly lessoned. The story is gradually built up throughout the film's running time. With each new scene the story continues to unfold and expand.

The first half of the movie is a compelling drama set within the confines of a mansion. Cecilia Tallis (Knightley) lives with her family and is in love with a man named Robbie (McAvoy). Cecilia's snobby, jealous little sister Briony (Ronan) is unable to completely understand the concept of love and hence cannot precisely comprehend the sneaky relationship that Robbie and Cecilia share. The second half of the movie unfolds because of a significant event that happens towards the end of its preceding half when a man is wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. Because of a lie one of the characters told, the lives of several people are irrevocably altered. The film is then a powerful war drama set during World War II that follows a host of different characters living their lives after the tragedy that previous transpired.

Atonement is a breathtaking, emotional tale that asks patience from its audience. At first the film is slow-paced but captivating. The drama that occurs throughout the movie grasps your attention. If you appreciate fine filmmaking in lieu of blockbuster rubbish then you will find it impossible to feel bored.

The film's brilliance can also be attributed to its realistic atmosphere that is especially well established by the performances. We have never seen Keira Knightley in a role like this before. I usually find her performances cardboard and lacking any emotional depth. She briskly breaks out of her acting confines; instead becoming both realistic and breathtaking. It's impossible to fault her portrayal. James McAvoy is remarkable as well. There are a number of scenes when no words can describe how powerful his depiction is. I must also mention young Saoirse Ronan. She wouldn't have been any older than 12 or 13 when the cameras rolled. It's rare to compliment an actress so young whose career has barely even started. Ronan is exceptional!

The direction by Joe Wright was also extraordinary and brings the script to life with excellent results. I felt that the storytelling was unique and memorable; and I will admit being confused by the frequent change of setting. Like the rest of the filmmaking aspects, this is extremely unique. The film's pacing varies; however for the most part the acting is so focused that the film doesn't feel so long.

When the credits rolled I sat speechless; entirely satisfied with the film I had just exhibited. The tragic part was that those around me did not seem to share my sentiments because of its uniqueness. I'm not going to lie to you: the film is not for those who seek entertaining blockbusters. It's strictly for those who look past the entertainment value and examine it for what it is: an exquisite masterpiece. Atonement is beautiful, memorable, poignant, emotional and unique. It's a film that is well told with an inspiring script adapted from the novel by Ian McEwan.

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know."

In the early days of full sound movies, The Marx Brothers made a name for themselves as one of the many gurus of the comedy genre at the time. Animal Crackers is the second outing of The Marx Brothers. I do not consider myself a massive fan; however I am slowly becoming even fonder of the trio (or foursome depending on what film you watch).

With this film, Animal Crackers is of course thin on plot. The little plot development is an excuse for the brothers to showcase their many skills in the field of comedy. The film moves from scene to scene of classic Marx Brothers humour. In this film you'll find such great scenes as: cost of the musician, cost of a taxi, madman with a rifle, marrying two women, African lecture, card shark and so many more.

Groucho Marx plays renowned explorer Captain Jeffrey T. Spaulding (the 'T' stands for Edgar) who has just returned from the darkest parts of Africa. Upon arriving back home he is the house guest of a certain Mrs. Rittenhouse (Dumont). Then a very amusing plot emerges concerning the purchase of a valuable old oil painting. Two lovers staying at the estate want to get married but the man is only a poor artist with little reputation. They hatch a plan to switch the genuine oil painting with a copy the man had painted years earlier. Then there are some other people who have the same plan: to replace (what they think is) the original oil painting with a version they had made. At the same time there are to bumbling, clumsy thieves who want to steal the original painting. Thus paintings are stolen, with different versions surfacing all over the place.

This synopsis does give away a bunch of the movie; however this will allow you to forgive the confusing plot and instead watch it for the laughs that The Marx Brothers are so famous for.

There is no doubt that contemporary audiences will immediately overlook this film because of its age. Heck, even I didn't want to see it for that reason. I never would have thought that old 1930's humour could actually be funny! Thankfully in classic Marx Brothers style, the laughs begin soon into the movie and never cease.

Groucho, as usual, carries the film. He is the central protagonist and easily gets laughs from his impeccable line deliveries. This is a very focused actor. Chico is another stand-out in the film. He plays a mute thief who aims to steal the oil painting. Because of a certain hearing problem there are several scenes that are downright hilarious with this joke that always resurfaces. The scene in the dark while looking for the flash light always makes me laugh no matter how many times I've viewed it.

Animal Crackers is devilishly clever but unfortunately it has its flaws. For starters, it's painfully obvious that the whole thing was filmed on a low-quality set. It does the job; however I thought the atmosphere wasn't as genuine as it could have been. And of course the lack of anything really meaty in the plot is another downfall. This is always going to be expected when you consider the talent involved.

So what is the real appeal of Animal Crackers? Well, it may be several decades old but its humour is fresh and original. The brothers are a talented bunch of people whose work would be hard to replicate even with the aid of contemporary film technology. We have a determined cast, a solid script and a cluster of stellar laughs.

"I beat you to the buyers, and now I've beat you to the mark. I'm sorry, but I think I picked the wrong guy to be my hero."

Richard Donner delivers the goods as usual with Assassins; an entertaining, well-crafted action thriller that cannot be missed by fans of the genre. Naturally Sylvester Stallone is pretty close to his tough guy action hero. He can use a gun stylishly and he can kill in cold blood; however the body count is surprisingly low considering Sly's modest reputation for over-the-top action movies.

Stallone plays professional hitman Robert Rath who is considered the best at his profession. Over many years he has made a big name for himself for his stylish ways of fulfilling contracts assigned to him via electronic communication. Robert is now old and visibly past his prime; he wants out of the business no questions asked. After accepting a final job from his long-time employer, what follows is a manhunt as young hitman Miguel Bain (Banderas) starts hunting Robert with the intent of becoming the number 1 hitman in the world.

I won't spoil anymore for you, because then it just wouldn't be as fun with all the interesting (and surprisingly unpredictable) plot twists that lead to a very intense climax.

Stallone is at his usual standard here; sometimes the subtitles function looks very attractive during some of his dialogue scenes, and sometimes you just can't keep your eyes off the screen while he's carrying a firearm. Truth be told his dialogue isn't as unbearable as it usually is. Contrary to popular belief he puts determination and commitment into one of his roles. He may be type-cast as a typical single-note action hero and it's understandable. Stallone is quite underrated and has produced a bunch of action films that are decent slices of entertainment. One would never expect someone like Antonio Banderas to show up in a film like this. He plays his psychotic hitman role extremely well. Banderas is certainly much better than one would have initially expected. He's very dark, cool and well conceived. Julianne Moore is another surprising addition to the cast. Starring as a hacker, a very game Moore does what she can with a fairly mediocre screenplay.

The directing by Richard Donner is first-rate and high class: especially during the action scenes. This stellar directing is to be expected when one examines other films on Richard Donner's résumé. The man who gave the world the Lethal Weapon series uses his traditional Hollywood style: lots of blood, lots of action, lots of things blowing up.

The film was written in the days preceding The Matrix and hence The Wachowski Brothers hadn't yet made a name for themselves. The two brothers can write a good screenplay. It's filled with intriguing plot twists and exciting concepts for different action scenes. Of course these creative action scenes are given the visual royal treatment.

Overall, I found Assassins to be highly enjoyable and underrated. The film suffered lots of criticism and it still does. I, however, thought that it was a good mix of action and thrills. Granted this action film is long and tedious with a running time of over 2 hours, but the intense climax is worth every minute of the build up. Certainly worth seeing.

"Houston, you have a problem. You see, I promised my little girl that I'd be comin' home. Now I don't know what you people are doing down there, but we've got a hole to dig up here!"

Armageddon is the second of 1998's "end of the world" films - after Deep Impact - that comes from notorious hack director Michael Bay. I remember being mildly entertained when I saw this movie several years ago. I guess with age and maturity we can finally see the flaws and pointlessness of mindless Hollywood rubbish like this film. Now I like action films because for the most part they are entertaining guilty pleasures. I expected to at least be entertained by this film...but I was bored stiff due to all the clichés, cheesy dialogue and predictable moments.

NASA scientists discover that a large meteorite the size of Texas is heading towards Earth. If the meteorite hits Earth, it will wipe out all life including bacteria. Okay, I will admit that the premise isn't too bad. The disaster genre is renowned for some entertainment despite some average plotting. But I digress...

After much negotiation, it is concluded that a team of experts must plant a nuclear warhead in the core of the meteorite to destroy it and save the world. NASA recruits the best deep core driller in the world - Harry Stamper (Willis) - and his crew to fly into space, drill a hole in the meteorite and plant the warhead.

The script is corny and predictable beyond all comprehension! Not to mention the atrocious dialogue! Come on, the dialogue is just characters yelling "It's gonna blow", "The clock is ticking" and other such things every few minutes.

The film is loaded with stupendous events. Every scene is guaranteed to make you embarrassed because of how conventional everything is. I mean of course, there just has to be a love affair between two characters with a father not approving. This is set up within the first few minutes. Who would've thought?! And it's impossible to forget the traditional series of events that unfold when the team land on the meteorite! Nothing goes to plan and this ends in a suspenseful countdown. Then when you think things can't get any worse the screenwriter inserts the obligatory manufactured tear-jerker. Not only is it predictable but it's also highly clichéd. And come on - an American colonel not knowing how to defuse one of his own bombs? That's just plain illogical!

I've never exactly been a fan or a hater of infamous hack director Michael Bay, and it's only recently after a plethora of mediocre and appalling films that I've realised where all the hatred lies. The man cannot direct his way from the kitchen to the lounge room! He only made his actors make the script sound even worse.

Kudos to Bruce Willis and some of his co-stars who make some of the one-liners sound half-decent. I did have a bit of a giggle thanks to a few clever lines. This is the only saving grace (I say this very loosely). And as for Affleck, he can't act.

The cinematography was the last nail in the coffin of this uneven disaster epic. Jerky camera shots, ultra fast cutting - it's impossible to keep up with what is going on, and why! The film is also a breeding ground for clichés. And here's more - it's 150 minutes long! Just by choosing Affleck to fill one of the starring roles was a recipe for disaster.

But wait - there's more! Gravity on a meteorite? Able to use a firearm in space? Nuff said! Armageddon is loud, ugly and unbelievably cheesy - it's about as disastrous as the meteorite promised to be.

"I can fix that." (It would have been nice if Ice Cube was referring to the screenplay...unfortunately he's not)

Unfortunately, as long as Hollywood sees a profit in them they will continue to roll out these types of appalling, strictly by-the-numbers children's flicks. When it comes to this genre quality is never the concern. It's the money. They hire the cheapest cast and crew they can and supply a reasonably small budget. Filtering little money into the film means that they'll easily return a large profit at the box office, even more easily returning its original budget.

This inevitable sequel to the inexcusably dismal 2005 film Are We There Yet? is just as bad as its predecessor, if not even worse. Ice Cube continues to dig a bigger hole for the corpse of his career by starring in films like these.

After the events of the first film we once again follow Nick Persons (Cube) who is now married to Suzanne (Long) and is now the stepfather of Suzanne's kids. The four of them are living in Nick's small condo that can barely accommodate them all. After Suzanne falls pregnant they soon decide that a bigger house is necessary to support the growing family. While looking for a house they meet wacky realtor/contractor/building inspector/policeman Chuck (McGinley) who convinces Nick to buy a big luxurious house that he can barely afford. Predictably, trouble strikes in the form of termites, dry rot, loss of electricity, falling through floors, and so on.

This then begins the film's journey down into the world of conventional storytelling that we've seen before as things go from bad to worse. It's a bunch of unfunny slapstick gags strung together as a sequel to an already appalling movie.

All the gags and pratfalls are easily predictable several minutes before they occur. I mean who would have predicted that Ice Cube would begin falling through collapsing walls and floors...? Aside from that it's also predictable that he will get struck by lightning, fall from ladders and get attacked by a cavalcade of different animals. And then of course the trademark cherry on top: Suzanne begins to go into labour at an awkward and inconvenient moment.

What's more - it's a credited remake of the 1948 movie Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (complete with an RKO logo at the beginning). But Ice Cube is no Cary Grant. The film is even more tragic by its references to several other (better quality) movies like Jaws and The Birds.

Just like its predecessor, Ice Cube's performance is somewhat questionable. The kids have further lost their appeal because now they're not young. Now they are older annoying snots who are even more irritating. I couldn't believe someone like John C. McGinley agreed to appear in this film. The man can be funny when given good material. Unfortunately there are no clever lines of dialogue for him to work with.

Are We Done Yet? is almost a rehash of the original with a house being wrecked as opposed to an expensive car. The film is phenomenally bad, notoriously unfunny, and pitches a more valuable question to the viewing audience: are we done with this series yet? One of the poorest films of 2007!

"Yeah, I know I drink a lot, I know I do because I'm a writer and that's what I do, I drink. I'm not like those people out there, I can control myself!"

Normally I tend to avoid these kinds of chick flicks. Over the years I haven't viewed many girly films that have ended up being anything more than fluffy clichéd entertainment. I approached 28 Days because of the outstanding cast that this film had to boast. I am pleased and happy to report that this film isn't as bad as I was originally anticipating.

A free-spirited big-city journalist named Gwen Cummings (Bullock) is a raging alcoholic who spends most of her time getting drunk with her equally boozy boyfriend Jasper (West). Frequently the two endlessly party all night; binge drinking into the early hours of the morning. Gwen turns up to her sister's wedding not only late, but also hopelessly inebriated. During the wedding she makes a complete fool of herself by falling onto the wedding cake while dancing uncontrollably. She then aims to replace the cake on short notice and ends up crashing a limousine into a house. Charged with a drink driving offence she is given the choice of jail time or a 28-day rehab program. Not surprisingly, Gwen chooses rehab. At first she is hesitant to get involved in any of the treatment programs; instead denying that she has an addiction to both cigarettes and alcohol. The whole thing seems like a bad joke to her. However after getting to know some of the fellow patients she re-examines her life and slowly conforms to the activities that the other patients are involved in.

28 Days is not so much a comedy but a poignant look at the troubled people of contemporary society. The audience can easily relate to all the characters because we see them commonly on the streets around us. The story is more concerned with Gwen finding a way to deal with life. I thought that this was a refreshing film because I've seen far too many comedies that fail when trying to be something more meaningful than it actually is.

Even after saying that, 28 Days is a film that also contains a bunch of fantastic gags. I adored the clever parody of the typical daytime soap opera. Because of how convoluted and hilariously over-the-top soapies actually are, it's great to see a soapie that is actually meant to be funny.

Many of the laughs can also be attributed to the sensational cast. Sandra Bullock has never played anyone quite like this character. This has even been called her best performance to date. Bullock suits her role perfectly. She's entirely believable and perfectly cast. However, the major stand-out for me was the gay German dancer played by Alan Tudyk. Now this is a focused performer! Throughout the film he never breaks his complete concentration. Every line is delivered in an amusing German accent. His testimony about forks was entirely improvised by Alan on the spot! All his mannerisms are very funny at times.

28 Days, of course, is a great comedy with a few good messages about life. On the contrary there's also a selection of flaws. There are some laughs, but I felt a distinct lack of quality laugh-out-loud moments of which the film has precious little. Naturally, this is a matter of taste. I also thought that the film was heavily clichéd at times as well as being highly predictable during its middle section. Even with those clichés being present, I must also say that the film manages to avoid many of the typical conventions of the genre. This is always a good sign.

Overall, I found 28 Days to be great viewing if you're bored on a rainy afternoon or if you want a night of good laughs and drama. Don't raise your expectations too high and you won't be disappointed. Certainly worth a screening or two.

"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!"

After the Monty Python troupe bathed in the massive success of their hilarious low-budget picture Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the team soon regrouped to produce another silly, incredibly hilarious comedy. Life of Brian is a brilliant sacrilegious production that combines irreverent humour as well as political and religious satire. The results are as outstanding and hilarious as they were when first released about 30 years ago.

Logically enough, Life of Brian is a film about a boy named Brian Cohen (Chapman). Brian is born in a stable on the original Christmas right next to the stable where Jesus is born. As a result the three wise men mistake Brian for the Son of God and present his bewildered mother with gifts...soon rectifying their mistake. We then jump forward a number of decades to "Judea, AD 33, Saturday afternoon...about tea time" when Brian is a fully grown man. Brian's mother had raised him to believe that his father was a certain Mr. Cohen, but one day Brian discovers that his father was a Roman centurion named Naughtius Maximus (joke name, of course). Brian, fuelled by his hatred for the Romans and refusing to believe he is one, is horrified and decides to join a rebel group called the People's Front of Judea (not to be mistaken for the Judean People's Front). After joining this rebel group a very amusing string of events begin to unfold. This includes being captured by the Romans, being mistaken for the Messiah and even being assigned for crucifixion.

Life of Brian is a film I truly adore! Being a big fan of Monty Python for numerous years I always find their style of humour to my liking. This film suffered criticism for its sometimes offensive views on religion. If you are one of those people and take the Python's views on religion seriously then I think you have a problem. Maybe you should go watch some religious propaganda and feel a lot better about the content in that. The film was even banned in certain parts of the world. Can't priests and heavily religious people just accept a good laugh?!?

I loved the performances from everyone in the cast. Even though the six members of the Python team play several roles, they are determined and give it 100%. They all have their moments of utter hilarity...even if it means a bunch of nudity. (Yes, Graham Chapman, I am looking at you. R.I.P.) The filmmakers cover all the basics...from Caesar with a speech impediment to Jesus delivering a sermon atop a mountain to a crowd who seem to be more concerned with insults concerning noses.

The six Monty Python members can certainly write a good script while in each other's company. In this film there's creativity and original humour all over the place. The film was shot in the beautiful location of Tunisia. The production values are quite good for a low-budget comedy (we can excuse a few minor technical faults for the sake of entertainment).

Life of Brian could be the best Monty Python movie in existence. This and Holy Grail are both downright hilarious and entertaining. Highly recommended! Interesting trivia fact: the film was financed by George Harrison of The Beatles.